home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Stuart Ferguson (shf@netcom.com) wrote:
- : +-- davep@access5.digex.net (Dave Paige) writes:
- : | Second,
- : | while Alpha AXP based machines are very fast at what they do, they don't
- : | do as much.
- : | There simply is not as much software available for them as Intel based
- : | machines.
- : | If your primary use for the machine is Lightwave 3D fine, but if you want
- : | to use
- : | the thousands of other apps out there for Intel base processors you may
- : | be out of
- : | luck, or you may have to wait for a port.
-
- : This is not strictly true. My Alpha workstation runs anything written
- : for Windows 3.1 just fine. The method is software emulation of a Windows
- : machine, and with the faster drive, faster display and faster processor,
- : I notice very little difference in performance between the emulating Alpha
- : and the native 486/66. With address protection it may even be better.
- : The only case where you will need a specific Alpha version is when the
- : application was written for NT in the first place, like Visual C++,
- : Photoshop 3.0, and LightWave.
-
- : I don't know about running DOS apps, but I've never had the desire to
- : run one. For running any cheap Windows app from Egghead, an Alpha is an
- : excellent option.
- : --
- : Stuart Ferguson (shf@netcom.com)
- : "How do you compute that? Where on the
- : graph do `must' and `cannot' meet?"
-
-
- I stand corrected and should have pointed that out that Windows software
- will run in an emulation mode on the Alpha. I've have also used much windows
- software on my Alpha and it does run fine and at pretty good speed as well.
- What I'm really saying is that for software that is performance hungry it would
- be nice to see more Alpha native versions. As I said I've got an Alpha myself
- and would do it again.
-
- Dave Paige
- davep@access.digex.net
-
-
-
-
-