@Severin

While I agree with the basic jist of what you're saying, I must ask....

Windows slow by what measure?

Hardware wise, it destroys anything amiga/amiga-oid, both in performance and support (which again translates to performance). Boot speed? Sadly these days a typical Windows system will boot much quicker than amiga os. Given that amiga-oid OSes are more on par with Win9x than anything modern, this is a bit disappointing.
System operating speed/response? Instant is instant regardless of the OS. By no measure can I say Windows is slow compared to any OS (nor is it exceptionally fast(besides situations where hardware grunt is important, again not just due to the hardware speed)). The exceptions here are no different to any other OS.... a badly tuned and/or maintained system is a badly tuned and/or system. It'll always behave badly.

I like amiga-oid systems as much as anyone, but this need some have to put down other options based on how well a user maintains/tunes their own system is as weird as this thread
I can't help but think a lot of amiga fans compare their own amiga system, that they know well and have hand tuned to systems theyre not nearly as familiar with, that they've let self maintain after using a default install...... apples/oranges.

Last edited by fishy_fis on 24-Feb-2015 at 02:21 PM.

@kolla

Quote:

kolla wrote: @agami Main reason for memory protection is not because programs crash, but because it helps security. Once you have AmigaOS in your top 5 list, you have a huge problem with security, since any software on an Amiga can read any memory of any other software running on the machine - meaning any silly javascript or whatnot can scan through all the memory on the box and ship off anything of interest to whoever.

Linux has a function like that. You can build it into the kernel and it is called a Feature.

_________________
Tinkering with computers.

@agami

Quote:

Thank you. At least one person gets it.

I was actually arguing against you, but... you're welcome anyway :)

@fishy_fis

Quote:

Sadly these days a typical Windows system will boot much quicker than amiga os. Given that amiga-oid OSes are more on par with Win9x than anything modern, this is a bit disappointing.

Windows is lot slower, Windows computer now come with SSD and Hybrid disks, while Amiga system often comes with spinning disks, (however TRIM might good thing to support.)

Another thing that helps windows a tiny bit is EFI/UEFI, the older BIOS was a lot slower, counting RAM, slower hardware testing, we have UBOOT that can be compared with an old BIOS, nothing as fast or advanced as UEFI.

The AmigaOS4.1 boot process is not slow, but it could be easier (It is easier to boot Linux), and maybe faster, if it only it loaded the kernel module AmigaOS4.1 needed, instead of all. But overall I don't think it make a lot of difference in total boot speed, there is not a lot more you can do, to speed up boot process.

If there is speed problem, it will be hard drive device's not in the boot process.

Maybe some type of hibernation feature, that is all.

In the end Windows7/8 is slower to boot on a spinning disk then AmigaOS is on a spinning disk, simply because AmigaOS has less data to load.

Quote:

System operating speed/response?

That’s mostly down to the CPU's of today, windows is big heavy, Windows7 will not run smooth on Dual core 1.8Ghz, and you need at least 4Gb of ram as minimum.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 24-Feb-2015 at 03:54 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 24-Feb-2015 at 03:52 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 24-Feb-2015 at 03:50 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 24-Feb-2015 at 03:39 PM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

Well, bootspeed being 10 secs faster or slower doesnt matter. Never understood the big deal regarding that, since its what you can do AFTER the OS loads that matters.

@NutsAboutAmiga

Sorry guy, but youre wrong on pretty much every count there.
Windows7 works nicely on a 1ghz p3 with 1gig ram. Ironically your responses only support my points....... tune a system properly and it works properly. Some of the software running might struggle, but that's a cpu resource thing. Running the same software on Windows and Amiga on similar hardware and Windows will win out most of the time.
The claim, ergo my response, was about Windows being slower than amiga os. Doesn't matter if a system is using uboot, bios, uefi, or whatever. The suggestion that Windows is slow is just plain wrong.
Also, you do realise you can tune a bios right? By default most settings are usually set to auto, which slows things down. Big speed-ups can be found by simply selecting the option you want, rather than auto. You can also select quick boot with most bioses, along with disabling the ram count and so on and so forth. Things like this are what Im talking about when I say a lot of amiga people tend to compare a hand tuned amiga-oid system that they know inside out to an "out of the box" untuned Windows system.
Using an older style bios my win7 desktop boots from cold start to fully loaded desktop in about 15 seconds. My uefi based i5 laptop takes about 12 (but that's using win8.1, so its quicker to load, ergo pretty much the same amount of time used prior to loading the os).

