home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
Received: from ftp.ardi.com (ftp.ardi.com [204.134.8.1]) by nacm.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA25225 for <executor@nacm.com>; Sun, 3 Dec 1995 12:41:48 -0800 Received: from ardi.com by ftp.ardi.com (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0tMLDe-0007qGn; Sun, 3 Dec 95 13:41 MST Path: sloth.swcp.com!tesuque.cs.sandia.gov!lynx.unm.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!purdue!not-for-mail From: chenhh@cs.purdue.edu (Howii) Newsgroups: comp.emulators.mac.executor Subject: Executor usefulness? Date: 29 Nov 1995 09:42:51 -0500 Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University Lines: 19 Message-ID: <49hrhc$vm@leepai.cs.purdue.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: leepai.cs.purdue.edu Summary: How useful is executor? Keywords: executor useful emulator To: executor@nacm.com X-MailNews-Gateway: From newsgroup comp.emulators.mac.executor Sender: owner-paper@nacm.com Precedence: bulk Does anybody else question the usefulness of Executor? I like macintoshes but have a PC and have used Executor, but I balk at buying it because I never actually use a macintosh for any of my important tasks these days. There was a time that I liked Macs better for word processing, but these days, I'd rather use windows programs because they are native to my machine (and thus faster). Also, Macs are moving to PowerPC these days... is Executor planning on emulating that in the future? This might sound pretty critical, but I tend to find that most of the things I end up running are my old Mac shareware games. Is there a major flaw in my line of reasoning? -Howard Chen chenhh@cs.purdue.edu P.S.: I do like Executor and it is very impressive despite my criticisms 
