🚀 go-pugleaf

cirby@news.gate.net (Chad Irby) wrote:
>Jeff Medcalf (214) 280-5970 IBM SDO (medcalf@ppc5.svo.dfw.ibm.com) wrote:
>
>: That's pretty funny, considering that Win95 won't *run* on PPC systems.
>
>Strangely enough, Windows 95 *will* run on a PPC Mac with SoftWindows.  
>With a reasonably fast Mac, you can get it up to fast 386/slow 486 speeds.
>
>Weird, eh?
>
>-- 
>
>Chad Irby           /    My greatest fear: that future generations will,
>cirby@gate.net     /      for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."

It will not run on a PowerMac.  SoftWindows is a software package that 
Insignia bought the rights to make from MS.  They just completed the 
Enhanced 386 version which can do protected mode memory mapping.  They do 
not have a license to do Windows '95 and it would be very difficult for 
them to do seeing as how they struggled with Windows 3.1.  If MS is still 
debugging the heck out of Windows '95, don't expect SoftWindows to be a 
Windows '95 product anytime.  Mac users are better off waiting for CHRP and 
loading NT 4.0 or Cairo.

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

Edmond Underwood
Computing & Network Services (University of Colorado)
E-mail:  underwoe@Colorado.Edu

In article <3vlq7q$stc@lace.Colorado.EDU> Edmond <underwoe@Colorado.Edu> writes:

>It will not run on a PowerMac.  SoftWindows is a software package that 
>Insignia bought the rights to make from MS.  They just completed the 
>Enhanced 386 version which can do protected mode memory mapping.  They do 
>not have a license to do Windows '95 and it would be very difficult for 
>them to do seeing as how they struggled with Windows 3.1.  If MS is still 
>debugging the heck out of Windows '95, don't expect SoftWindows to be a 
>Windows '95 product anytime.  Mac users are better off waiting for CHRP and 
>loading NT 4.0 or Cairo.

Actually, my understanding was that SoftWindows 2.0 _is_ supposed to run
Windows 95.  Their original target shipping date (for SoftWindows) was last 
December, but it has consistently slipped along with the Win95 release date 
(can't have a Win95 emulator running on the Mac before Win95 itself is 
done...).

If you have some info that proves this wrong, please tell me 
where you got it.  Thanks,

-Ericb@psu.edu

Chad Irby (cirby@news.gate.net) wrote:
: Jeff Medcalf (214) 280-5970 IBM SDO (medcalf@ppc5.svo.dfw.ibm.com) wrote:

: : That's pretty funny, considering that Win95 won't *run* on PPC systems.

: Strangely enough, Windows 95 *will* run on a PPC Mac with SoftWindows.  
: With a reasonably fast Mac, you can get it up to fast 386/slow 486 speeds.

: Weird, eh?


ON a 9500/132, the speed of SoftWIndows 2.0 beta running Windows 95 Gold is 
said to rival that of an 80486DX2 33 [sic] system.


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.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English                            __  __     ____  ___       ___ ____
english@primenet.com                     /__)/__) / / / / /_  /\  / /_    /
                                        /   / \  / / / / /__ /  \/ /___  /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

>
>ON a 9500/132, the speed of SoftWIndows 2.0 beta running Windows 95
>Gold is said to rival that of an 80486DX2 33 [sic] system.
>
Ok, I'll bite... "Said" by whom?

>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.
>
Quite so, if it could be believed.

If you haven't guessed, I'm seeking a citation, albeit somewhat
skeptically. 

--Joel R. Sartoris

ericb@psu.edu (Eric Bennett) wrote:

>
>Actually, my understanding was that SoftWindows 2.0 _is_ supposed to run
>Windows 95.  Their original target shipping date (for SoftWindows) was last 
>December, but it has consistently slipped along with the Win95 release date 
>(can't have a Win95 emulator running on the Mac before Win95 itself is 
>done...).
>
>If you have some info that proves this wrong, please tell me 
>where you got it.  Thanks,

Info - 1800-426-9400.  Ask someone there.  Or go to 
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc.  Both will give you the correct answer that 
SoftWindows 2.0 is a 386 enhanced mode app.  That is the Windows 3.11 
enhanced mode stuff, not Windows '95.  The emulator could never be done 
that quickly.  It took Insignia 2 years to do Enhanced Mode over Real Mode.  
This is really quite a trivial thing (not when you're writing an OS layer 
though).  They have no license to do Windows '95.  If they even tried, they 
would be sued for billions.  That is why the Windows '95(R) has the (R) on 
the end of it.  No copying registered software.  


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

Edmond Underwood
Computing & Network Services (University of Colorado)
E-mail:  underwoe@Colorado.Edu

jsart@ix.netcom.com (Joel Sartoris) writes:
>>ON a 9500/132, the speed of SoftWIndows 2.0 beta running Windows 95
>>Gold is said to rival that of an 80486DX2 33 [sic] system.
>>
>Ok, I'll bite... "Said" by whom?

>>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.
>>
>Quite so, if it could be believed.

>If you haven't guessed, I'm seeking a citation, albeit somewhat
>skeptically. 

Try:

http://www.zdnet.com/~macweek/mw_07-31-95/mac_manager.html
-- 
Jim Wong (jd-wong@uiuc.edu)

In article <3vlq7q$stc@lace.Colorado.EDU>, Edmond <underwoe@Colorado.Edu> wrote:

> It will not run on a PowerMac.  SoftWindows is a software package that 
> Insignia bought the rights to make from MS.  They just completed the 
> Enhanced 386 version which can do protected mode memory mapping.  They do 
> not have a license to do Windows '95 and it would be very difficult for 
> them to do seeing as how they struggled with Windows 3.1.  If MS is still 
> debugging the heck out of Windows '95, don't expect SoftWindows to be a 
> Windows '95 product anytime.  Mac users are better off waiting for CHRP and 
> loading NT 4.0 or Cairo.

You better tell that to Don Crabb. Seems he had Win95 running on
Softwindows 2.0 Beta on a PMac 9500. Softwindows doesn't need a license
now that they have moved to doing straight 486 instruction emulation.

-- 
Bob Cassidy
UC Irvine

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

:Chad Irby (cirby@news.gate.net) wrote:
:: Jeff Medcalf (214) 280-5970 IBM SDO (medcalf@ppc5.svo.dfw.ibm.com) wrote:
:
:: : That's pretty funny, considering that Win95 won't *run* on PPC systems.
:
:: Strangely enough, Windows 95 *will* run on a PPC Mac with SoftWindows.  
:: With a reasonably fast Mac, you can get it up to fast 386/slow 486 speeds.
:
:: Weird, eh?
:
:
:ON a 9500/132, the speed of SoftWIndows 2.0 beta running Windows 95 Gold is 
:said to rival that of an 80486DX2 33 [sic] system.
:
:
: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)?

Tom

Joel Sartoris (jsart@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <3vlv3n$8o0@nnrp3.primenet.com> english@primenet.com (Lawson
: English) writes: 

: >
: >ON a 9500/132, the speed of SoftWIndows 2.0 beta running Windows 95
: >Gold is said to rival that of an 80486DX2 33 [sic] system.
: >
: Ok, I'll bite... "Said" by whom?

Donald Crabb in the on-line version of MacWeek, Vol 9, no 30, 31 July 1995:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[...]
   My experiment worked! Thanks to SoftWindows 2.0, I now have Windows 95
   running on a Power 100 Mac OS clone, despite the fact that all the PC
   hardware is being emulated, despite the fact that this Mac clone is
   doubling the size of its hard disk (Symantec Corp.'s DiskDoubler) and
   RAM (Connectix Corp.'s RAM Doubler), and despite the fact that the
   final beta version of SoftWindows 2.0 is not designed to run Windows
   95. It has even been quite usable with a staggeringly small number of
   crashes. In fact, it's more reliable than the real 486 PCs I tested
   Windows 95 on. The performance nets out to about that of a 25-MHz DX
   486 using WinBench and straight usage tests.

   Then I wondered, what about running it on a 9500? So I borrowed one
   and checked it out. Damned if it didn't work, even faster than the
   Power 100. I got speeds comparable to a 33-MHz DX2 486, which was very
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [sic]   
comfortable for running most applications, video and audio clips, and
   games.

   SoftWindows 2.0 worked with my PC networks, provided PC sound support
   (though not SoundBlaster support) and still worked with the Mac OS.
   Even though Version 2.0, which will ship at Macworld Expo, has not
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


: >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.
: >
: Quite so, if it could be believed.

: If you haven't guessed, I'm seeking a citation, albeit somewhat
: skeptically. 

: --Joel R. Sartoris

Go talk to Don Crabb if you have any questions.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English                            __  __     ____  ___       ___ ____
english@primenet.com                     /__)/__) / / / / /_  /\  / /_    /
                                        /   / \  / / / / /__ /  \/ /___  /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>You better tell that to Don Crabb. Seems he had Win95 running on
>Softwindows 2.0 Beta on a PMac 9500. Softwindows doesn't need a license
>now that they have moved to doing straight 486 instruction emulation.

Yeh right Bob.  You are making a joke of this.  I'll forward this to MS to 
see if anyone can copy Windows '95 without a license.  Windows '95 isn't 
even a product much less something MS would give to someone else.  Don't 
even try to tell me that they reverse engineered this either.  Sorry, but I 
am way too skeptical about this one.  This would be big news and this is 
the first I have heard of it.  I think that it is just rumor and no truth.  
To be sure, I will forward it to an MS official.

