@Slayer

Why do you think MorphOS was started? And why it is still being made? Because of the love to the AmigaOS. There's no other reason why MorphOS would exist today but love to the spirit and operating of AmigaOS. There wouldn't be any sense to make and use OS which maintains Amiga compatibility so perfectly otherwise.

MorphOS was started as continuation to AmigaOS, because there wasn't any sign of it on official side. MorphOS has succeeded on it very well and continues it still. Nobody knew that there would be "official" counterpart for it later. Now there finally is, but so what, it shouldn't make MorphOS any worse.

I'm not going to leave Amiga and "move on" as you suggested. I also have several Amigas in daily use. A1000, A500, A500/HD/000@28, A2000/010, A600, 2 x A1200/030, A1200/060/everything. And Pegasos1 with Morphos2 as my main computer. I don't need PC or MAC for my daily usage. I can use all the loved Amiga software on MorphOS. So don't come to say me that I don't have Amiga spirit.

Last edited by jPV on 13-Feb-2009 at 10:40 AM.

_________________
- The wiki based MorphOS Library - Your starting point for MorphOS
- Software made by jPV^RNO

Quote:

Then maybe you'd better compare MOS Mplayer with AOS4 DvPlayer if you want to compare functionnality wise, but if you want to benchmark (and that they can ba valid) you should use same source (modulo OS specifics like for example OS4's Interfaces, or even using CGFX under MOS and Picasso under AOS4 if you like).

Well, as a simple user, I don't care about that...

_________________
http://www.warpdesign.fr/

@Slayer

Quote:

Personally I don't consider any of the Amiga-like OSs as Amiga but that's just me...

You are not alone, I feel quite the same.

I don't consider AmigaOS3.5-3.9 shareware collections, MorphOS, AROS or Hyperion's "AmigaOS4.x" as Amiga, as they are not done by Commodore (as is none of the recent hardware). But I don't really care about that anyway

@kiero

How cunning it is from you You intentionnaly pick some incomparable things, i.e. things that OS4 does not have or which are known not to work at best performance yet... Else on a same idea we can benchmark Dragon against OS4's screen dragging

Let me be clear I'm not against some "User POV comparisons" but then don't call them "benchmarks" they have nothing to do with that, it will only be a matter of user taste and needs, for example *I* don't pirate films and *I* have a DVD player under my TV in my comfortable living-room so *I* have no need for such a player able to read pirated US TV series and displaying dowloaded subtitles from some obscure underground network. But I guess this is not everyone case
//off topic
enjoying watching a film on a 19" monitor, seat down in a desktop chair, instead of watching it on a 32" TV with Home Cinema sound, comfortably seat down on a sofa has always amazed me
// end off topic

Note that I'm not denying utility of such a thing on casual events, but *I* won't base my OS choice on this... Again that's *my* POV that *I* share, *I* am surely not the average Joe that's for sure

Quote:

[...](and i don't know what you mean by testing OS4's Interfaces).

OS4's Interface is the new way to access libraries' functions under OS4...

Quote:

i see no easy and meaningfull way to test basic modules[...].You could write some gfx benchmark but it won't really mean much for the user. What matters is what user gets and this should be benchmarked (using similar software where possible).

Nobody said benchmarking is easy, but there should be an established protocol to follow on both things to benchmark, conditions should be the same, etc. Everything else is user subjective (again I'm not saying it should not be done, just that this is not what scientists name benchmark), a benchmark is not meaningfull for the user, it's just a way to compare things with a scientic approch.

As a side note I'll add that what you would be evaluating (if we follow you) is not the OSes but some 3rd party apps which additionnaly might be different on both systems...

EDIT:
@Leo

Quote:

Leo wrote: Quote: Then maybe you'd better compare MOS Mplayer with AOS4 DvPlayer if you want to compare functionnality wise, but if you want to benchmark (and that they can ba valid) you should use same source (modulo OS specifics like for example OS4's Interfaces, or even using CGFX under MOS and Picasso under AOS4 if you like). Well, as a simple user, I don't care about that...

Don't make you dumber that you are. It would be like saying i'll benchmark a Ferrari Enzo with a Renault Clio cdi 2.0 of course you'll find that the Ferrari have better numbers than the Renault but that does not mean that Ferrari as an enterprise is better than Renault as en enterprise just that engine in these particular cars are different and one is faster, but if we would compare the same Ferrari with a Renault powered FormulaOne the results might be different...
My point was that this won't be benchmark but only some user subjective tests.

PS: I don't know why but I have the feeling this is the start of an endless discussion...

Last edited by abalaban on 13-Feb-2009 at 11:04 AM.

