[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: I wouldnt take Executor for granted
>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Jarvis <101612.3365@CompuServe.COM> writes:
In article <4nauu7$kdq$2@mhafc.production.compuserve.com> Chris Jarvis <101612.3365@CompuServe.COM> writes:
Chris> There is already an Amiga emulator (68000) called UAE Slow
Chris> due to special chip emulation chunky planer graphics.
I think that if you examine how UAE's 680x0 emulator works you'll find
that it's probably on the order of five to ten times slower than
Executor's Syn68k.
Chris> There is already a mac emulator for the amiga again slow
Chris> due to chunky planer probs but good. Using the 680*0
Chris> emulator they could also emulate the mac using users own
Chris> roms this would stuff Executor the commercial product.
Chris> So dont get clever saying there are NO other mac emulators
Chris> because someone will do it better soon !!!!
There are NO other Mac emulators for the PC. There is no hint that
anyone will be doing it better soon. You don't understand the issues
involved. Read ftp://ftp.ardi.com/pub/SynPaper for a description of
the dynamic recompilation technology Executor currently uses. We
already have a successor to Syn68k partially written. Furthermore,
even if you used Syn68k itself to emulate the ROMs you'd have
ridiculously slow performance because the OS and toolbox routines
would then be emulated -- under Executor they're all running native.
Chris> I agree rom ripping is naughty but it only adds up to the
Chris> same out come as executor. MAC software running on a PC
Chris> yeah !
It doesn't work that way. UAE's m68k emulator would have to be
rewritten from scratch to get the preformance that Syn68k does.
Apple's ROMs would have to be rewritten from scratch (which is what
we've done, which is why it's taken us 10 years to get where we are)
to get the performance Executor gets. If you're rewriting all of that
from scratch, why use anything from UAE?
Chris> -- Chris Jarvis Britain
--Cliff
ctm@ardi.com
Follow-Ups:
References: