home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ Executor 2.0 / executorv2.0.iso / pc / dos / extra / docs / maillist / text / archive.96 / text5267.txt < prev    next >
Encoding:
Text File  |  1996-07-25  |  1.3 KB  |  40 lines
  1.     (Smail3.1.29.1 #3) id m0u9ntx-0007s0n; Thu, 18 Apr 96 01:13 MDT
  2. Newsgroups: comp.emulators.mac.executor
  3. Path: sloth.swcp.com!tesuque.cs.sandia.gov!ferrari.mst6.lanl.gov!newshost.lanl.gov!ncar!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!utcsri!cdf.toronto.edu!news
  4. From: Rick Ho <a484howa@cdf.toronto.edu>
  5. Subject: Executor 2beta0 runs faster?
  6. X-Sender: a484howa@eddie
  7. Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
  8. Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.90.960417142238.17473F-100000@eddie>
  9. Nntp-Posting-Host: eddie
  10. Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
  11. Mime-Version: 1.0
  12. Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 18:29:50 GMT
  13. Lines: 20
  14. To: executor@ardi.com
  15. X-MailNews-Gateway: From newsgroup comp.emulators.mac.executor
  16. Sender: owner-executor@ardi.com
  17. Precedence: bulk
  18.  
  19. According to the benchmark program included with Executor 1.99q/2.0b0, 
  20. Executor v2 beta 0 runs just under four times as fast as Executor 1.99q.  
  21. However, most of you report slower performance with v2 beta 0. Can 
  22. someone explain why.
  23.  
  24. My system configuration:
  25.  
  26. AMD 486DX2-80 w/ 128K cache
  27. 20M RAM
  28. ATI Mach32 VESA Local-bus video
  29.  
  30. Windows 95
  31. Univbe 5.1
  32.  
  33. And I'm running Executor (both 1.99q/2beta0) under Windows 95 DOS prompt.
  34.  
  35. :->
  36. Rick
  37.  
  38. PS. don't hit reply, instead send your reply to rick.ho@utoronto.ca
  39.  
  40.