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

Edmond Underwood
Computing & Network Services (University of Colorado)
E-mail:  underwoe@Colorado.Edu

rmcassid@uci.edu (Robert Cassidy) wrote:

>
>You better tell that to Don Crabb. Seems he had Win95 running on
>Softwindows 2.0 Beta on a PMac 9500. Softwindows doesn't need a license
>now that they have moved to doing straight 486 instruction emulation.
>

Somewhat confused here.  SoftWindows steals 80486 binary calls and 
translates all calls into 604 PPC calls?  That would mean that ANY 
currently shipping software would run on it including NT, Solaris x86, 
NextStep 486, OS/2 Warp, Linux, and everything else.  This does sound 
peculiar.  Again, I'll check this out.

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

Edmond Underwood
Computing & Network Services (University of Colorado)
E-mail:  underwoe@Colorado.Edu

In article <davis-0108951934350001@pppsb1.itg.ti.com>,
Tom L. Davis <davis@adrs1.dseg.ti.com> wrote:
>In article <3vlv3n$8o0@nnrp3.primenet.com>, english@primenet.com (Lawson
>English) wrote:
>
>:Chad Irby (cirby@news.gate.net) wrote:
>:: Jeff Medcalf (214) 280-5970 IBM SDO (medcalf@ppc5.svo.dfw.ibm.com) wrote:
>:
>:: : That's pretty funny, considering that Win95 won't *run* on PPC systems.
>:
>:: Strangely enough, Windows 95 *will* run on a PPC Mac with SoftWindows.  
>:: With a reasonably fast Mac, you can get it up to fast 386/slow 486 speeds.
>:
>:ON a 9500/132, the speed of SoftWIndows 2.0 beta running Windows 95 Gold is 
>:said to rival that of an 80486DX2 33 [sic] system.
>: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)?

Apple's emulator doesn't worry about emulating hardware. Either the 
68K code in an app is using API calls to get the job done, or the 
hardware being accessed by 68K code (an emulated driver, say) actually 
exists in the same form. Not true the 486 emulator running on the 
PowerPC system with no VGA chip, no 16[45]50 UART chip, etc etc etc to
let the emulated entity manipulate directly.

A great example of this would be a an emulated game, say something a couple
years old like Maelstrom or Hellcats. They write directly to the screen
and run great in emulation - the screen's still there the same way they
expect it to be. Not true for DOOM-PC trying to run in VGA ModeX under 
SoftWindows 2.0 :(

Apple's emulator has the advantage of inheriting only code that is more
or less well-behaved (or to put it another way, the emulators opt to 
provide undefined behavior in the case of code that violates the guidelines).

Self-modifying code without cache-flushing calls. SoftWindows probably
has to deal with that, Apple's emulator(s) don't [choose not to]. That's
probably the biggest issue alone.

Apple's emulator is a pretty pure "CPU only" emulator. SoftWindows has
to deal with CPU and more [although their new technology is supposed
to be radically different from 1.0].

I have edited the followup line.

Rob Barris
Quicksilver Software Inc.
rbarris@quicksilver.com

Edmond (underwoe@Colorado.Edu) wrote:
: rmcassid@uci.edu (Robert Cassidy) wrote:

: >
: >You better tell that to Don Crabb. Seems he had Win95 running on
: >Softwindows 2.0 Beta on a PMac 9500. Softwindows doesn't need a license
: >now that they have moved to doing straight 486 instruction emulation.
: >

: Somewhat confused here.  SoftWindows steals 80486 binary calls and 
: translates all calls into 604 PPC calls?  That would mean that ANY 
: currently shipping software would run on it including NT, Solaris x86, 
: NextStep 486, OS/2 Warp, Linux, and everything else.  This does sound 
: peculiar.  Again, I'll check this out.

: --------------------------------------------------------------------

: Edmond Underwood
: Computing & Network Services (University of Colorado)
: E-mail:  underwoe@Colorado.Edu

Please do.  Perhaps someone could foreward him Don's email address?  I 
dont have a copy of MacWeek handy...

Also, why are you so concerned about a license?  If SoftWindows 2.0 
emulates a 486, and the owner buys a copy of W95 (or the beta as the case 
may be) MS has no role in the matter.

Joel Sartoris (jsart@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <3vlv3n$8o0@nnrp3.primenet.com> english@primenet.com (Lawson
: English) writes: 

: >
: >ON a 9500/132, the speed of SoftWIndows 2.0 beta running Windows 95
: >Gold is said to rival that of an 80486DX2 33 [sic] system.
: >
: Ok, I'll bite... "Said" by whom?

From PowerPC News (*** July 3rd, 1995: Vol. 2, No.33***)

You want more emulation news? OK IBM reckons that high-end 604s
(120MHz and 133MHz) will run Windows applications at about the same
speed as a 486DX 33MHz - 66MHz under the emulation in Warp Connect
PowerPC edition.

(c) PowerPC News - free by mailing add@power.globalnews.com

So IBM would have made such a statement. (about Warp Connect emulation,
not SoftWindows one..)

: >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.
: >
: Quite so, if it could be believed.

: If you haven't guessed, I'm seeking a citation, albeit somewhat
: skeptically. 

If you want infos about PPC send a mail to add@power.globalnews.com
you'll peridically receive a TOC then you'll just have to choose the
news you want to read.

: --Joel R. Sartoris

 Luc.

In article <3vmu6s$mv@lace.Colorado.EDU>, Edmond <underwoe@Colorado.Edu> wrote:

> >You better tell that to Don Crabb. Seems he had Win95 running on
> >Softwindows 2.0 Beta on a PMac 9500. Softwindows doesn't need a license
> >now that they have moved to doing straight 486 instruction emulation.
> 
> Yeh right Bob.  You are making a joke of this.  I'll forward this to MS to 
> see if anyone can copy Windows '95 without a license.  Windows '95 isn't 
> even a product much less something MS would give to someone else.  Don't 
> even try to tell me that they reverse engineered this either.  Sorry, but I 
> am way too skeptical about this one.  This would be big news and this is 
> the first I have heard of it.  I think that it is just rumor and no truth.  
> To be sure, I will forward it to an MS official.

Who said anything about copying Windows 95 without a license?  Don Crabb
installed his copy of a prerelease version of Windows 95 onto a
SoftWindows hard disk.  What's wrong with that?

-- 
Jim Wong (jd-wong@uiuc.edu)

Edmond <underwoe@Colorado.Edu> wrote:
>though).  They have no license to do Windows '95.  If they even tried, they 
>would be sued for billions.  That is why the Windows '95(R) has the (R) on 
>the end of it.  No copying registered software.  
>

That is not what a trademark is for.  A trademark is a name used in marketing
a product which may not be used by your competition for marketing their version
of the product.

It's copyright law and patent law which govern copying things.  You copyright
to protect the expression of an idea, but not the idea itself.  You patent to
protect the idea.

-- 
Sphere.

Find a Linux Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

Buy Linux brand UNIX!

In article <3vmu6s$mv@lace.colorado.edu>,
Edmond  <underwoe@Colorado.Edu> wrote:
>>You better tell that to Don Crabb. Seems he had Win95 running on
>>Softwindows 2.0 Beta on a PMac 9500. Softwindows doesn't need a license
>>now that they have moved to doing straight 486 instruction emulation.
>
>Yeh right Bob.  You are making a joke of this.  I'll forward this to MS to 
>see if anyone can copy Windows '95 without a license.  Windows '95 isn't 
>even a product much less something MS would give to someone else.  Don't 
>even try to tell me that they reverse engineered this either.  Sorry, but I 
>am way too skeptical about this one.  This would be big news and this is 
>the first I have heard of it.  I think that it is just rumor and no truth.  
>To be sure, I will forward it to an MS official.

This is remarkably silly.  If I buy a copy of Win95 surely I'm free to
run it on whatever hardware I choose.  My hardware might be something
that emulates the 486 instruction set.  Since Win95 is at the root
it a bunch of 486 instructions, the emulator may be able to run it.

For that matter, I believe someone posted here that they ran OS/2 on
Softwindows.

-arun gupta
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Edmond Underwood
>Computing & Network Services (University of Colorado)
>E-mail:  underwoe@Colorado.Edu
>
>

>
>>
>>ON a 9500/132, the speed of SoftWIndows 2.0 beta running Windows 95
>>Gold is said to rival that of an 80486DX2 33 [sic] system.
>>
>Ok, I'll bite... "Said" by whom?
>

    Does a DX2 33 even exist?

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

In article <3vmg67$iss@lace.Colorado.EDU> Edmond <underwoe@Colorado.Edu> writes:


>ericb@psu.edu (Eric Bennett) wrote:

>>If you have some info that proves this wrong, please tell me 
>>where you got it.  Thanks,

>Info - 1800-426-9400.  Ask someone there.  Or go to 
>comp.os.ms-windows.nt.misc.  Both will give you the correct answer that 
>SoftWindows 2.0 is a 386 enhanced mode app.  That is the Windows 3.11 
>enhanced mode stuff, not Windows '95.  

Ok, thanks.  My information was rather old.  But according to MacWeek it's 
possible to run Win95 through SoftWindows 2.0 if you decide to buy Win95 
yourself...

-Ericb@psu.edu

In article <rmcassid-0108951723110001@dante.eng.uci.edu> rmcassid@uci.edu (Robert Cassidy) writes:
>Path: news.cac.psu.edu!news.tc.cornell.edu!newsserver.sdsc.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!csulb.edu!paris.ics.uci.edu!news.service.uci.edu!dante.eng.uci.edu!user
>From: rmcassid@uci.edu (Robert Cassidy)
>Newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.intel,alt.2600,alt.destroy.microsoft
>Subject: Re: Debate: PowerMac "trounces" Pentium....???
>Date: Tue, 01 Aug 1995 17:23:11 -0700
>Organization: UC Irvine
>Lines: 18
>Message-ID: <rmcassid-0108951723110001@dante.eng.uci.edu>
>References: <3vli5j$1ha0@navajo.gate.net> <3vlq7q$stc@lace.Colorado.EDU>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: dante.eng.uci.edu
>Xref: news.cac.psu.edu comp.sys.powerpc:58270 comp.os.linux.advocacy:21861 comp.sys.mac.advocacy:62213 comp.os.os2.advocacy:144846 comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:135128 comp.sys.intel:50603 alt.destroy.microsoft:7083


>In article <3vlq7q$stc@lace.Colorado.EDU>, Edmond <underwoe@Colorado.Edu> wrote:

>> It will not run on a PowerMac.  SoftWindows is a software package that 
>> Insignia bought the rights to make from MS.  They just completed the 
>> Enhanced 386 version which can do protected mode memory mapping.  They do 
>> not have a license to do Windows '95 and it would be very difficult for 
>> them to do seeing as how they struggled with Windows 3.1.  If MS is still 
>> debugging the heck out of Windows '95, don't expect SoftWindows to be a 
>> Windows '95 product anytime.  Mac users are better off waiting for CHRP and 
>> loading NT 4.0 or Cairo.

>You better tell that to Don Crabb. Seems he had Win95 running on
>Softwindows 2.0 Beta on a PMac 9500. Softwindows doesn't need a license
>now that they have moved to doing straight 486 instruction emulation.

But Crabb's article says that SW 2.0 is not designed to run Win95.  So Ed is 
correct--if you buy SoftWindows 2.0, you will not be running SoftWindows, and 
I doubt you'd get much help from Insignia tech support if you got your own 
copy of Win95 and tried to install it in SW 2.0...

-Ericb@psu.edu

In article <3vmu6s$mv@lace.Colorado.EDU> Edmond <underwoe@Colorado.Edu> writes:

>Yeh right Bob.  You are making a joke of this.  I'll forward this to MS to 
>see if anyone can copy Windows '95 without a license.  Windows '95 isn't 
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Tell me how you see that Windows '95 is being copied anywhere in this process.

Jim Williams <williams@tiac.net> wrote:

You're correct.  What is the difference between (TM) and (R) then.  They 
sound the same to me.

>That is not what a trademark is for.  A trademark is a name used in marketing
>a product which may not be used by your competition for marketing their version
>of the product.
>
>It's copyright law and patent law which govern copying things.  You copyright
>to protect the expression of an idea, but not the idea itself.  You patent to
>protect the idea.
>
>-- 
>Sphere.
>
>Find a Linux Group for you: http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/
>
>Buy Linux brand UNIX!
>
>


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

Edmond Underwood
Computing & Network Services (University of Colorado)
E-mail:  underwoe@Colorado.Edu

In article <3vmu6s$mv@lace.Colorado.EDU>, Edmond <underwoe@Colorado.Edu> wrote:

> >You better tell that to Don Crabb. Seems he had Win95 running on
> >Softwindows 2.0 Beta on a PMac 9500. Softwindows doesn't need a license
> >now that they have moved to doing straight 486 instruction emulation.
> 
> Yeh right Bob.  You are making a joke of this.  I'll forward this to MS to 
> see if anyone can copy Windows '95 without a license.  Windows '95 isn't 
> even a product much less something MS would give to someone else.  Don't 
> even try to tell me that they reverse engineered this either.  Sorry, but I 
> am way too skeptical about this one.  This would be big news and this is 
> the first I have heard of it.  I think that it is just rumor and no truth.  
> To be sure, I will forward it to an MS official.

Uhh, what? So what if Don Crabb went out and bought a beta (gee, even
making money on unfinished software) of Win '95 and dumped it on a 486
emulator? Softwin 2.0 should ship as a 486 emulator with a standard Win
3.1 or Win 95 licence dropped on top. Who needs to reverse engineer a
product you buy off the shelf?

-- 
Bob Cassidy
UC Irvine

In article <ericb.512.301F8F68@psu.edu>, ericb@psu.edu (Eric Bennett) wrote:

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

> >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)?

> 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.

Well, the argument still holds. The 9500 in emulation is still quite a bit
faster than even a 040/40. If SpeedDoubler lives up to the hype then it
could show that even a little better is possible.

So even if a 486DX2/66 were 50% faster than an 040/40 (sounds like an
awfully safe margin) then I'd expect that some proper combination of
engineers from Apple, Insignia, Connectix could probably emulate close to
that speed.

-- 
Bob Cassidy
UC Irvine

Joel Sartoris (jsart@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <3vlv3n$8o0@nnrp3.primenet.com> english@primenet.com (Lawson
: English) writes: 

: >
: >ON a 9500/132, the speed of SoftWIndows 2.0 beta running Windows 95
: >Gold is said to rival that of an 80486DX2 33 [sic] system.
: >
: Ok, I'll bite... "Said" by whom?


: If you haven't guessed, I'm seeking a citation, albeit somewhat
: skeptically. 

This week's Mac Week...

-- 

Chad Irby           /    My greatest fear: that future generations will,
cirby@gate.net     /      for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."

Right on that. If you legaly bought the software and there is not 
statement in it saying you must run it on such a machine, then you got a 
right to try it on a commodore 64 if you want.

In article <3vod72$22hr@seminole.gate.net>, cirby@news.gate.net (Chad
Irby) wrote:

> Joel Sartoris (jsart@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : In <3vlv3n$8o0@nnrp3.primenet.com> english@primenet.com (Lawson
> : English) writes: 
> 
> : >
> : >ON a 9500/132, the speed of SoftWIndows 2.0 beta running Windows 95
> : >Gold is said to rival that of an 80486DX2 33 [sic] system.
> : >
> : Ok, I'll bite... "Said" by whom?
>  
> : If you haven't guessed, I'm seeking a citation, albeit somewhat
> : skeptically. 
> 
> This week's Mac Week...

I'll vouch.  It's on page 23 of the 7.31.95 edition.  In the column,
"The Mac Manager" by Don Crabb, entitled, "The Merry Prankster and the
Windows 95 Acid Test."
-- 

 .....__.._____________...............................(or a cat!)......
     / / /   ____  ___/      phoward@usc.edu         O             .
    / / / / /_  / /                             |\  o  ._,,,--,,_. ,)
   / / / /\__ \/ /     "on the internet, no    /, .-'`'   -,  ;-;;'
  / /_/ /___/ / /___ one knows you're a dog." |,4   ) )-,_ ) /\
 .\____/\____/\____/.........................<_...^(.(_/--' (_/-'......
                                                    " "

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...  

>Uhh, what? So what if Don Crabb went out and bought a beta (gee, even
>making money on unfinished software) of Win '95 and dumped it on a 486
>emulator? Softwin 2.0 should ship as a 486 emulator with a standard Win
>3.1 or Win 95 licence dropped on top. Who needs to reverse engineer a
>product you buy off the shelf?

>--
>Bob Cassidy
>UC Irvine

I was somewhat confused on exactly what was SoftWindows (as stated in my 
other response).  The original SoftWindows and SoftPC were licensed 
products from MS to actually put Windows on a different platform and mimic 
the instruction set and the API calls.  I guess this product simply mimics 
the 80486 instruction set not Windows.  I imagine this product would be 
hard pressed for compatability though, since it can't possibly mimic all 
facets of the 80486 instruction set nor PC hardware in general.  I wonder 
about performance also since it has to capture instruction by instruction, 
convert, reproduce, and draw an unfamiliar routine to the Macintosh 
display.  They do not have a license for Windows '95 and therefore to any 
of it's API, but you can run Windows '95 on any platform that will take it 
without any provisions;  unlike the Pentium which cannot be put in the form 
of an addon card and use the Intel Inside sticker for compatibility. Sorry,
I was somewhat confused on what the product does (and probably still am).
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Edmond Underwood
Computing & Network Services (University of Colorado)
E-mail:  underwoe@Colorado.Edu

In article <3vp97i$er4@natasha.rmii.com>, Edmond <underwoe@Colorado.Edu> wrote:

> the 80486 instruction set not Windows.  I imagine this product would be 
> hard pressed for compatability though, since it can't possibly mimic all 
> facets of the 80486 instruction set nor PC hardware in general.  I wonder 

What's so hard about mimicking the 80486 instruction set?  I could
probably do it, albeit slowly.

-- 
Jim Wong (jd-wong@uiuc.edu)

In article <shinr.337.301FEC44@coral.indstate.edu>, shinr@coral.indstate.edu (Shin, Ronald S) writes:
> 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...  

