Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6044 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
23 crawler(s) on-line.
 15 guest(s) on-line.
 1 member(s) on-line.


 cdimauro

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 cdimauro:  2 mins ago
 Rob:  7 mins ago
 Karlos:  21 mins ago
 zipper:  27 mins ago
 utri007:  38 mins ago
 OneTimer1:  1 hr ago
 BigD:  1 hr 10 mins ago
 matthey:  1 hr 20 mins ago
 Frank:  1 hr 21 mins ago
 FerruleMedia:  1 hr 27 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
olegil 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 18-Feb-2009 16:44:41
#241 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 22-Aug-2003
Posts: 5888
From: Work

@ferrels

They list the non-rohs versions as "in stock" on their own website. They even have a webshop.

Can you lend me USD358?

_________________
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  
wegster 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 18-Feb-2009 16:54:58
#242 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Nov-2004
Posts: 8554
From: RTP, NC USA

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:
Where did you get that idea from?
WB is not slow, maybe it slow when you don’t have working UDMA driver like on your Pegasus II, but on my AmigaONE its fast, yes there exists faster (native PowerPC) desktops like Scalos but I use Workbench anyway, I guess I like it more.

It will be nice to see how Pegasus II whit MorphOS compares whit OS4 when the UDMA driver is fixed, boot speed, and mplayer and directory listing.

Hopefully Hyperion gets there support and download service up and running again, so the updates can be made available.
The most often complaint I have seen is SHELL/CLI, because it does not have a history (scrollbar), this makes it useless when you need to compile some thing and GCC dumps 1000 or more lines of errors and warnings like it often do, KingCON is the first application I install after a clean installation of AmigaOS4.X.


1. If you're going to dispute something in a benchmarks thread, you might want to actually, you know, post a *benchmark* (WB slow vs Ambient or not). I believe someone else already did some WB related test, and WB is known as essentially being 'untouched' from 3.x, so this shouldn't be terribly surprising...

2. MUICon on MOS is far nicer than KingCON. But neither has to do with benchmarks, does it?

Keep the 'my OS, or 'I think, I like my OS because' out of this thread. Discussions on *why* something might be slower or faster, or if it's 'not significant,' but really, do NOT let this devolve into unrelated discussions, please.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NutsAboutAmiga 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 18-Feb-2009 18:25:19
#243 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Jun-2004
Posts: 12197
From: Norway

@wegster

1.1)
Can you define how slow some thing has to be to be “slow”?
I think it more correct to say slower, thats what I debated, not despiting the current results of the benchmark.

1.2)
*benchmark* is pointless because ide driver is not working,
see comment 218, by Cobra, any test that has to do whit IDE will be effected in negative way until a new driver is provided.

2)

Quote:
MUICon on MOS is far nicer than KingCON.


Thats your personal option, not relevant to the benchmark as you pointed out.
My response was to “Leo”, quote from comment 230

Quote:
I think more people complain about the WB being slow and unusable (and turn out using the CLI after all) than the one complaining about the WB not being "Amiga".


his comment starts whit 'I think' and 'WB being slow and unusable',
this is clearly his personal option, and what he says is speculative, thats way I responded even if does have nothing to do whit the benchmarks, but niter does if Acube fixes CPU modules or not.

Quote:
Keep the 'my OS, or 'I think, I like my OS because' out of this thread. Discussions on *why* something might be slower or faster, or if it's 'not significant,' but really, do NOT let this devolve into unrelated discussions, please.

I agree.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 18-Feb-2009 at 06:26 PM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
KimmoK 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 18-Feb-2009 19:12:34
#244 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2003
Posts: 5209
From: Ylikiiminki, Finland

@Zylesea

>Ambinet is open source, but depends heavily on MUI4. As long a sMUI4 is not available for OS4 it will require major changes.

Okey dokey. If AOS4 had MUI4, it would have had sputnik yesteryear. So clearly MUI4 is the bigger fish to catch. I would buy AOS4 version of MUI4 for 50, anyone else? :)

>Plus, if you use Ambient you loose exactly that what many ppl prefer in OS4, the exact look and feel of AOS3.x. mayn ppl complain about Ambient being so differnt from WB and not being enough "Amiga".

Those people could continue using Workbench or try to theme Ambient to be more like WB.

>If you now don't care about the WB look & feel, then my slightly heretic question is: why not use MorphOS directly?

Because it is more restricted in HW support. :)
(Mainly: it does not run on SAM or A1, neither does MOS2 support Classic Amigas.)

((I have MacMiniG4 (that I might change to Peg2) waiting for MOS. And SAM waiting for me to build it up.))

_________________
- 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  
itix 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 18-Feb-2009 19:57:59
#245 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 22-Dec-2004
Posts: 3398
From: Freedom world

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

*benchmark* is pointless because ide driver is not working,
see comment 218, by Cobra, any test that has to do whit IDE will be effected in negative way until a new driver is provided.


It is not pointless because it is what OS4 delivers for Pegasos users now.

There were once SDL benchmarks where in a specific task PowerSDL was slower than OS4's SDL. I fixed problem and PowerSDL was again faster but until then my SDL was losing on Peg2/G4 to OS4 SDL on Amiga 1.

Having said that Fab probably should stop making benchmarks...

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
maurensen 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 18-Feb-2009 20:57:50
#246 ]
Member
Joined: 13-Feb-2009
Posts: 18
From: Padova, Italy

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:
MUICon on MOS is far nicer than KingCON.
Thats your personal option, not relevant to the benchmark as you pointed out.
My response was to “Leo”, quote from comment 230


Ok, this is not bench-related but you shouldn't deny fact.
Maybe you have never seen MUICON or Ambient in action but it's a FACT that they are superior (in speed & functionality) to OS4 counterparts. With Ambient you don't need to use Dopus at all and MUICon is far more configurable than KCON. Excuse me again but that are not opinions, just plain facts.
Just my 2 cents
Ciao

_________________
Excuse me in advance for my very poor english.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
PowerBook G4 15" 1,67ghz running OSX (for now), MorphOS (when it's done!).

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Leo 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 18-Feb-2009 21:07:32
#247 ]
Super Member
Joined: 21-Aug-2003
Posts: 1596
From: Unknown

Quote:

Where did you get that idea from?
WB is not slow, maybe it slow when you don’t have working UDMA driver like on your Pegasus II, but on my AmigaONE its fast, yes there exists faster (native PowerPC) desktops like Scalos but I use Workbench anyway, I guess I like it more.


From here:
Quote:

On OS4 Workbench, displaying the 4000 files in list mode took almost 30 seconds and needed 200MB RAM (and there's a refresh bug with so many files when selecting files, btw).
On MorphOS, listing the same directory took about 2 seconds and needed 3MB RAM.

_________________
http://www.warpdesign.fr/

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
guruman 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 18-Feb-2009 23:14:22
#248 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 20-Jun-2007
Posts: 133
From: Padova, Italy

@Fab

I'd like to see a last test of the Quake series: Hyperion's Quake II, possibly the 68k version in software rendering mode, and the WarpUp with 3d acceleration. The first one is particularly interesting because it would be a nice test of JIT engines in real world conditions...

Kind regards,
Andrea

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Leo 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 19-Feb-2009 2:26:38
#249 ]
Super Member
Joined: 21-Aug-2003
Posts: 1596
From: Unknown

Quote:

*benchmark* is pointless because ide driver is not working,

As said above, benchmarks are not about why (be it a bug, a bad implementation, or god,...), but are about speed of the OS in its current state, when compared with MorphOS in its current state.

*Fact* is that OS4 seems to be slower right now. Seems like it is because of a bug found in ide device, but it is slower right now. Period.

Now when this bug will be fixed, if OS4 is on par or even faster than MorphOS in most benchmarks, I'll be happy to admit it.

And btw, if I was evil, I would say this "automatically fall back to PIO mode under certain conditions" was there for AOne/Articia where you had to fallback to PIO instead of DMA in order to avoid data corruption in case of big/fast transfers and was accidently left out in this peg2ide.device...

_________________
http://www.warpdesign.fr/

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
COBRA 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 19-Feb-2009 9:13:47
#250 ]
Super Member
Joined: 26-Apr-2004
Posts: 1809
From: Auckland, New Zealand

@Crumb

Quote:

Crumb wrote:
@COBRA

Quote:
It would be interesting to run glQuake OS4 version on MorphOS via OS4emu, that would rule out the differences in the port itself.


That would force MorphOS to use the slower MiniGL through its Warp3D wrapper. Why don't recompile blitzquake for OS4?


It would still be an interesting test, because right now we don't know what it is in MorphOS that causes the higher 3D performance of OpenGL games in Fab's tests, it could be the 3D drivers themselves, but it could also be that MiniGL on OS4 is less optimized than TinyGL on MorphOS, so if that test was made, and it would show that it's still faster on MorphOS, then we would know that it must be the 3D drivers, otherwise it'd be MiniGL that needs more optimization.

One thing I found strange is that in one of his tests, he gets the same speed in low and high resolution on MorphOS, but under OS4 it's much slower in high res. From my understanding of how OpenGL and a GPU works, if you draw a number of polygons on the screen in one resolution, then you do the same in another resolution, there should be no difference in what the actual software does, or the driver does, the command packets sent to the card must be the same, the textures used should be the same, and the difference in speed would only be caused by the GPU having to shade more pixels due to the higher resolution. So some of these results are a bit puzzling.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
COBRA 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 19-Feb-2009 9:23:23
#251 ]
Super Member
Joined: 26-Apr-2004
Posts: 1809
From: Auckland, New Zealand

@Leo

Quote:
And btw, if I was evil, I would say this "automatically fall back to PIO mode under certain conditions" was there for AOne/Articia where you had to fallback to PIO instead of DMA in order to avoid data corruption in case of big/fast transfers and was accidently left out in this peg2ide.device...


