From owner-freebsd-chat  Mon Dec 22 13:45:07 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA00368
          for chat-outgoing; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 13:45:07 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA00342
          for <chat@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 13:44:44 -0800 (PST)
          (envelope-from jkh@time.cdrom.com)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.7/8.6.9) with ESMTP id NAA04334; Mon, 22 Dec 1997 13:44:18 -0800 (PST)
To: Colman Reilly <careilly@monoid.cs.tcd.ie>
cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Heh.. 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 22 Dec 1997 21:11:25 GMT."
             <199712222111.VAA04664@monoid.cs.tcd.ie> 
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 1997 13:44:18 -0800
Message-ID: <4331.882827058@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

> But Win 95's performance is intrinsically horrible. How horrible is the
> performance you're getting relative to normal Win 95 performance? 

Unusably horrible - it takes a full 5 minutes just to "boot" into the
desktop, and woe betide he who actually launches an application.
Paint takes about 2 minutes to launch and is only marginally usable
once launched.  I can only imagine that Word would be a total laugh.

Don't forget that bochs is emulating the entire machine, including
the instruction set.

					Jordan