Executor 2.0/executorv2.0.iso/pc/linux/extra/docs/maillist/text/archive.96/text3279.txt

Text File | 1996-07-25 | 7.9 KB | 160 lines

>>>>> "Patrick" == Patrick McKinnion <[e-mail]> writes:
In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Patrick McKinnion) writes:


    Patrick> In article <[e-mail]>, Clifford
    Patrick> T. Matthews <[e-mail]> wrote:

    [snip]

    Cliff>  I missed the original discussion, but what emulates a Mac at
    Cliff> 1/100th the speed of a Mac?  Executor on a modern Pentium
    Cliff> machine runs much faster than a 25 MHz 68040 based Mac.
    Cliff> Executor is not as compatible as a real Mac, but speed
    Cliff> problems?  I don't think so.  And the point Patrick makes is
    Cliff> relevant to Executor, since Executor *doesn't* require Mac ROMs
    Cliff> or a Mac system file.
    Cliff>
    Cliff> http://www.ardi.com/ has more information about Executor.

    Patrick>    The original poster made the comment about Executor
    Patrick> running at 1/100th the speed of a Mac, and recommended
    Patrick> the Amiga.  I commented that the two Mac emulators I've
    Patrick> had experience with on the Amiga, (Emplant and AMaxx),
    Patrick> both needed Mac ROMs.

I suspected Executor was mentioned, but I didn't know for sure,
especially since the 1/100th speed strongly suggests that Executor is
*not* what's being discussed.

    Patrick>    I've played with Executor on a '486, and while it was
    Patrick> a nice application enviroment, doesn't quite equalify as
    Patrick> a emulator, in the sence of Emplant on the Amiga, or
    Patrick> SoftWindows on the Mac, i.e. - replicating every function
    Patrick> of the Operating System, rather than acting as a
    Patrick> application "envelope".

I'd prefer a different term than emulator, too, since emulators are
usually very slow and require the firmware and/or OS of the machine
they are emulating.  Executor is very fast, doesn't require an Apple
ROM or System file, but consequently doesn't have the degree of
compatibility a "traditional" emulator would.

    Patrick> Granted, it's been a year since
    Patrick> I last used Executor, but at that time, Executor still
    Patrick> was limited to running mostly System 6 and some "well
    Patrick> behavied" System 7 apps, still couldn't use QuickTime,
    Patrick> Drag & Drop, or most System 7 features, couldn't support
    Patrick> networking, communications, or printing, (due to the fact
    Patrick> that Executor didn't map to the PC serial port like
    Patrick> SoftWindows does on the Mac, and Emplant does on the
    Patrick> Amiga.)  And of course, it's limited to 680x0 code
    Patrick> emulation, which means no PowerPC-native software.  Last
    Patrick> I heard, it still had these limitations.  (According to
    Patrick> the Executor FAQ, Question 1.12. "What limitations will
    Patrick> Executor 2 have?", it still indicates that "Because the
    Patrick> OS and Toolbox have been rewritten from scratch, Executor
    Patrick> 2 will have many limitations, including no serial port
    Patrick> access, no modem use, no AppleTalk, primitive sound,
    Patrick> limited System 7 support, no INITs, no CDEVs and no
    Patrick> Internationalization".  They mention that they hope to
    Patrick> "support serial port access and improve sound within six
    Patrick> months of releasing Executor 2", but it isn't in the
    Patrick> current version.

Right.  We make no bones about it.  Executor uses no software from
Apple, consequently if we haven't implemented a piece of
functionality, then an application can't use that piece of
functionality.  That's the downside.  The upside is that Executor runs
all of its OS and toolbox code 100% native and that you don't need to
steal software from Apple to use Executor.

For some the upside outweighs the downside, for others it doesn't.  We
make demo versions available and have a 30 day money back guarantee.

    Patrick> In terms of speed, well, I would be far more impressed if
    Patrick> it could emulate the entire MacOS, including system
    Patrick> calls, networking, printing, System 7 support, etc., at
    Patrick> the speed, (or faster), of a 25Mhz 68040.

Some people are easily impressed, some are less so.  We're the only
company that has *any* Macintosh binaries running on an x86, with or
without using Apple's code, in addition we're the only company to have
rewritten enough of Apple's OS and toolbox code to run as many
applications as we do.

    Patrick> As it is, I feel ARDI is being somewhat dishonest or
    Patrick> misleading in making the claim that Executor is faster
    Patrick> than a 25Mhz 68040.  Yes it is, but again, it doesn't
    Patrick> emulate the full MacOS, doesn't support all the features,
    Patrick> and acts as a limited application enviroment.

I made the claim because it's true and it's relevant.  Yes, Executor
is not as compatible as a real Mac, but if the Mac app that you want
to run on a PC *does* run under Executor, then it will probably run
significantly faster on an entry level pentium than a 25 MHz 68040
based Mac.

    Patrick> SoftWindows, on the other hand, does emulate a full x86
    Patrick> chip set, and, (on a PowerPC-based Mac), emulates '386
    Patrick> code at '486 or faster speed.  Heck, SoftWindows 1.0, on
    Patrick> my 33Mhz 68040 Mac, is slightly faster than a '286.  Of
    Patrick> course, I tend to use SoftPC rather than SoftWindows, but
    Patrick> it's still not bad.

SoftWindows doesn't run everything, although it does indeed run a
larger percentage of programs than Executor does.  However, speedwise,
there is no comparison.  Mac apps that *do* run under Executor, run
much faster under Executor on an N MHz P5 than an equivalent x86 based
application would run on an N MHz 601 under SoftPC or SoftWindows.

I don't think it's misleading for us to say:

    "Executor on a modern Pentium machine runs much faster than a
    25 MHz 68040 based Mac.  Executor is not as compatible as a
    real Mac, but speed problems?  I don't think so."

anymore than it would be for Insignia to say:

    "SoftWindows on a modern Powermac runs a much greater percentage
    of software than Executor.  SoftWindows is not as fast as Executor,
    but compatibility problems?  I don't think so."

Executor is much faster than SoftPC/SoftWindows, and
SoftPC/SoftWindows is much more compatible than Executor.  Granted,
above, we compare Executor on a P5 to a 25 MHz 68040, but Executor's
CPU emulation (which is basically flawless) *is* a much faster way to
run 680x0 code than a 25 MHz '040, which is especially important in
the context of using an Amiga to run Mac code, because the Amiga is
going to run CPU intensive code approximately at the same speed that
a comparable 680x0 Mac would run it.

Remember, when I replied, I wasn't even sure that Executor had been
mentioned.  Clearly whoever made the 1/100th remark was ignorant or
dishonest.  That's what I was trying to point out.  I didn't go into
Executor details at length because I didn't even know if Executor was
what was being discussed.  I did mention that it's not as compatible
as a Mac and I gave a URL where a demo copy and a FAQ can be read to
get much more detail than I could post.

    Patrick> However, to be fair to ARDI, Insignia does have a benefit
    Patrick> that ARDI doesn't, in the fact that Insignia licenced the
    Patrick> Windows code from Microsoft, and ARDI hasn't been able to
    Patrick> licence the MacOS code from Apple.  It would be
    Patrick> interesting to see how Executor would develop if they
    Patrick> could.  Still Executor isn't a bad piece of work, for
    Patrick> what it does.  I would be very interested to see future
    Patrick> developments of Executor.

Basically I agree with everything you've said with the exception of my
claim being misleading or dishonest.  I see speed and compatibility as
orthogonal issues.  As I mentioned before http://www.ardi.com/
contains enough information for people to see both what Executor is,
but also the claims we make for it.

    Patrick>    - Patrick McKinnion

--Cliff
[e-mail]