home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- id m0tvOT5-0007qFa; Sat, 9 Mar 96 06:13 MST
- Sender: owner-executor
- Received: from ardi.com by ftp.ardi.com
- (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0tvOSQ-0007qDn; Sat, 9 Mar 96 06:13 MST
- Path: sloth.swcp.com!ns2.mainstreet.net!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!news.structured.net!nntp.teleport.com!usenet
- From: mahns@teleport.com (Mahns)
- Newsgroups: comp.emulators.mac.executor
- Subject: Re: DOS vs. 95
- Date: Sat, 09 Mar 1996 00:43:52 GMT
- Organization: Teleport - Portland's Public Access (503) 220-1016
- Lines: 19
- Message-ID: <3140aa14.3178771@news.teleport.com>
- References: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960307073247.18301A-100000-100000-100000@lagrange.uwaterloo.ca>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: ip-pdx06-58.teleport.com
- X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99d/32.182
- To: executor@ardi.com
- X-MailNews-Gateway: From newsgroup comp.emulators.mac.executor
- Sender: owner-executor@ardi.com
- Precedence: bulk
-
- On Thu, 7 Mar 1996 12:48:23 GMT, "R. Scott Norris"
- <rsnorris@lagrange.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
-
- >On 6 Mar 1996, Joe Drasin wrote:
- >
- >> I'm sure this is a surprise to noone, but Executor runs a
- >> million times better under DOS than 95. It's faster and more stable.
- >>
- >> Joe
- >>
- >>
- > Actually, I have a question: Did you try it in "DOS" mode or did
- >you try running it after Windows 95 loaded from a DOS session. I
- >wouldn't be surprised that, it you ran it from windows, that it would run
- >poorly. I'm sure it runs perfectly if you don't led windows load.
- >
- It really depends on the computer system. I would be hard pressed to
- tell the difference. It acts the same other than I can Alt-Esc out of
- Executor and do something else and come back etc.
-
-