From: adhir@cygnus.umd.edu (Alok Dhir)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: ACE'92 show: Report
Date: 7 Apr 92 01:48:20 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: /etc/organization

In article <1992Apr6.220407.21238@cis.ohio-state.edu> tbrown@trout.cis.ohio-state.edu (Ted Brown) writes:
>In article <92095.191851EENG6801@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> Carlos Varela <EENG6801@RyeVm.Ryerson.Ca> writes:
>>Today I attended the ATARI CANADIAN EXPOSITION'92.
>>The two products that impressed me the most were GEMulator & MultiTOS.
>>
>
>>GEMulator:
>>
>>  This was a very nice program running under windows. It was running
>>on a 486/33MHz. I saw many packages running on it without problems.
>>I tested German To English v1.9 and it run with the same speed as on my
>>1040ST. The screen was slow. It was redrawn 5 times a second. That's
>>because the memory has to be copied from RAM to the VGA card. Disk
>>access was also slow. The program comes with a card that lets you
>>install ROMs (There is a possible making it work as MAC as well??, I
>>didn't get very clear on this.) It handled my twist 800Kb disk
>>without problems. Darek said that this was just a preliminary version
>>and that the final version should be as fast as a MEGA STE (16MHz).
>>With 486/50MHz and 486/66MHz and 586 coming out soon, higher speeds
>>will be possible. It supports 4096 colors of the STE + STE resolutions.
>>
>
>Why would I want to pay more than the cost of at TT to run programs just
>as fast as a ST?

Because you not only get REAL applications (Windows, OS/2, DOS) but you get to keep compatibility with the ST(e) series of computers (god knows why).

>I surely hope that it runs better than his Atari 8-bit
>emulator "runs".

Well, he's shown it already, and it DOES run.  Like it or not.

>problems will be solved by the new graphic excellorators comming out from
>DELL and Compaq y'know the ones which will allow them to actually run
>NeXTPC in color and Windows at a speed faster than a slow crawl. (but the board
>has to be designed to run them, you just can't add one on the bus, the bus *is*
>the problem  If the thing can't run Windows fast, it can't emulate a ST fast. 
>That pretty much leaves out *any* Intel box including the 50 Mhz 486.
>
Unfortunately, you are right, it is difficult to get high speed video out
of a 8 or 12 mhz bus, but the apparently the screen update is not bad at
all.  Very usable according to reports.

>Hey, it might be a dream to have NeXTStep running on a Falcon, but I still 
>think Gemulator is even more-so.

This is a rather ignorant statement, considering that Gemulator is basically
completed, but NeXTStep for the Falcon is some idiot's fantasy.
>
>If I want an ST/TT I will buy one.  If I want an IBM (why?) I will buy one.
>The only emulator that I have seen that even worked halfway well is Spectre!
>Dave Small is at least a competent hardware and software man.  Darek is just
>another Microsoft-lacky.

Your personal opinion of Darek says just about nothing about the fact that
the Gemulator is a fact.  The only problem I can foresee is him finding
enough people to back him in such a seemingly useless project.  Why would
a 486 owner want to emulate an ST?  There is not one single application on
the ST which I EVER use...except for those which I run within Spectre.  Which
by the way, runs (or is very close to running) under Gemulator.

Sorry, but the ST has dropped the ball.  Forget it.