Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!killer!texbell!sugar!uunet!mcvax!unido!fauern!faui44!mlelstv From: mlelstv@faui44.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Michael van Elst ) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Amiga Emulators Message-ID: <660@faui44.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Date: 10 Oct 88 11:10:54 GMT References: <716@umbio.MIAMI.EDU> <389@ga.ecn.purdue.edu> Reply-To: mlelstv@faui44.UUCP (Michael van Elst (kdebugger)) Organization: CSD., University of Erlangen, W - Germany Lines: 24 In article <389@ga.ecn.purdue.edu> rodmar@ga.ecn.purdue.edu.UUCP (Rodney L Martin) writes: >It may be true that there is a mac emulator COMING out for the amiga, and that >it is faster than an SE on the Atari ST. My question was why the IBM emulator >on the ST is so much faster than on the Amiga. Isn't the Amiga a more powerful >machine? Hmm, maybe it is possible to emulate a mac with an AMIGA. But unless you rewrite a big part of the mac kernel, you won't be faster. (Except for a few percent like the ST because of the slightly faster CPU). And even then only graphics will get faster because of the AMIGA blitter. The IBM emulator has its own problems. Because of the computing-intensive nature of emulating another CPU, the major point is the speed of the host CPU. You cannot make much use of a drawing processor or DMA channel to emulate foreign instructions. As the ST is for about 10 percent faster with its CPU, it would be 10 percent faster when using the same emulator code. Nevertheless, the ST MS-DOS-emulator has some better code running up to 50 percent faster under average conditions. The Amiga MS-DOS-emulator I think is faster in text output but (sigh!) has NO graphics emulation code. Michael van Elst E-mail: UUCP: ...uunet!unido!fauern!faui44!mlelstv