From owner-freebsd-questions Fri May 12 23:56:26 1995 Return-Path: questions-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id XAA04611 for questions-outgoing; Fri, 12 May 1995 23:56:26 -0700 Received: from labinfo.iet.unipi.it (labinfo.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.5]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id XAA04605 for ; Fri, 12 May 1995 23:56:23 -0700 Received: from localhost (luigi@localhost) by labinfo.iet.unipi.it (8.6.5/8.6.5) id IAA09228; Sat, 13 May 1995 08:32:55 +0200 From: Luigi Rizzo Message-Id: <199505130632.IAA09228@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Subject: Re: DOS emulator To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Date: Sat, 13 May 1995 08:32:54 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: tanel@juku.li.ttu.ee, questions@FreeBSD.org, SELPHJ@alpha.obu.edu In-Reply-To: <9504251820.AA00590@cs.weber.edu> from "Terry Lambert" at Apr 25, 95 12:19:42 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 813 Sender: questions-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > By definition, on Intel hardware, DOSEMU is going to be potentially > several orders of magnitude faster than PCEMU. I think "several"<=2, consider that you can even optimize some things (e.g. REP instructions) in an instruction-level emulator. PCEMU can still run perfectly some small useful applications. I have tried the latest Word on a PowerMac 7100, and it doesn't look any faster than VI under PCEMU. There are so many ways to slow down things... Luigi ==================================================================== Luigi Rizzo Dip. di Ingegneria dell'Informazione email: luigi@iet.unipi.it Universita' di Pisa tel: +39-50-568533 via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 PISA (Italy) fax: +39-50-568522 ====================================================================