Executor 2.0/executorv2.0.iso/pc/linux/extra/docs/maillist/text/archive.95/partmessage2240

Internet Message Format | 1996-04-02 | 7.4 KB

Received: from nacm.com by cyber1.servtech.com; Sat,  4 Nov 95 23:50 EST
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nacm.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id SAA14678 for executor-digest-outgoing; Sat, 4 Nov 1995 18:47:15 -0800
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 18:47:15 -0800
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Subject: executor-digest V1 #324
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Content-Length: 7044
Content-Type: text
Precedence: bulk


executor-digest          Saturday, 4 November 1995     Volume 01 : Number 324


  In this issue:

    Re: Pentium Pro (i.e. P6) introduced today
    SoftWindows someday?
    [none]
    E/D vs E/L speed
    Re: E/D vs E/L speed
    totally unrelated question

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dan Guisinger)
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 1995 20:26:17 -0800
Subject: Re: Pentium Pro (i.e. P6) introduced today

You wrote:

>
>References: <[e-mail]>
>    <[e-mail]>
>
>>>>>> "Ian" == Ian C Blenke <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>    Ian> On Thu, 2 Nov 1995, Clifford T. Matthews wrote:
>    >> I do not want to start a processor war on this list, so I will
>    >> not give my opinion on x86 vs. PPC vs. Alpha vs ...
>    >>
>    >> However, if anyone can get one and run Speedometer under
>    >> Executor on one, I'd like to know the numbers that it gets.
>    >> Speedometer 4.0 numbers would be useful, too, although you'll
>    >> have to find a copy of Speedometer 4.0 and some of the numbers
>    >> will be (obviously) incorrect.
>
>    Ian> I'm a bit confused here... there exists both PPC and Alpha
>    Ian> ports of executor? I know that it is entirely possible (your
>    Ian> 68040 emulation is downright scary), however from what I
>    Ian> understand you still need to port some instructions a bit for
>    Ian> "native" host processor speed.
>
>Poorly worded.  The subject line is: "Pentium Pro (i.e. P6) introduced
>today" and when I first wrote the post I asked if anyone could get
>one, to please send me speedometer numbers, then I thought about it
>and decided to add the first paragraph in an attempt to stave off
>architecture wars.  Sorry about the confusion.
>
>BTW, we did have a version of Executor running on the Alpha for a
>little while.  Expect to see one again, some day.
>
>    Ian> Granted, you could run Executor under a SoftPC emulator (one
>    Ian> would suppose), but the mere thought makes me a tad ill ;)
>    Ian> (SoftPC emulation under Executor, under a Dosemu session
>    Ian> under Linux...)
>
>    Ian> *cough*
>
>    Ian> - Ian Blenke <[e-mail]>
>
>--Cliff
>
>

Well, on Intels Pentium Pro area, they have testamonies from people who
were lent those machines, and they still should have them for a couple
months, so, see if you can get their names and e-mail addresses, and
contact them!

- -=Dan Guisinger=-


------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (WJCarpenter)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 1995 15:52:23 +0000
Subject: SoftWindows someday?

The recent review of Executor in the Nov95 _Linux Journal_ showed the
reviewers running SoftPC.  Is there any chance that SoftWindows will
someday run under Executor?   (If you're a Linux user, you probably
know why I ask.)  Speed of execution is not necessarily an issue as
far as I'm concerned.
- --
  [e-mail]                    [e-mail]    or
  (Voice/Fax) +1.908.576.2932         [e-mail]
  AT&T Bell Labs / AT&T WorldNet Services               LZ 1C-320

------------------------------

From: William Yeh <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 13:16:37 -0500
Subject: [none]

I tried running Bolo and the following error occured:

General Protection Fault at eip=00ac459d
eax=003015da ebx=90abcdef ecx=001dc760 edx=90abcdef esi=efcdab90 edi=90abcdef
ebp=00194dd0 esp=001d8798 cs=00af ds=00b7 es=00b7 fs=00e7 gs=00d7 ss=00b7
Call frame traceback EIPs:
  0x00ac459d

Does anyone know what's wrong?
 -/- Talon -/- [e-mail] -/- Alt -/[e-mail] -/-
- -/- [e-mail]  -/-


------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Brian Wimberly)
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 11:56:55 -0800
Subject: E/D vs E/L speed

Which is faster on the same hardware -- Ex. /DOS or
Ex. /Linux?

I recently started using Linux and I am wondering if
Executor would be faster on my medium-to-low-end
hardware (486 DX2 PCI, Trident TGUI9440AGi garphics card).
I imagine the speed of the Linux version will improve
once my graphics card is fully supported by XFree86.

Brian

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Mat Hostetter)
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 95 13:20 MST
Subject: Re: E/D vs E/L speed

>>>>> "Brian" == Brian Wimberly <[e-mail]> writes:

    Brian> Which is faster on the same hardware -- Ex. /DOS or
    Brian> Ex. /Linux?

Our CPU emulator will run at the same speed under any OS, so there are
only a few issues:

  1) How fast can Executor access the graphics hardware?

  2) How efficiently is virtual memory implemented?  (Only relevant if
     you don't have lots of memory and therefore need to page to disk).

  3) How well does the operating system do things like cache
     recently accessed hard drive contents in RAM?

Linux/X-windows loses to DOS big in (1).  If svgalib supports svga
modes on your card, Executor/Linux/svgalib should be about the same
speed as Executor/DOS.

Linux beats DOS in (2), at least if you're using cwsdpmi.exe (the free
DPMI provider we supply).  OS/2 Warp and other DPMI providers seem to
do a substantially better job of using virtual memory that cwsdpmi, so
if you're using one of those you won't see much difference moving to
Linux.  For you CS types out there, cwsdpmi uses a round-robin paging
algorithm, an algorithm which doesn't work all that well for paging.
It's on the author's long list of things to improve.

Linux does a good job of (3), although something like smartdrv under
DOS is probably similar.

In general, Executor/DOS tends to be faster because Executor has
direct video access (under many system configurations), and there's
not much speed difference in the other areas.  Your mileage may vary.

- -Mat

------------------------------

From: Jason Best <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 1995 18:15:16 -0500
Subject: totally unrelated question

Cliff and co. - ignore this question...I know this is totally (well, mostly)
unrealted to Executor, and prolly shouldn't be posted here, but oh well.
Where exactly can I get Linux for an X86 machine, and how big is it?
thanks anyhow...kinda curious to see how many OS's I can run on the same
system I guess...:)
later
- -ocean
(oh yeah - please reply via e-mail, as the list need not be cluttered any more
with this string)

------------------------------

End of executor-digest V1 #324
******************************


  To subscribe to executor-digest, send the command:

    subscribe executor-digest

in the body of a message to "[e-mail]".  If you want
to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from,
such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the
"subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-executor-digest":

    subscribe executor-digest [e-mail]

  A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "executor-digest"
in the commands above with "executor".