home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Here in comp.emulators.mac.executor, Ericb@psu.edu (emb121 (Eric Bennett))
- spake unto us, saying:
-
- >In article <iTM8woHpvWOd084yn@skypoint.com>
- >rsteiner@skypoint.com (Richard Steiner) writes:
- >
- >>Compared with the Mac II machines I've used, it *is* fast.
- >
- >And compared to a 286, SoftWindows is fast. The Mac II came out in
- >1987. That's approaching nine years old; saying Executor outperforms
- >the Mac II series is not likely to impress many people.
-
- Unlike a 286, however, a 680x0-based Mac II is capable of running most
- modern Mac software (thanx to fat binaries).
-
- And remember -- a lot of older Mac software was written for Mac SE and
- older machines that are *considerably* slower than the II series -- and
- because of the Mac's graphical nature, those older apps are often quite
- usable today, unlike the old text-based DOS PC apps (which most folks
- won't touch with a ten-foot pole now).
-
- Besides, my intention was not to "impress people" with Executor's speed,
- but rather to describe it as being considerably faster than it could be.
- E/D is somewhat faster than it needs to be to get constructive work
- (and effective play) done. What more does one require?
-
- --
- -Rich Steiner >>>---> rsteiner@skypoint.com >>>---> Bloomington, MN
- Written offline using PC Yarn + Yes + TDE in a Warp VDM
- Why *AM* I doing this again?
-
-