home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- id m0u9UFZ-0007s0a; Wed, 17 Apr 96 04:14 MDT
- Sender: owner-executor
- Received: from ardi.com by ftp.ardi.com
- (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0u9UEZ-0007s1n; Wed, 17 Apr 96 04:13 MDT
- Path: sloth.swcp.com!tesuque.cs.sandia.gov!ferrari.mst6.lanl.gov!newshost.lanl.gov!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.alt.net!newspost1.alt.net!usenet
- From: wcb4@upx.net (William Byrd)
- Newsgroups: comp.emulators.mac.executor
- Subject: Re: Slowdown?
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 04:05:28 GMT
- Organization: AltNet - Affordable Usenet Access - http://www.alt.net
- Lines: 27
- Message-ID: <4l1g6b$4u1@tofu.alt.net>
- References: <4kroip$2gv@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>
- Reply-To: wcb4@upx.net
- X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99c/32.126
- To: executor@ardi.com
- X-MailNews-Gateway: From newsgroup comp.emulators.mac.executor
- Sender: owner-executor@ardi.com
- Precedence: bulk
-
- On 14 Apr 1996 20:52:41 GMT, drasin@wam.umd.edu (Joe Drasin) wrote:
-
- > I never got an answer, why is the beta0 so much slower?
- >
- >Joe
- >
-
-
- Ahhhh, I noticed the same thing. The specs 586/100 16 megs ram #9GXE64
- video card w/ 2 megs ram for video. 400 Meg HD and 850Meg HD (both
- drivespace (e)'d (except for a 100 meg portion of the 850) running
- straight from command prompt of win 95 (not booting GUI) running only
- the mouse driver and guest driver (for zip drive access under 1.99q12
- and to make it fair under 2.0b0)
-
- 1.99q12 w/out UNIVBE 15.769
- 1.99q12 with UNIVBE 16.018
- 2.0b0 w/out UNIVBE 15.281
- 2.0b0 with UNIVBE 15.440
-
- as speedometer shows, even with UNIVBE, 2.0b0 runs slower than
- 1.99q12. While the UI (borwser) has a much crisper feel to it that
- 1.99q12 (and even seems faster to an extent) do the numbers lie????
-
- Bill/wcb4@upx.net
-
-
-
-