Actually the AmigaOne IDE driver doesn't (and never did) fall back to PIO mode with transfers larger than 32k and I've been using my microA1 this way for several years now without getting a single hard-drive corruption Stephane developed peg2ide.device without actually having a Pegasos2 himself, and he managed to fix this bug "blindly" shortly after it was reported, so he's done an amazing job with this driver...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Mr_Capehill 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 19-Feb-2009 9:27:20
#252 ]
Super Member
Joined: 15-Mar-2003
Posts: 1932
From: Yharnam

@COBRA

MiniGL doesn't have AltiVec optimization for example that might improve OS4 result on G4.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Glames 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 19-Feb-2009 9:49:28
#253 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 16-Mar-2003
Posts: 384
From: Nantes, France

Hello,

I think it would be interesting to do bench with composition mode disabled.

I noticed that my system is a bit slower with composition mode enabled, ie: OS 4.1 is slower than OS 4.0, except if I disable composition mode.

Just my 2 euros thoughts

Glames

_________________
Glames / Boing Attitude :)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Leo 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 19-Feb-2009 10:00:14
#254 ]
Super Member
Joined: 21-Aug-2003
Posts: 1596
From: Unknown

Quote:

It would still be an interesting test, because right now we don't know what it is in MorphOS that causes the higher 3D performance of OpenGL games in Fab's tests, it could be the 3D drivers themselves, but it could also be that MiniGL on OS4 is less optimized than TinyGL on MorphOS, so if that test was made, and it would show that it's still faster on MorphOS, then we would know that it must be the 3D drivers, otherwise it'd be MiniGL that needs more optimization.

Well, whatever reason it is, MorphOS is faster than OS4 right now.

_________________
http://www.warpdesign.fr/

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
KimmoK 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 19-Feb-2009 10:05:26
#255 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2003
Posts: 5209
From: Ylikiiminki, Finland

@itix

"There were once SDL benchmarks where in a specific task PowerSDL was slower than OS4's SDL. I fixed problem and PowerSDL was again faster but until then my SDL was losing on Peg2/G4 to OS4 SDL on Amiga 1.
Having said that Fab probably should stop making benchmarks..."

_________________
- 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  
COBRA 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 19-Feb-2009 11:52:39
#256 ]
Super Member
Joined: 26-Apr-2004
Posts: 1809
From: Auckland, New Zealand

@Leo

Quote:
Well, whatever reason it is, MorphOS is faster than OS4 right now.


I think it was pretty clear even before OS4 appeared on the Peg2 that MorphOS was ahead when it came to hardware-accelerated 3D support, but now that direct comparisons can be made on the same hardware, benchmarks can actually become useful for OS4 developers in finding out which parts could be optimized further. So I would like to see benchmarks which can be used for something constructive, rather than just "mine is faster than yours because my OS is superior" ones.

Last edited by COBRA on 19-Feb-2009 at 12:23 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Seiya 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 19-Feb-2009 12:45:57
#257 ]
Super Member
Joined: 19-Aug-2006
Posts: 1424
From: Italia

here, my benchmark

Peg vs A1 vs Amithlon :D

it is in italian, but easy to read fps and time in second ;)



_________________

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Leo 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 19-Feb-2009 13:23:13
#258 ]
Super Member
Joined: 21-Aug-2003
Posts: 1596
From: Unknown

This is supposed to be constructive...

"Ok, this is slower. What can we do to improve it ?"

Problem is if you don't accept the "ok, it is slower", you cannot improve it...

Last edited by Leo on 19-Feb-2009 at 01:41 PM.

_________________
http://www.warpdesign.fr/

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
COBRA 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 19-Feb-2009 14:38:00
#259 ]
Super Member
Joined: 26-Apr-2004
Posts: 1809
From: Auckland, New Zealand

@Leo

Quote:

Leo wrote:
This is supposed to be constructive...

"Ok, this is slower. What can we do to improve it ?"

Problem is if you don't accept the "ok, it is slower", you cannot improve it...


The problem in this case is that, apart from the IDE driver issue which has already been fixed, we currently don't know what else there is which should be improved, but I'm hoping that Fab will provide us with some useful benchmarks which can point out whether it's MiniGL or the Warp3D drivers that needs more optimization on OS4.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Fab 
Re: OS4 VS MorphOS on the same hardware
Posted on 19-Feb-2009 14:58:09
#260 ]
Super Member
Joined: 17-Mar-2004
Posts: 1178
From: Unknown

@COBRA
I'm not really sure glquake or quake2 OS4 ports work with OS4Emu. But i'll see.

Other tests that could be useful (and were already suggested) would be benchmarks showing 68k/JIT performance in real world.

Last edited by Fab on 19-Feb-2009 at 02:58 PM.

 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