Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.programmer:9307 comp.sys.mac:39058 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!wb1j+ From: wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu (William M. Bumgarner) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer,comp.sys.mac Subject: II in a mac (was Re: Todd Rundgren's Macintosh OS) Message-ID:Date: 27 Sep 89 15:15:25 GMT References: <1679@draken.nada.kth.se> <158@edsr.eds.com> <35053@apple.Apple.COM> <1989Sep27.031443.4405@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU>, <528@cpdaux.UUCP> Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 14 In-Reply-To: <528@cpdaux.UUCP> Soft PC achieves good performance for a software emulation of an OS/machine... ProComm under SoftPC beats Red Ryder for file transfers (not that that is a good example, RR is pokey anyway)... Question: Why do both II in a Mac and Mac ][+ have such HORRIBLE performance? An Apple II is a 1 mHz machine-- is it really that much more difficult to emulate than a PC? just wondering... b.bum wb1j+@andrew.cmue.du