[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Executor usefulness?



>>>>> "Howii" == Howii  <chenhh@cs.purdue.edu> writes:
In article <49hrhc$vm@leepai.cs.purdue.edu> chenhh@cs.purdue.edu writes:

 Howii> Does anybody else question the usefulness of Executor?  I like
 Howii> macintoshes but have a PC and have used Executor, but I balk at
 Howii> buying it because I never actually use a macintosh for any of my
 Howii> important tasks these days.  There was a time that I liked Macs
 Howii> better for word processing, but these days, I'd rather use
 Howii> windows programs because they are native to my machine (and thus
 Howii> faster).

 Howii> Also, Macs are moving to PowerPC these days... is Executor
 Howii> planning on emulating that in the future?

 Howii> This might sound pretty critical, but I tend to find that most
 Howii> of the things I end up running are my old Mac shareware games.

 Howii> Is there a major flaw in my line of reasoning?

Well, from what I've been following, the next generation of the
Executor's synthetic CPU is set up to be more portable to different
architectures. 

I use Quicken 4 on my linux machine, but I'd love to have Executor 
running on my sparc5 at work. I'd much rather have my Sparc+Executor
than two separate machines; one of which I use 95% of the time, and the
other just to use Excel. 

I don't know about you guys, but I think Executor has a pretty good
future, and it's niche market can grow considerably. I think there must
be a lot of engineers in industry that use workstations most of the
time, but have to deal with a Mac or PC because the software only runs
on those platforms. I don't know about them, but personally, I'd love to
punt the Mac entirely.

Executor/Linux/DOS/NS is great, but ARDI probably thinks it's going to 
be much more than that.

Dave Hwang
dhwang@loc3.tandem.com


Follow-Ups: References: