[Coco] gcc-coco revisited

[Roger Taylor]

I don't understand why M.E.S.S. needs to keep up with all machines 
emulated, when only one emulation window can be active at a time.    Now, 
it would be great to be able to bring up 2 CoCo's at once in their own 
window and play around with OS-9 sending files back and forth through some 
sort of virtual communication device, such as /t2 and a modem.  This would 
allow development of terminal-type programs, etc.  Anyway... just a silly idea.




At 02:35 PM 11/13/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:57:30PM -0600, Roger Taylor wrote:
> > At 11:19 PM 11/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
> > >In a message dated 11/3/03 10:24:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > >dbree at duo-county.com writes:
> > >
> > >> Yes, that's true.  I don't know how fast some of these systems are.  My
> > >>  trouble is that I am in Linux all the time.  I rarely go into Winders,
> > >>  where I have the Vavasour emulator.  My P-166 just can't handle mess
> > >>  under Xwindows.  It's way slower than a Coco.
> >
> > It makes you wonder if they are using a BASIC compiler to write
> > M.E.S.S.  ;)   Ok, that's not fair, but it's true that the speed 
> difference
> > in Vavasour's emulator and the CoCo modes in M.E.S.S. are much
> > different.  I only hope the M.E.S.S. team doesn't keep slowing things down.
>
>I sort of suspect that the reason that MESS is so much slower than
>Vavasour's is that MESS has to try to deal with _ALL_ machines whereas
>Vavasour's can concentrate, so to speak, on one single machine.
>
>
>
>--
>Coco mailing list
>Coco at maltedmedia.com
>http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco