[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Executor (was Re: MACINTOSH IS BEST)
-
To: executor@ardi.com
-
Subject: Re: Executor (was Re: MACINTOSH IS BEST)
-
From: quinlan@news.sfu.ca (Brian Quinlan)
-
Date: 3 Mar 1996 22:24:25 GMT
-
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.mac.executor, comp.sys.mac.advocacy
-
Organization: Simon Fraser University
-
References: <4bdter$5os@netaxs.com> <4eal6n$e3t@zippy.cais.net> <DLuKzH.76M@news.cis.umn.edu> <4eqqve$1f7@complete.org> <4f9mh8$t84@giant.seas.smu.edu> <31195A5D.2781E494@valley.net> <31199EAC.3E6C@basic.net> <4fdl14$rul@news.iii.net> <4fdrl3$6f6@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <4fe6i2$ca7@madrid.visi.net> <jragosta-0902961517110001@ppp-1002.dca.net> <4gjfid$do@complete.org> <jragosta-2302961340020001@ppp-1002.dca.net> <ufka1cbkhd.fsf@ftp.ardi.com> <jragosta-2602961354040001@ppp-1012.dca.net> <ufg2bvskdp.f
-
Sender: owner-executor
-
Sender: owner-executor@ardi.com
-
Xref: sloth.swcp.com comp.emulators.mac.executor:1369 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:92284
Clifford T. Matthews <ctm@ardi.com> writes:
>Although the specific claim that "MHz per MHz Executor runs 68k code
>faster than a PPC601" is no longer true (it was true when SynPaper was
>written, when Apple was still shipping their first 68k emulator), the
>point I was making in the exchange between Joe and me is still
>correct. SoftWindows can run a greater percentage of applications
>than Executor can, but Executor is significantly faster than
>SoftWindows.
This may be true but it's not a useful comparison. People who use
PowerMacs probably don't use 68K programs to do any work where
speed is important so the rate at which the PPC macs run 68K programs
isn't important. A better comparison chart would be.
PowerMac Pentium
Speed of native
applications.
Speed of other
platform emulated
applications
--
Brian Quinlan "Never ask what sort of computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac
quinlan@sfu.ca user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him?" - Tom Clancy