🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ericb.512.301F8F68@psu.edu> ericb@psu.edu (Eric Bennett) writes:
>From: ericb@psu.edu (Eric Bennett)
>Subject: Re: Debate: PowerMac "trounces" Pentium....???
>Date: Wed, 2 Aug 1995 14:44:56 GMT

>In article <davis-0108951934350001@pppsb1.itg.ti.com> davis@adrs1.dseg.ti.com (Tom L. Davis) writes:

>>In article <3vlv3n$8o0@nnrp3.primenet.com>, english@primenet.com (Lawson
>>English) wrote:

>>:Since SoftWIndows was *optimized* so that the emulator would be bypassed 
>>:for critical calls like GDI stuff, and since the beta system of 2.0 probably 
>>:isn't optimized for all WIndows 95 calls, this is quite an interesting 
>>:datum, IMHO.

>>If Apple's new emulator (on the 9500) can outperform all 040 Macs, why
>>can't Softwindows do the same relative to a 66 MHz 486DX2 (which I assume
>>is equivalent to a 33 MHz 040)?

>No, clock doubled '040s are not as fast as clock doubled 486s.  That's why 
>Apple never labeled them as being clock-doubled at all (until recently, when 
>they decided to go in for some hype).

>A 68040 @ 40 mhz is just a tad slower than a 486/66.  Also keep in mind that 
>we're talking about a BETA of SoftWindows 2.0, which could have some debugging 
>code holding it back.  We'll have to wait until it's release to see how fast 
>it really is.

>-Ericb@psu.edu


You're joking, right?  Softwindows on my friend's Quadra 68040 33 mHZ 
barely matched a 386 DX 25.  This was with 16 megs of RAM as well...