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