Also, the ssd vs. harddrive thing isn't really an influence. Like for like and there's very few situations where amiga-oid systems are faster.

Anyway, it's not about which is best, or which I prefer (amiga-oid oses by the way)..... it just gets tiring hearing the same garbage recycled again and again and again, by people who only ever learned one side of the coin properly.
Im a big amiga fan/user. Have been since '86, but I just cant get into the whole delusional thing just because I enjoy amiga-oid systems more.

Last edited by fishy_fis on 24-Feb-2015 at 05:26 PM.
Last edited by fishy_fis on 24-Feb-2015 at 05:20 PM.

@phoenixkonsole

Quote:

Ubuntu is debian based but added a lot own things which are somehow... not so stable.

Yep, Ubuntu starts out as a snapshot of Debian Unstable with changes and additions, which is then stabilized and tested. I've been using Linux Mint, based on Ubuntu LTS with further changes and additions, but I've found it to be quite stable, despite being twice removed from the parent project.

Stability is relative. Back in 2002 I used Debian Unstable, and that was rough on occasion. I had a few all-dayers, trying to get it back up running again. They was never easy problems either, usually involving the kernel, libc, or the X-server.

Then, of course, back in 1985 there was Workbench 1.0 (not yet called AmigaOS), which required a reboot at least once an hour. This wasn't just rouge application software either; Workbench used to bring itself down now and then, sometimes right after rebooting, which was always disappointing.

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

@agami

Quote:

Hell, my OS X 10.10.1 machine crashed just yesterday.

Yes, I've had OS X crash once in a while too. More often than Linux, but a lot less than Windows.

Quote:

Also, Hyperion are incapable of thinking; Their manager is a lawyer.

Last edited by bison on 24-Feb-2015 at 06:20 PM.

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

@KingKong

Quote:

Docker is also a good idea and an example for software,

Yes, Docker is a good idea, or at least software containers and transaction-based updates in general are. Being able to "uninstall" software with "rm -rf foo" without doing damage to the rest of the system is nice.

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

@NutsAboutAmiga

You need professional help, that or you are on some kind of Amiga high. OS4 is a dog and will always be a dog - I couldn't stand using it more than a few mins both times I owned it (uA1 + Sam 440). Its been designed by morons. If you were comparing Windows 3.1 with Workbench 3.1 then we would have some sense of reality.

_________________
Amiga A1200, 3.1 ROMs, Blizzard 1230 MKIV 64MB & FPU, 4GB DoM SSD, Workbench 3.1

@KingKong

Quote:

KingKong wrote: A lot verschwurbeltes Zeug.

To quote Reinhard Pfaffenberg: Achtung Gehirnbrand droht!

_________________
My programs: via.bckrs.de
MorphOS user since V0.4 (2001)

@KingKong

Not to be a pessimist, but the Amiga will never break from the niche/hobby market because the platform as well as the community is too fragmented to support such an endeavour!

Last edited by AmigaMac on 25-Feb-2015 at 02:24 AM.

_________________

@fishy_fis

I agree.

Once upon a time MS Windows performance was sporadically sluggish, and over time it would get even more sluggish. You would notice this after doing a clean install of the exact same version of Windows on the exact same hardware.

And then came Vista. I'm not sure what they tested that on at MS but in the wild Vista was an absolute dog. Maybe it had something to do with the terrible performance of intel's Pentium 4.

Windows 7 changed all that. It is the most responsive Windows ever, especially when you run it on a SSD. And Windows 8 and 8.1 are just as responsive. Windows is nowhere near my favourite operating environment but I have to give credit where credit is due.

Once for work I got an intel NUC with a Core i5 1.3GHz (Turbo 2.6GHz) with 512GB mSATA SSD and 16GB of DDR3 1600MHz RAM. I ran Windows Pro 8.1 as the main OS. And then I installed WMware Workstation and ran two (2) Windows Server 2012 instances to do some SCCM self service portal development, and all 3 OSs were snappy.
OMG!! Snap snapity snaptastic snap!

My OS of choice is OS X, but I must say, you can call Windows many things, but you can't call it slow. Especially when you take into account the low cost of today's hardware.

For those of you who might not know, the way that Windows performed was very much related to the CPUs available in the market. This was part of Bill Gates' strategy; If Moore's Law holds, it would be imprudent to waste resources on code optimisation when most of the optimisations would be superseded by improvements in hardware.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@Pleng

Quote:

I was actually arguing against you...

You may have thought you were arguing against me, but you actually supported my views about what people actually notice. If I disagreed with your point I would be disagreeing with myself.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

@agami

Quote:

You may have thought you were arguing against me, but you actually supported my views about what people actually notice. If I disagreed with your point I would be disagreeing with myself.

Then you put your arguments across very poorly

@thread

But seriously people. Is there nothing you see in the Amiga OS architecture that if modernised would not be better than Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X?

I reminds me of Steve Jobs' January 27th 2010 introduction of the iPad. Put aside your dislike of Jobs for a minute because this isn't about him, it's about how the iPad was positioned in that introduction.

He tells us a story about how they asked themselves if there is room for a device between a smartphone and a notebook. And if there is, what would be the characteristics of such a device. He then proceeds to list the points, it should browse the web easier, it should access media like video and photos easier, etc.

So this is not all that different for us; Is there room for a user OS that fits in the world occupied by Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux? And if so what would be the characteristics of such an OS?

There is an old adage in product development and marketing; To get people to switch from a current product to a new product, where they are not generally dissatisfied with the existing product, the new product must be ten times (10x) better.

When something is 10x better the switch occurs without much need for marketing, but since it is rare that a new product is 10x better than the incumbent, the switch is helped along by marketing.

In our OS example I don't think the new OS needs to be 10x better at all things.We should be able to find 10 things that it should do better to successfully exist in the world with the other OSs. 5 for users 5 for developers. I'll get the ball rolling:

1. It should be easier to install, upgrade, uninstall software than on MacOS X with its App store, and the uninstalled software should not leave behind any trash.

2. It should be easier to manage multiple running applications and to switch between the applications than all of the other OSs.

3. It should be easier to manage your files on the system and easier to exchange them with others on the same or other OSs.

4. It should be easier to configure wired and wireless networking and have entire visibility across all your networked and networkable devices.

5. It should be easier to connect to various peripherals and have true plug and play, i.e. True transparent driver management.

6. It should be easier for vendors to write and manage drivers for peripherals.

7. It should be easier and quicker to write and package native applications than it is on other OSs.

8. It should be easier to publish and monetise applications than it is on the other OSs.

9. It should be easier to extend the functions of the OS than it is with the other OSs.

10. It should be easier to port the OS to other ISAs than it is on Linux. This does not equal opening the source.

And whether you are thinking of Amiga OS 3.x or AmigaOS 4.x, or Morhpos or AROS, clearly there is a lot of work to be done to get any one of these to fit the above characteristics. And some of you will say, "no matter what you implement the other OS will just implement it too". But look at the list; To do all these things would require a mixture of closed source and open source mentality and methodology. Linux cannot do all 10 and if they could why aren't they already there? Windows, and Mac OS X can't do all 10 because of their proprietary nature.

Someone does all those 10 things and that OS will be at least number 5 on the list. And that's OK.

Last edited by agami on 25-Feb-2015 at 11:36 PM.

_________________
All the way, with 68k

To the dreamers in this thgread:

Are you guys serious? I only use AOS because I use an Amiga and have no choice (other than linux), not because I think it's so fantastic. Amiga hardware is fabulous retro hardware. Probably the best retro hardware, but the OS? Come on! Even WinXp is a million times better. And yes, that's sad

Quote:

agami wrote: But seriously people. Is there nothing you see in the Amiga OS architecture that if modernised would not be better than Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X?

No. AmigaOs needs to be replaced completely. My Amiga can do better that.

To all:

To me Amiga OS is already the leading operating system.
Amiga OS is a fun light weight OS.

If operating systems would be sports then Amiga OS would be an 120 pount elegant, light, fast, swift fencer - and would be the gold medal winner - in this discipline already.

Obviously here are some Somu Wrestlings fans which would like heavy muscles man with 300 pound and fat bellies.

Putting more weight on AMIGA OS - and turning it into a 300 pound fencer - does not make sense to me.

_________________
APOLLO the new 68K : www.apollo-core.com

@Thorham

Quote:

No. AmigaOs needs to be replaced completely. My Amiga can do better that.

ok, but application binary compatibility needs to be kept, right?

@fishy_fis

Quote:

Boot speed? Sadly these days a typical Windows system will boot much quicker than amiga os. Given that amiga-oid OSes are more on par with Win9x than anything modern, this is a bit disappointing.

This is true, my Windows 8.1 PC will boot from its SSD in around 10 seconds. OS4 on my A1XE took over a minute after Update 3. MorphOS on my Mini is about on-par with my Windows machine though.