home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Hi,
-
- I was hoping someone on the list might be able to shed some light on this. I
- saw it was mentioned on another post. I have used Speedometer 3.23 to
- benchmark each new release of Executor and while 1.99o and 1.99p were roughly
- comparable, there is an across the board LOSS of between 25 and 35% in
- 1.99p4. Have not had the time to try p5 yet, but I am concerned by this
- because the only thing which DID speed up is graphics which are almost twice
- as fast. This may sound like a good thing, but it probably only is for
- games, and almost all of what I do with Executor involves very little
- graphics and mostly other CPU work. Plus, it helps me make my Mac owning
- friends mad that I can run their programs too and they can't run mine.
-
- Does anyone have any suggestions what to try, or should I assume there was
- something previously wrong with Speedometer and its prior results are not to
- be believed. I am concerend because that is quite a performance penalty on
- the newest upgrade. I have a AT&T Globalyst 200 notebook computer. 12MB
- RAM, 486DX2 50 CPU, and Win95, but often I boot from a DOS diskette. I know
- it has a WD90C24 chipset. Could this be why it is all falling apart?
- Graphics too slow to give the rest "time" to keep up?
-
- Oh, and a long time ago someone mentioned ARDI was given a free copy of NT by
- someone with the Microsoft Employee store. Are there any plans for ever
- making a version of Executor for NT? I ask because what I have learned about
- it lately is that is really is the future of MS platforms and also I think it
- could be a great meeting point for legacy WinDOS code and Mac, since you
- could conceivably code it all as just another subsystem like the POSIX
- subsystem & the Win32 & OS/2 subsystems. That way either you could run some
- Mac apps seamless or have the "browser" as a task built right into the
- preemptive protected mode model.
-
- Just a thought...
-
- Greg M.
-
-