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

@abalaban

"How cunning it is from you You intentionnaly pick some incomparable things, i.e. things that OS4 does not have or which are known not to work at best performance yet... Else on a same idea we can benchmark Dragon against OS4's screen dragging"

why cunning?:) i picked some easy to compare things. if movie playback, image viewing and games are not good for benchmark then what is? give some ideas.

"Let me be clear I'm not against some "User POV comparisons" but then don't call them "benchmarks" they have nothing to do with that, it will only be a matter of user taste and needs"

why? if one player on MorphOS plays some movie without framedropping and another player plays same movie with framedropping then it's quite obvious which one is better. And i do call that a valid benchmark (number of frames dropped)

"for example *I* don't pirate films and *I* have a DVD player under my TV in my comfortable living-room so *I* have no need for such a player able to read pirated US TV series and displaying dowloaded subtitles from some obscure underground network. But I guess this is not everyone case"

this is not about you but about generic system comparision.

"enjoying watching a film on a 19" monitor, seat down in a desktop chair, instead of watching it on a 32" TV with Home Cinema sound, comfortably seat down on a sofa has always amazed me "

i don't have a living room:) i do have 27'' display tho so watching movies on it is not that bad:)

"OS4's Interface is the new way to access libraries' functions under OS4..."

i know what they are. what i don't know is how would they influence any benchmark or how they could be benchmarked (part of which functionality they are?).

"Nobody said benchmarking is easy, but there should be an established protocol to follow on both things to benchmark, conditions should be the same, etc. Everything else is user subjective (again I'm not saying it should not be done, just that this is not what scientists name benchmark), a benchmark is not meaningfull for the user, it's just a way to compare things with a scientic approch."

no, it's not user subjective. being able to play movie smoothly is not subjective (you may lie to yourself you are satisfied with choppy playback, but that would be stupid). same for playing games (gl performance for one) or viewing photos (datatypes speed? jpeg decoding speed). and i do prefer these tests in comparision to some WritePixel test (tho we can test these too. i can even lend some simple gfx benchmarking 'framework').

"As a side note I'll add that what you would be evaluating (if we follow you) is not the OSes but some 3rd party apps which additionnaly might be different on both systems..."

no, you also test os which provides functionality for these applications.

@abalaban

Quote:

//off topic enjoying watching a film on a 19" monitor, seat down in a desktop chair, instead of watching it on a 32" TV with Home Cinema sound, comfortably seat down on a sofa has always amazed me // end off topic

Not everyone has, can afford or want 32" home cinema systems. Or sofa.

I have my mobile entertainment system, which includes Pegasos, LCD monitor, speakers with sub and table with wheels. I drive it to end of the bed to get enjoyed by movies :). So, it's really important for me to have good players. Besides local material, I also stream free legal TV-series and sports events from internet etc.

Quote:

Note that I'm not denying utility of such a thing on casual events, but *I* won't base my OS choice on this... Again that's *my* POV that *I* share, *I* am surely not the average Joe that's for sure

Yes, but there are others who would like to do differently and see the comparisons etc. What's that off from anyone?

Anyway I'd like to see some tests and comparison. I'm interested those kind of things usually even when I'm not even considering the systems which are compared. For curiosity and general knowledge. And it might even make your own system better as you might see things where's room for improvement still. From viewpoint of developers and users both. This particular case is even more intersting as first time you can do tests between Amigaish operating systems on same hardware... just let them roll finally :)

EDIT: If we talk about cars, it's like Kimi and Felipe on same Ferrari. It's just interesting to see how different settings they have chosen for wings, tyres, antirollbars etc and how they perform :P

Last edited by jPV on 13-Feb-2009 at 11:35 AM.

_________________
- The wiki based MorphOS Library - Your starting point for MorphOS
- Software made by jPV^RNO

@kiero & @jPV

I won't spend all day long talking with you if you don't want to understand what I'm saying. it was just to say that what you would be benchmarking is how well written and optimized is a 3rd party soft on one OS compared to another 3rd party soft on another OS.
Results won't indicate anything about the OS (and even if you are rigourous not even about the softs, because you changed almost all the conditions, OS *and* Soft).
Else it's easy to hedge results, I just have to very poorly code one soft that pretend to do one thing on MorphOS and compare that to a carefully written and optimized one under AOS4...

I admited such *tests* might indicate which OS provides better *user experience* to do such or such thing, but again that won't be *OS benchmarks*, that would be OS comparison (which might be interesting too I agree on that). Now if you don't want to hear me then no need to continue polluting this thread, I have said what I had to say, now everyone is free to make is own mind, I certainly don't want to impose mine.

EDIT:
Quote:

EDIT: If we talk about cars, it's like Kimi and Felipe on same Ferrari. It's just interesting to see how different settings they have chosen for wings, tyres, antirollbars etc and how they perform :P

Again no that's not, take each one and give him the car of the other and see how they perform, now you can compare both on each car and *then* you can deduct things no before.

EDIT: typo

Last edited by abalaban on 13-Feb-2009 at 11:43 AM.
Last edited by abalaban on 13-Feb-2009 at 11:42 AM.

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

@abalaban
Quote:

abalaban wrote: I admited such *tests* might indicate which OS provides better *user experience* to do such or such thing, but again that won't be *OS benchmarks*, that would be OS comparison (which might be interesting too I agree on that).

I'd find it interesting in both ways anyway. In the end, maybe user experience is which counts more. So, tests could be made, but it should be considered what kind of conclusions you draw from them. It would be interesting to see tests by user experience even with different programs (pick best available for required job) and some test could be made comparing the components of the OS (using programs compiled from same sources without optimizations). 68k emulation tests would be nice too, they could be made with old Amiga programs. Wouldn't that be fair? Also 3D could be tested with old 68k or WOS software for example.

But of course there's always different kind of opinions about results and they shouldn't be taken literally always. And situation changes with updates to OS, programs etc. But that doesn't change the fact that it would be interesting and somehow informative nevertheless. Why not do such test even if they wouldn't be too scientific? I am curious to see some results and can't understand this whining about tests... like it would be the scariest thing in the world if either of systems would be faster than other in some not that professional test. Maybe there just isn't any meaningful difference? That would be nice to know too. Or are the OS4 fanatics still so doubtful about their system's superiority after all the talk, that they want to deny all possible opposite signs with all means ;) It shouldn't be that serious.

_________________
- The wiki based MorphOS Library - Your starting point for MorphOS
- Software made by jPV^RNO

@Slayer

Quote:

The AmigaOS is what made the 'Amiga' in anycase, the custom chips were needed in the earlier days to make the features of the OS a reality.

That's not correct as it's been demonstrated several times: AmigaOS3.x runs perfectly on DRACO, a computer without custom chips. It also runs using RTG&RTA instead of custom chips so our little loved custom chips were not stricty necessary

Quote:

Personally I don't consider any of the Amiga-like OSs as Amiga

Personally I don't consider any computer without amiga architecture (I mean without amiga custom chips) an Amiga.


You should keep in mind that MorphOS was the first PPC AmigaOS and that it was going to be AmigaOS4 but the deal was not done due to political reasons.

MorphOS people love amiga, that's the reason they use MorphOS.

If anyone from outside our community looked at MorphOS&AmigaOS4 he would probably mix them.

Please stop your Waffen SS arguments to segregate amiga users (using MorphOS and amiga programs) from the amiga community.

The first 060 library was made by MorphOS guys
The first amiga PPC board was made by MorphOS guys
The first PPC library was made by MorphOS guys
The first PPC amiga OS was made by MorphOS guys
The first RTG amiga system was made by MorphOS guys and later copied by picasso96 team.
The first (and best) amiga USB stack was made by MorphOS guys
The best amiga GUI toolkit (MUI) is done for MorphOS
The hated pegasos2 done by MorphOS guys is now running latest amigaos4 version

You see? you wouldn't have enjoyed AmigaOS much without these developments.

No other company had skills to produce PPC accelerators for classic miggies

_________________
The only spanish amiga news web page/club: CUAZ

@abalaban

about the benchmarks... there's a famous webpage called "tom's hardware" that does both synthethic and app tests.

I think that synthethic tests are quite interesting for developers as they can see which functions are running too slowly and is probably for raw speed comparisons, but unfortunately these tests only test isolated parts of libraries and don't provide a complete benchmark that simultaneusly stresses different parts.

IMHO the most important tests are user apps. These benchmarks show how a system will perform in the practice, not giving values based on theory (just like you could say that Firefox could run on all amigaoses from the developer viewpoint, an user would say "who cares? the important thing is that I can't run Firefox right now!").

A game like Quake3 stresses all the gfx system, hard disk drivers & filesystems, sound drivers,... and it's important for the user as he simply wants to play the game with the best possible performance and the highest quality. QuakeIII has been used tons of times to compare cpu and gfx cards on tom's hardware. It is native for both OS4 and MorphOS.

Datatypes test using e.g. multiview or a small app. It's a simple test.

Running 68k apps to compare Trance & Petunia. E.g. making a render with lightwave, other with Cinema4D, converting a wav to mp3 with lame.

Copying an ISO image from an external USB HD to the internal HD.

Copying an ISO image from a LAN ftp server. You could even use the same FTP client if you want.

Playing a DVD or divx movie without skipping frames. You could use the best movie players for each OS: DvPlayer and MPlayer and it would be a fair comparison because the user can't run an imaginary version of MPlayer that matches the MorphOS one recompiled for AmigaOS4.

I think that there are lots of possible tests that could be done to compare different systems (I'm not refering just to compare MorphOS and OS4, but different machines that run the same OS like Sam440 and A1 for example).


comparisons need to be done... otherwise you couldn't compare AmigaOS to Linux and you would simply say "I can't compare web browsers because AmigaOS lacks certain posix function"

_________________
The only spanish amiga news web page/club: CUAZ

@abalaban

You want to do an academic comparision, but you don't define how to do so.
Lets's compare RC-5 crunching. Which port will perform better? OS 4 or MorphOS? They will, most likely perform very similar. Not much of an OS interaction included.
I think you like to compare OS performance. I.e. calling and using cgx routines, library calls and such. You may write a bench about that (or there is this ancient Picasso 96 benchmark which should work). But then again, what's the use of such a bench, if real worls apps are getting other results?
Things like which OS provides a better media player or a better browser is more important from a user's perspective. That kind of benchmarking is rather a real world bench.
I think both is interesting, but the most important feature is better usability and this cannot be benchmarked. It depends on the user's preference.
On pegasosforum some ppl wrote about theri experience with OS4 on the Peg, some say it's nice, others say it is a big disappointnet. Who's right now?

note: this is a rethoric question and you should have got it that nobody's right, exept for his own opinoin. If someone says teh package is super duper so it is for him/her. If soe otehr says it sucks donkey balls so it is for him/her.

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

Quote:

I'm just referring to the 'purist' Amiga spirit

nazis masturbate a lot.

_________________

All - take all the 'what is Amiga?' and 'mine's better than yours' (OS) flamefest elsewhere, like in Free for all. This is NOT the place for it. Keep it on topic, start a new thread, or the thread (and users) get cleaned up/dealt with as necessary.

Last edited by wegster on 13-Feb-2009 at 02:55 PM.

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

How do you see MorphOS Icons as icons in OS4.1? I just see the folder/ file and a seperate .png file.info file.

_________________
Rage quited 29th May 2011

@Stephen_Robinson

Download the PNG icon plugin for icon.library.
its found on OS4Depot.net.

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

@Stephen_Robinson

http://os4depot.net/index.php?function=showfile&file=library/misc/png_im.lha

@Crumb

It’s down to personal likings.

Benchmark does not always tell you what OS is best.

For example
Windows 3.1 / 3.11, is faster and smaller then Windows 1995.
Windows 1995 is faster and smaller then Windows 1998.
Windows 1998 is faster and smaller then Windows 2000.

Win3.1 is million times faster then Win2000.

My personal choose is Windows 2000, because if a program crashes, I can continue working, and because Windows 2000 is where simple GUI, but where functional where few mouse clicks to do stuff, some thing I can’t say about newer versions of Windows, where things are more and more hidden.

Anyway I don’t expect big difference in speed between MorphOS and AmigaOS.
Her are few benchmarks you can do.
CyberGraphic benchmark.
Picasso96 Benchmark.
SDL benchmark.
Reaction vs MUI scaling.
Window scaling, Window resizing.
Memory allocation benchmark large blocks and small blocks.
(When memory is where fragmented, when memory is not fragmented)
SWAP memory benchmark.
DISK speed.
Screen cycling.
Mouse movement speed

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

@salass00

Yah! Thanks! And it means that the icon files with Acuario now work so I can install it.


Excellent!


Edited to add Bonus MorphOS screen grab,

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a366/robinsonworld/Amiga/Grab-2.jpg

Notice the two AmigaOS drives at the bottom of the screen.

Last edited by Stephen_Robinson on 13-Feb-2009 at 10:24 PM.

_________________
Rage quited 29th May 2011

I would like to see mp3 encoding test.

MOS/AOS/Trance/Petunia




And for my clustering ideas it would be helpfull if someone tries the mp3 benchmark on x86 & WmvAROS & EUAE-JIT and Linux & EUAE-JIT and using Amithlon. For comparisson needs native x86 on the same HW would be nice.

(initially I'm interested in skipping all endian problems alltogether by running nodes in a big endian emulation & sandbox)

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

Quote:

Benchmark does not always tell you what OS is best. For example Windows 3.1 / 3.11, is faster and smaller then Windows 1995. Windows 1995 is faster and smaller then Windows 1998. Windows 1998 is faster and smaller then Windows 2000. Win3.1 is million times faster then Win2000.

But here we're talking about OS of the same generation, implementing the very same APIs, providing the very same services, designed to work on the very same hardware, and, guess what ? running the very same programs.

This has nothing to do with Win3.1 VS Win2000 released almost a decade later, and designed to run on systems a lot faster than the 386/486 Win3.1 was running on...

No, this kind of benchmark is really usefull and meaning full. That being said, you may still have your personall tastes... After all Windows is supposed to suck and runs on 75% of all computers. And AmigaOS is supposed to be better than all and runs on 0.001% of all computers...

_________________
http://www.warpdesign.fr/