Softwindows on the PPC-based Macs is much faster than Softwindows on the
'040 Macs.

-- 
+-------------+-------------------------------+--------------------------+
|Jeff Medcalf | medcalf@interlock.dfw.ibm.com |                          |
|CTG-Dallas   | JKMedcalf@aol.com             | Power Series support     |
+-------------+-------------------------------+ SVMP/Tech Eval           |
|I not only don't speak for IBM,              | Comm Mgr/2               |
|I don't even *know* who speaks for IBM!      |                          |
+---------------------------------------------+--------------------------+

In article <shinr.337.301FEC44@coral.indstate.edu> shinr@coral.indstate.edu (Shin, Ronald S) writes:

>>>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.

>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...  

I'm talking about each machine running its native applications, not emulators 
like SoftWindows and Executor.  A Quadra at 33/66 mhz can probably run Mac 
programs about as quickly as a DX2/50 can run Windows programs, assuming the 
programs are equally well written :).

-Ericb@psu.edu



-Ericb@psu.edu

In <rmcassid-0208950934330001@dante.eng.uci.edu> rmcassid@uci.edu (Robert Cassidy) writes:

>In article <ericb.512.301F8F68@psu.edu>, ericb@psu.edu (Eric Bennett) wrote:
>
>> In article <davis-0108951934350001@pppsb1.itg.ti.com>
>davis@adrs1.dseg.ti.com (Tom L. Davis) writes:
>
>> >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)?
>
>> 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.
>
>Well, the argument still holds. The 9500 in emulation is still quite a bit
>faster than even a 040/40. If SpeedDoubler lives up to the hype then it
>could show that even a little better is possible.
>
>So even if a 486DX2/66 were 50% faster than an 040/40 (sounds like an
>awfully safe margin) then I'd expect that some proper combination of
>engineers from Apple, Insignia, Connectix could probably emulate close to
>that speed.

Eric posted a very good advice: wait until it's released.

Speculations about future products are a waste of time and bandwidth.
Leave the hype to the marketing divisions of the interested companies.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch 
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

Shin, Ronald S (shinr@coral.indstate.edu) wrote:

: 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...  

...an older version of Soft Windows, on a machine that's 1/10 the speed, 
and you're surprised that a newer machine with a better version of the 
software runs at a much higher speed...?

-- 

Chad Irby           /    My greatest fear: that future generations will,
cirby@gate.net     /      for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."

In <jd-wong-0208952220470001@antwerp-11.slip.uiuc.edu> jd-wong@uiuc.edu (Jim Wong) writes:

>In article <3vp97i$er4@natasha.rmii.com>, Edmond <underwoe@Colorado.Edu> wrote:
>
>> the 80486 instruction set not Windows.  I imagine this product would be 
>> hard pressed for compatability though, since it can't possibly mimic all 
>> facets of the 80486 instruction set nor PC hardware in general.  I wonder 
>
>What's so hard about mimicking the 80486 instruction set?  I could
>probably do it, albeit slowly.

This is the easy part of the job.  The not so easy part is to emulate
the PC hardware to the point where not only an application program can
run, but also an operating system.  I'd love to see Linux for Intel
booting on a Mac emulating a 486 PC :-)

Dan
--
Dan Pop
CERN, CN Division
Email: Dan.Pop@mail.cern.ch 
Mail:  CERN - PPE, Bat. 31 R-004, CH-1211 Geneve 23, Switzerland

Jim Wong (jd-wong@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: jsart@ix.netcom.com (Joel Sartoris) writes:
: >>ON a 9500/132, the speed of SoftWIndows 2.0 beta running Windows 95
: >>Gold is said to rival that of an 80486DX2 33 [sic] system.
					  ^^^
There's no such thing as an 80486dx2 33 MHz system.

gato (gato@freud.inst.com) wrote:
: Jim Wong (jd-wong@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
: : jsart@ix.netcom.com (Joel Sartoris) writes:
: : >>ON a 9500/132, the speed of SoftWIndows 2.0 beta running Windows 95
: : >>Gold is said to rival that of an 80486DX2 33 [sic] system.
: 					  ^^^
: There's no such thing as an 80486dx2 33 MHz system.


I don't know which language is native for you, but in English, if we are 
quoting something that we realize doesn't make sense, and want to point 
out that it doesn't make sense, we put the word "sic" (Latin for "thus" 
-short for "thus it is written" (and I know it don't make no cents, 
OK?))  after it to point out the fact that the phrase/quotation is 
repeated exactly, without attempting to correct it.


I'm sorry if your ESL courses never covered this.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English                            __  __     ____  ___       ___ ____
english@primenet.com                     /__)/__) / / / / /_  /\  / /_    /
                                        /   / \  / / / / /__ /  \/ /___  /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edmond <underwoe@Colorado.Edu> wrote:
>
>You're correct.  What is the difference between (TM) and (R) then.  They 
>sound the same to me.
>

(TM) "trademark" is used when the company claims the trademark but has
not had it registered with the government.  (R) "registered trademark"
should only be used once your (TM) has been accepted by the government.
(not that all that many companies pay attention to the distinction.)

-- 
Sphere.

Find a Linux/GNU Group for you: 
http://www.tiac.net/users/williams/lugnuts/

Buy Linux brand UNIX!

gato@freud.inst.com (gato) wrote:

>Jim Wong (jd-wong@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>: jsart@ix.netcom.com (Joel Sartoris) writes:
>: >>ON a 9500/132, the speed of SoftWIndows 2.0 beta running Windows 95
>: >>Gold is said to rival that of an 80486DX2 33 [sic] system.
>					  ^^^
>There's no such thing as an 80486dx2 33 MHz system.

Yes, there is.  Some people refer to the DX2-66 as a DX2-33, as the
"2" means doubled.  I think Pournelle was the first person I heard use
this.

It's not the correct term, Intel has always referred to the DX2-66 as
just that.  But it's not necessarily incorrec either, the "2" after
the DX should be indication enough.

In article <402un0$4mq@steel.interlog.com> daveacg@interlog.com (Dave Glue) writes:
>From: daveacg@interlog.com (Dave Glue)
>Subject: Re: Debate: PowerMac "trounces" Pentium....???
>Date: Sun, 06 Aug 1995 20:40:53 GMT

>gato@freud.inst.com (gato) wrote:

>>Jim Wong (jd-wong@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>>: jsart@ix.netcom.com (Joel Sartoris) writes:
>>: >>ON a 9500/132, the speed of SoftWIndows 2.0 beta running Windows 95
>>: >>Gold is said to rival that of an 80486DX2 33 [sic] system.
>>                                         ^^^
>>There's no such thing as an 80486dx2 33 MHz system.

>Yes, there is.  Some people refer to the DX2-66 as a DX2-33, as the
>"2" means doubled.  I think Pournelle was the first person I heard use
>this.

>It's not the correct term, Intel has always referred to the DX2-66 as
>just that.  But it's not necessarily incorrec either, the "2" after
>the DX should be indication enough.

One moment, my friends.  There was an overdrive doubler chip for those 
unlucky enought to have a 486 sx/dx 16 in the first place.  

16.666666 x 2 = 33.333333.  It is possible, but not likely, that Mr. Wong 
has a DX2 33 as a result of using the overdrive chip.

In article <shinr.355.30262818@indstate.edu>, shinr@indstate.edu (ISU
Student) wrote:
> >gato@freud.inst.com (gato) wrote:
> 
> >>Jim Wong (jd-wong@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
> >>: jsart@ix.netcom.com (Joel Sartoris) writes:
> >>: >>ON a 9500/132, the speed of SoftWIndows 2.0 beta running Windows 95
> >>: >>Gold is said to rival that of an 80486DX2 33 [sic] system.
> >>                                         ^^^
> >>There's no such thing as an 80486dx2 33 MHz system.
> 
> >Yes, there is.  Some people refer to the DX2-66 as a DX2-33, as the
> >"2" means doubled.  I think Pournelle was the first person I heard use
> >this.
> 
> >It's not the correct term, Intel has always referred to the DX2-66 as
> >just that.  But it's not necessarily incorrec either, the "2" after
> >the DX should be indication enough.
> 
> One moment, my friends.  There was an overdrive doubler chip for those 
> unlucky enought to have a 486 sx/dx 16 in the first place.  
> 
> 16.666666 x 2 = 33.333333.  It is possible, but not likely, that Mr. Wong 
> has a DX2 33 as a result of using the overdrive chip.

As an aside, I have nothing of the kind -- the attributions have become a
bit confused.

-- 
Jim Wong (jd-wong@uiuc.edu)

In <jd-wong-1108952034040001@berlin-4.slip.uiuc.edu> jd-wong@uiuc.edu
(Jim Wong) writes: 
>
>In article <shinr.355.30262818@indstate.edu>, shinr@indstate.edu (ISU
>Student) wrote:
>> >gato@freud.inst.com (gato) wrote:
>> 
>> >>Jim Wong (jd-wong@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu) wrote:
>> >>: jsart@ix.netcom.com (Joel Sartoris) DID *NOT* WRITE
>> >>: ON a 9500/132, the speed of SoftWIndows 2.0 beta running Windows
>> >>: 95 Gold is said to rival that of an 80486DX2 33 [sic]system.

Let's see if we can do a better job on the attributions.

Joel Sartoris