Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
5688 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
Home
Features
News
Forums
Classifieds
Links
Downloads
Extras
OS4 Zone
IRC Network
AmigaWorld Radio
Newsfeed
Top Members
Amiga Dealers
Information
About Us
FAQs
Advertise
Polls
Terms of Service
Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
61 crawler(s) on-line.
 15 guest(s) on-line.
 1 member(s) on-line.


 billt

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 billt:  1 min ago
 kolla:  9 mins ago
 DiscreetFX:  35 mins ago
 Kronos:  1 hr 3 mins ago
 ggw:  1 hr 25 mins ago
 invent:  1 hr 39 mins ago
 Raffaele:  2 hrs 44 mins ago
 simplex:  2 hrs 48 mins ago
 SinanG:  3 hrs 34 mins ago
 Kremlar:  3 hrs 44 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Amiga OS4 Hardware
      /  OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 Next Page )
PosterThread
KimmoK 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 15-Feb-2009 15:56:26
#141 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2003
Posts: 5144
From: Ylikiiminki, Finland

Does anyone have 68k version of any quake to test it on MOS2 vs AOS4?

Also, if one runs AOS4 version of Quake on AOS4 and on MOS2+AOS4emu, what's the speed difference then?

_________________
- KimmoK
// For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA
//
// Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Antique 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 15-Feb-2009 16:28:56
#142 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 8-Jun-2005
Posts: 887
From: Norway

@kiero

PS. learn how to write 'with'. it's really not that hard.

Things looking easy for some might not be easy for others. NutsAboutAmiga has reading/writing problems. Such comments you can keep inside your head. Thank you.

_________________
I'm an antique. Don't light my fuse

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Zylesea 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 15-Feb-2009 17:09:08
#143 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 16-Mar-2004
Posts: 2159
From: Ostwestfalen, FRG

@Antique

Plus, he quite advanced his orthography during the last years (me remembering the old ann.lu days). And flipping single letters is not so much of an issue.

_________________
My programs: www.via-altera.de
MorphOS user since V0.4 (2001)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
olegil 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 15-Feb-2009 18:19:51
#144 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 22-Aug-2003
Posts: 5887
From: Work

@Zylesea

At least he's not as bad as this:

Quote:

The paomnnehel pweor of the hmuan mnid

Aoccdrnig to rseearch, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.


Turns out I can read that at about 90% of normal speed, but I know people with dyslexia who can't read it at all... NutsAboutAmiga uses spelling control which sometimes replaces a word with the wrong correctly spelled word. Like whit instead of whit.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Fab 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 16-Feb-2009 15:34:59
#145 ]
Super Member
Joined: 17-Mar-2004
Posts: 1178
From: Unknown

Since noone bothered, here's what i could test with the help of someone owning both systems..

This a small benchmark comparing OS4.1 and MorphOS in real world applications. Of course, all remarks above in this thread apply, but it still means something to an enduser who doesn't care if an app is more optimized for an OS or another.

Machine: PegasosII G4@1GHz, 512MB RAM, Radeon 9250 (64bits version).

OS setup and state:
- OS4.1, vanilla setup, idle (about 2-3% cpu usage), composition enabled, INTERRUPT=YES in Radeon monitor.
- MorphOS2.2, vanilla setup, idle (about 2-3% cpu usage), 3d layers enabled.

Tests scenarii:
1. MPlayer tested with: http://fabportnawak.free.fr/benchmark.avi (DDE3 Quake video, xvid, 1024x576)
2. Quake3/OpenArena, tested on demo four, with "normal" presets.
3. MAME/XMAME tested with "Street Fighter Alpha 2".
4. Snes9x/WarpSnes tested with "Super Mario 4".
5. GLQuake tested on demo1
6. Quake2 tested on demo1.dm2
7. DVPlayer tested with the above video (using OS4emu on MorphOS)


1. MPlayer
----------

Conditions:
MorphOS uses "MPlayer r28114 (15.12.2008)" available at: http://aminet.net/gfx/show/MPlayer-1.0-20081215.lha
OS4.1 uses "MPlayer Leitmotiv" available at: http://www.amigasoft.net/downloads/MPlayer.lha.lzh

Input file:
http://fabportnawak.free.fr/benchmark.avi stored in RAM: (XVID, 1024x576, 100s)

Command line:
stack 1000000 (only needed for OS4 test)
MPlayer -quiet -nosound -benchmark ram:benchmark.avi

Results:
OS4.1:
BENCHMARKs: VC: 126.960s VO: 0.124s A: 0.000s Sys: 9.558s = 136.641s
BENCHMARK%: VC: 92.9147% VO: 0.0904% A: 0.0000% Sys: 6.9949% = 100.0000%

Needs 136s to play this 100s clip (with sound enabled, it's completely unsynchronized).

MorphOS:
BENCHMARKs: VC: 78.309s VO: 0.100s A: 0.000s Sys: 1.895s = 80.304s
BENCHMARK%: VC: 97.5156% VO: 0.1250% A: 0.0000% Sys: 2.3594% = 100.0000%

80s needed to play this 100s clip.

Conclusion:
MorphOS MPlayer is 70% faster than OS4 MPlayer on this file. That said, MPlayer for OS4 should really be updated to make a more fair comparison.

2. Quake 3
----------

Conditions:
- MorphOS uses this version of Quake3: http://bigfoot.morphos-team.net/files/morphosquake3r2.lha
- OS4.1 uses this version of Quake3: http://www.os4depot.net/share/game/fps/quake3.lha
- OS4.1 uses this version of OpenArena: http://capehill.kapsi.fi/quake3/openarena.lha
- "Normal" preset selected (640x480, ...)
- vsync off in both (easily checkable with the constant tearing in menus).
- OpenArena has been tested on OS4 because it's said to be a bit faster than original Quake3.

Testing method:
in console, type:
timedemo 1
demo four

Results:
OS4.1:
Quake3: 24.7fps
OpenArena: 26.1fps

MorphOS:
Quake3: 49.3fps
OpenArena: untested, but should give similar results.

Conclusion:
MorphOS Quake3 is 99% faster than OS4 Quake3 and 89% faster than OS4 OpenArena.

3. MAME
-------

Conditions:
- MorphOS uses 0.104 and 0.120 versions available at: http://fabportnawak.free.fr/mame/
- OS4.1 uses XMAME.SDL 0.97 available at: http://os4depot.net/share/emulation/gamesystem/xmame.lha
- Both tested in fullscreen mode.

Tested ROM:
sfa2 (Street Fighter Alpha 2)

Testing Method:
Display FPS counter (F11).
Measure first value after inserting credits ('5').
Measure second value after pressing start ('1') (i.e when choosing the character).

Command line:
OS4.1:
stack 1000000
xmame.SDL -nothrottle -effect 0 -nodoublebuf sfa2
MorphOS: mame -nowindow -nothrottle -effect 0 sfa2

Results:
OS4.1:
First value: 88fps
Second value: 68fps

MorphOS:
0.104
First value: 100fps
Second value: 75fps
0.120
First value: 95fps
Second value: 74fps

[EDIT]
0.97 MorphOS version was actually testable too.. Here are the (not very different) results:
First value: 103fps
Second value: 78fps

[EDIT2]
Also, on a game like 1943, the blitting optimisations are much more visible.
After inserting credits:
OS4.1: 200fps
MorphOS: 250fps


Conclusion:
If we compared the closest MAME versions (0.104 to 0.97), MorphOS MAME is between 10 and 13% faster.

To be noted that the most recent a MAME version is, the slowest it is, so OS4.1 0.97 version had an advantage there. Also, on a game like SFA2, the optimisations in blitting are less important, since the most time is spent in CPU emulation, which is basicly the very same code in both versions.

[EDIT]
When comparing the same version, using 1943, MorphOS MAME is actually 25% faster.

4. Snes9x
---------

Conditions:
- MorphOS uses snes9x 1.43 available at: http://fabportnawak.free.fr/snes/snes9x-1.43.lha
- OS4.1 uses warpsnes 1.43 available at: http://os4depot.net/share/emulation/gamesystem/warpsnes.lha

Tested ROM:
super mario world 4.

Testing Method:
Since FPS isn't exactly precise, CPU usage is measured during intro screen (when mario runs).

Command line:
OS4.1: Default options in WarpSnes, and speedhacks disabled (increased stack in warpsnes icon, else it just crashes).
MorphOS: snes9x -ov -nospeedhacks (overlay output)
snes9x -nospeedhacks (no overlay output)

Results:
OS4.1: 65% cpu usage
MorphOS: 50% cpu usage with overlay, 56% cpu usage without overlay

Conclusion:
MorphOS Snes9x is 30% faster (1/(50/65) - 1) when using overlay output and 16% faster otherwise.

5. GLQuake
----------

Conditions:
- MorphOS uses this version of GLQuake: http://www.binaryriot.com/kiero/GLQuake.lha
- OS4.1 uses this version of GLQuake: http://os4depot.net/share/game/fps/glquake.lha
- Successively tested in 640x480 and 1024x768
- vsync off in both

Testing method:
in console, type:
timedemo demo1

Results:
OS4.1:
640x480: 92fps
1024x768: 46.3fps

MorphOS:
640x480: 180fps
1024x768: 121.9fps

Conclusion:
MorphOS Quake3 is 95% faster than OS4 in 640x480 and 126% faster in 1024x768

6. Quake2
----------

Conditions:
- MorphOS uses a version of quake2 i can't locate anymore
- OS4.1 uses this version of Quake2: http://capehill.kapsi.fi/quake2/Quake2.lha
- Successively tested in 640x480 and 1024x768
- vsync off in both

Testing method:
in console, type:
timedemo 1

For each resolution (640x480, 1024x768)
in console, type:
demomap demo1.dm2

then:
map q2dm1
timerefresh

Results:
OS4.1:
demo1
640x480: 31.2fps
1024x768: 15.3fps
q2dm1 timerefresh
640x480: 63.5fps
1024x768: 21.3fps

MorphOS:
demo1
640x480: 49.5fps
1024x768: 49.2fps
q2dm1 timerefresh
640x480: 290fps
1024x768: 168fps

Conclusion:
MorphOS Quake2 is 62% faster than OS4 in 640x480 and 221% faster in 1024x768 in timedemo mode.
MorphOS Quake2 is 363% faster than OS4 in 640x480 and 688% faster in 1024x768 in timerefresh mode.

7. DVPlayer
----------

[EDITED]
The first test was actually made from disk and not from ram like stated. The test now plays from disk and from ram.

Conditions:
Both MorphOS and OS4.1 use latest DVPlayer demo version (0.65) with latest avcodec.library (51.52).
MorphOS uses latest OS4Emu version to be able to run DVPlayer.
There's no virtual memory partition set on OS4.1.

Input file:
http://fabportnawak.free.fr/benchmark.avi played from disk temp: (SFS) and then from RAM: (XVID, 1024x576, 100s)

Command line:
DVPlayer noaudio noskip temp:benchmark.avi
DVPlayer noaudio noskip ram:benchmark.avi

Results:
OS4.1:
From disk;
Needs 138s to play this 100s clip.
From RAM:
Needs 159s to play this 100s clip.

MorphOS:
From disk:
Needs 125s to play this 100s clip.
From ram:
Needs 125s to play this 100s clip.

Conclusion:
DVPlayer runs 10% faster on MorphOS (emulated) than on OS4.1 when playing from disk, and 27% faster from RAM.
Like cobra said, some corrections might fix that difference when played from disk. However, the bigger difference when played from RAM: is rather surprising.


And to finish, two ugly graphs gathering all results:



Last edited by Fab on 17-Feb-2009 at 03:18 PM.
Last edited by Fab on 17-Feb-2009 at 02:28 PM.
Last edited by Fab on 17-Feb-2009 at 02:08 PM.
Last edited by Fab on 16-Feb-2009 at 04:15 PM.
Last edited by Fab on 16-Feb-2009 at 04:11 PM.
Last edited by Fab on 16-Feb-2009 at 04:07 PM.
Last edited by Fab on 16-Feb-2009 at 03:43 PM.
Last edited by Fab on 16-Feb-2009 at 03:38 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kas1e 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 16-Feb-2009 15:49:29
#146 ]
Amiga Developer Team
Joined: 11-Jan-2004
Posts: 3380
From: Russia

@Fab

IT's what i said "normal test for end users". For end usersdDoes not matter how optimazed progs, does not matter which keys and options must be uses for full speed. For end user matter only this: you run programm, it works. how fast it works ? And this test it what is all about. Was interesting to read and check the graph.

_________________
Join us to improve dopus5!
zerohero's mirror of os4/os3 crosscompiler suites

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
number6 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 16-Feb-2009 16:07:40
#147 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 25-Mar-2005
Posts: 10739
From: In the village

@Fab

Nice post. Appreciate the effort as always.

Would the most recent version of MPlayer for OS4.x (LeitMotiv) show any appreciable difference in performance?

Edit: bah. spelling.

#6

Last edited by number6 on 16-Feb-2009 at 04:21 PM.

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Fab 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 16-Feb-2009 16:12:25
#148 ]
Super Member
Joined: 17-Mar-2004
Posts: 1178
From: Unknown

@number6

Some codecs were quite improved since 2007. But the MorphOS port also has quite optimised blitter than can easily make a 15-20% difference compared to an unoptimized one.

But actually, the version i tested was "Leitmotiv" already (unlike what i first wrote).

Last edited by Fab on 16-Feb-2009 at 04:16 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
number6 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 16-Feb-2009 16:20:21
#149 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 25-Mar-2005
Posts: 10739
From: In the village

@Fab

Quote:
Very likely. Some codecs were quite improved. But the MorphOS port also has quite optimised blitter than can easily make a 15-20% difference compared to an unoptimized one.


ok.

I just want to mention that because of the "date" order shown on the Mplayer page, other people wishing to compare -might- get confused on which is current, since what is printed contrasts with version full.

Most recent is:

MPlayer AmigaOS4 52.1 - Leitmotiv version (11/05/2007)

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
number6 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 16-Feb-2009 16:29:29
#150 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 25-Mar-2005
Posts: 10739
From: In the village

@Fab

Quote:
But actually, the version i tested was "Leitmotiv" already (unlike what i first wrote).


Understood. Thanks for editing your post. btw, I think MPlayer represents an excellent "real world" test.

Just re-posting this bit from an old post of mine in case anyone wants to look at MPlayer verbose output in shell with OS4.x:

meaning of the debug output. From the file I referenced in my earlier post:
@Fab: not referring to your test file, just from an earlier test
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A: 85.4 V: 85.4 A-V: 0.003 ct: 0.019 855/855 3% 4% 4.3% 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A: audio position in seconds
V: video position in seconds
A-V: audio-video difference in seconds (delay)
ct: total A-V sync correction done
frames played (counting from last seek)
frames decoded (counting from last seek)
video codec cpu usage in percent (for slices and DR this includes video_out)
video_out cpu usage
audio codec cpu usage in percent
frames needed to drop to maintain A-V sync
current level of image postprocessing (when using -autoq)
current cache size used (around 50% is normal)

#6

Last edited by number6 on 16-Feb-2009 at 04:31 PM.

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
balis 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 16-Feb-2009 16:51:07
#151 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 22-Apr-2005
Posts: 138
From: Lille

@Fab

Thanks for your benchmarks and efforts!

It is very much appreciated since they are the very first ones in this thread.

That means clearly that MorphOS is more optimized than OS 4.1 AT THIS MOMENT.
I think it is not a big surprise for all of us who know the 2 OSes.

There is still a lot of potential improvement regarding speed on the OS 4.1 applications side.







Last edited by balis on 16-Feb-2009 at 04:52 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
AP 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 16-Feb-2009 17:00:39
#152 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 31-Jul-2003
Posts: 423
From: Vienna/Austria

@balis: >That means clearly that MorphOS is more optimized than OS 4.1 AT THIS MOMENT.

No, that only means that the MOS-versions of the tested applications are more optimized/faster than the AOS4-versions of this applications.

_________________

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
bennymee 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 16-Feb-2009 17:18:02
#153 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 19-Aug-2003
Posts: 550
From: Netherlands

@balis

Quote:

balis wrote:
@Fab

Thanks for your benchmarks and efforts!

It is very much appreciated since they are the very first ones in this thread.

That means clearly that MorphOS is more optimized than OS 4.1 AT THIS MOMENT.
I think it is not a big surprise for all of us who know the 2 OSes.

There is still a lot of potential improvement regarding speed on the OS 4.1 applications side.





Well it is a surprise for me, because it is hard to compare both OS'es if they don't run on the same hardware (CyberstormPPC and BlizzardPPC support both OS'es, but MorphOS could have a big advantage as they (maybe) know a lot more of the internals of these hardware peripherals).
But now they run on the same hardware, you can't blame the 'bad' Articia chip of the A1 anymore. OS4 is slower then MorphOS on the same hardware if you look at these benchmarks.






Last edited by bennymee on 16-Feb-2009 at 05:19 PM.
Last edited by bennymee on 16-Feb-2009 at 05:18 PM.
Last edited by bennymee on 16-Feb-2009 at 05:18 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
wegster 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 16-Feb-2009 17:19:53
#154 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Nov-2004
Posts: 8554
From: RTP, NC USA

@olegil

Quote:
Like whit instead of whit.


Umm...

I kinda like 'where' for 'very,' myself. But then again, my second language I can barely ask 'where is the bathroom?' so..

_________________
Are we not done with the same silly arguments and flames yet??!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
wegster 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 16-Feb-2009 17:27:35
#155 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Nov-2004
Posts: 8554
From: RTP, NC USA

@Fab

Thanks for the benchmark results. We did an A1/Peg/OS4/MOS set of benchmarks on filesystems, ram etc..ram tests shouldn't be any different, anyone up for filesystem testing on Peg 2 under MOS vs OS4? (just throwing it out there as a thought)

_________________
Are we not done with the same silly arguments and flames yet??!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Chain-Q 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 16-Feb-2009 17:28:32
#156 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 31-Jan-2005
Posts: 818
From: Budapest, Hungary

Well done tests. I would also like to see some direct test of OS some components, like drivers of the VIA IDE, memory subsystems, also similar test to what P96Speed did on classics, and whatever else might come into mind. On the same hardware, of course. Also a compare with OS4 running on A1 hardware vs. the same software environment running on a Pegasos II. It would be interresting to see such results.

_________________
MorphOS, classic Amiga, demoscene, and stuff
"When a bridge is not enough, build a Viaduct!"
"Strip the Amiga community of speculation and we can fit every forum on a 720k floppy" (by resle)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
abalaban 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 16-Feb-2009 17:37:50
#157 ]
Super Member
Joined: 1-Oct-2004
Posts: 1105
From: France

@guruman

This my last post about the subject, it seems to be hard for you all to understand what I mean, so I'll try to summarize here for a last time :
1) I am *not* (should I cry ? NOT) against doing comparisons between both OSes
2) what I was saying (and I guess that I should have better stay silent, as it's like talking to walls) is that by using different softs under both OSes you won't obtain *OS* ( please the emphasize, by the use of the stars) benchmarks but at best some *3rd party soft* benchmarks which will enable you to write things like "soft X under MOS/AOS4 is more user-friendly/robust/quick/whatever_you_tested than soft Y under MOS/AOS4" you won't be able to deduct "MOS/AOS4 is more user-friendly/robust/quick/whatever_you_tested than MOS/AOS4" ever
3) I am *not* (NOT) denying interest of such *tests* from the user POV

PS: I can even tell you some of the areas where MOS would gain advantage, I also guess that Pegasos users would certainly find AmigaOS 4.1 hard to use because they are MOS users since years now and as such they have adopted one way of doing things some they won't find in AOS4 so they will have the impression of loosing things (some won't just be impressions, for example Console is less advanced in public AOS4, also Ambient has some interesting features)

EDIT: oops using < without using HTML entity did hide end of my post...
EDIT2: the preview mode does not have same problem than the final layout, making hard to detect that I also used > (and also defeating the whole purpose of a "preview" mode)

Last edited by abalaban on 16-Feb-2009 at 05:57 PM.
Last edited by abalaban on 16-Feb-2009 at 05:56 PM.
Last edited by abalaban on 16-Feb-2009 at 05:55 PM.

_________________
AOS 4.1 : I dream it, Hyperion did it !
Now dreaming AOS 4.2...
Thank you to all devs involved for this great job !

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
abalaban 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 16-Feb-2009 17:47:27
#158 ]
Super Member
Joined: 1-Oct-2004
Posts: 1105
From: France

@Leo

Quote:

Leo wrote:
Well... You can live with no shutdown from the OS. But for me it's like you couldn't turn you car's motor off with the key, and needed to press some special button in the motor itself. This is stupid... But you could live without it, of course...


Your analogy is really wrong because the key is what you used to turn on your car, that's logic you use it to turn it off. That's *exactly* the same with your computer : you use the front switch to power it on, that's logic to use it to power it down. I really don't see what is stupid here...
The soft shutdown has an utility when, like under Win or Linux, you can't safely switch off the power when you want, and you should wait the software to finish flushing all its remaining thing to disk before turning it off...

_________________
AOS 4.1 : I dream it, Hyperion did it !
Now dreaming AOS 4.2...
Thank you to all devs involved for this great job !

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
KimmoK 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 16-Feb-2009 17:56:15
#159 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2003
Posts: 5144
From: Ylikiiminki, Finland

Because AOS4.1 runs on more platforms without Altivec I expect AOS4.1 SW to stay behind MOS SW in speed.

MOS application developers have more motivation in Altivec optimizations.

Hopefully AOS4.1 port to Peg2&G4 bring more motivation.

_________________
- KimmoK
// For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA
//
// Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
AP 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 16-Feb-2009 17:57:42
#160 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 31-Jul-2003
Posts: 423
From: Vienna/Austria

@bennymee: >OS4 is slower then MorphOS on the same hardware if you look at these >benchmarks.

Not really, only the tested applications are slower.

If you really want to compare two OSes, look at the responsiveness, how fast is the filesystem or how is the speed of the GUI.

_________________

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle