home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 22:52:37 +1000
- Organization: University of Southern Queensland
- Lines: 29
- Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.91.960710223755.28583C-100000@helios.usq.edu.au>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: helios.usq.edu.au
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
- To: executor@ardi.com
- X-MailNews-Gateway: From newsgroup comp.emulators.mac.executor
- Sender: owner-executor@ardi.com
- Precedence: bulk
-
- Here are my Executor 2 speedo test results under linux 2.0 and
- Windows95. (on a 486dx2-50 with a slooo...w hard drive)
-
- Windows95 linux-svga linux X
- video 7.6 4.6 2.7
- cpu 8.8 7.9 7.9
- disk 2.2 2.0 2.0
-
- My question is this;
-
- Linux 2.0 is linux at its finest, all 32 bit and really fast drivers,
- (tested with the fastest X server available too). Windows95
- is all 16 bit with a .hfv volume to slow thing down as well...
-
- So why the hell is it so much faster in every damn area, and would it
- completely destroy Linux when the VCPU and a 32 bit port comes on line?
-
- Maybe you should write a 16 bit version for Linux to see if you could make
- it go faster. (Yes, I know, it was a joke)
-
- I only tried linux to see if I could wring a few more bits/sec out of
- Executor. Tried and failed that is;)
-
- Makes you wonder why the linux/os2'ers are always bagging Windows95.
- It is also by far the easiest platform to print out PostScript files when
- you don't have a postscript printer.
-
- Just the facts maam...
- Michelle;)
-
-