Poster | Thread |
Dandy
| |
Re: X1000 and OS 4.2 Posted on 20-Jul-2011 5:37:02
| | [ #41 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 24-Mar-2003 Posts: 3049
From: Cologne * Germany | | |
|
| @Tuxedo
Quote:
Tuxedo wrote: @NutsAboutAmiga
Someone said that on ppc(due to its architecture) 64bit wasnt faster but slower than 32bit so we dont need really that... ...
|
And just because "someone" said it you believe it? I really hope that "someone" wasn't your charlady..._________________ Ciao
Dandy __________________________________________ If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him. He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him! (Albert Einstein) |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Dandy
| |
Re: X1000 and OS 4.2 Posted on 20-Jul-2011 5:44:50
| | [ #42 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 24-Mar-2003 Posts: 3049
From: Cologne * Germany | | |
|
| @wawa
Quote:
wawa wrote: @Tuxedo
is there any significant difference in speed between 32 and 64 bit on any architecture? testing both versions of lightwave (rendering times) once i came to similar results. 64bit was even a tiny bit slower on the same machine afair.
|
Did I miss something? There is a 64 bit version of Lightwave? And a 64 bit Amiga machine to test it on?? ??? You see me confused..._________________ Ciao
Dandy __________________________________________ If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him. He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him! (Albert Einstein) |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
AmigaBlitter
| |
Re: X1000 and OS 4.2 Posted on 20-Jul-2011 8:21:05
| | [ #43 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 26-Sep-2005 Posts: 3512
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @Dandy
No. It's Windows stuff. LW 64 bit uses less memory than 32 bit version.
_________________ retired |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
AmiDog
| |
Re: X1000 and OS 4.2 Posted on 20-Jul-2011 9:06:10
| | [ #44 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 1-Jun-2004 Posts: 917
From: Kumla, Sweden | | |
|
| Quote:
tonyw wrote: A change to 64-bit will affect everything in the OS. All structures will become incompatible, every API will have to change, the OS will have to be re-written. In order to allow legacy code to run, a 32-bit wrapper will have to be written. The whole source code tree will probably have to be branched.
|
Yes, many structures (all containing pointers) would change in size. But I seriously doubt it would be that much work getting a 64-bit version going. The main issues are usually caused by people casting pointers to/from integer types, which should be avoided anyway. The way I 64-bit fixed my own projects was to simply declare an integer type which always has the size of a pointer. Using it for tag-list style arrays and (when absolutely required) pointer arithmetics ensures proper operation on both 32- and 64-bit CPUs.
I would say that 99% of the changes required to 64-bit fix something would also benefit the 32-bit version as it would make the code cleaner. Sure it would break legacy compatibility, but you could always (as a start) have both 64-bit and 32-bit versions of the OS installed and perform a reboot when you really need to use a 32-bit-only app... |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Amigo1
| |
Re: X1000 and OS 4.2 Posted on 20-Jul-2011 9:28:08
| | [ #45 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 24-Jun-2004 Posts: 1582
From: the Clouds | | |
|
| @AmiDog Quote:
but you could always (as a start) have both 64-bit and 32-bit versions of the OS installed and perform a reboot when you really need to use a 32-bit-only app... |
This sounds like an acceptable solution.. Last edited by Amigo1 on 20-Jul-2011 at 09:28 AM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Mechanic
| |
Re: X1000 and OS 4.2 Posted on 20-Jul-2011 10:15:53
| | [ #46 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 27-Jul-2003 Posts: 2007
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @
Just for us slobs down here in user land.
If I have a 64bit computer with enough RAM to fill the address space and have enough data to fill that RAM, how many 1TB hard drives would I need to store that data?
Just in case of a power failure.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
elwood
| |
Re: X1000 and OS 4.2 Posted on 20-Jul-2011 10:27:47
| | [ #47 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 17-Sep-2003 Posts: 3428
From: Lyon, France | | |
|
| @Thread
The topic is "should one wait for X1000 or purchase current hardware". _________________ Philippe 'Elwood' Ferrucci Sam460 1.10 Ghz AmigaOS 4 betatester Amiga Translator Organisation |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
NutsAboutAmiga
| |
Re: X1000 and OS 4.2 Posted on 20-Jul-2011 11:17:45
| | [ #48 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 9-Jun-2004 Posts: 12795
From: Norway | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
NutsAboutAmiga
| |
Re: X1000 and OS 4.2 Posted on 20-Jul-2011 11:25:47
| | [ #49 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 9-Jun-2004 Posts: 12795
From: Norway | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
tonyw
| |
Re: X1000 and OS 4.2 Posted on 20-Jul-2011 13:03:58
| | [ #50 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 8-Mar-2003 Posts: 3240
From: Sydney (of course) | | |
|
| @Mechanic
64 bits = 2^64 1 TB = 1024576^2 = 2^20 x 2^20 = 2^40 So you need 2^64 / 2^40 = 2^24 or 16,777,216 x 1TB drives.
Start saving!
_________________ cheers tony
Hyperion Support Forum: http://forum.hyperion-entertainment.biz/index.php |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Amigo1
| |
Re: X1000 and OS 4.2 Posted on 20-Jul-2011 13:48:00
| | [ #51 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 24-Jun-2004 Posts: 1582
From: the Clouds | | |
|
| @tonyw
Quote:
tonyw wrote: @Mechanic
64 bits = 2^64 1 TB = 1024576^2 = 2^20 x 2^20 = 2^40 So you need 2^64 / 2^40 = 2^24 or 16,777,216 x 1TB drives.
Start saving!
|
he could compress the data, so he might be able to fit it in less HDs
edit: no, at a second thought you are right, he if he fills the entire RAM with data, he might not be able to load some kind of archiver to actually compress the data..
well, let's hope the copy command is not taking much memory...Last edited by Amigo1 on 20-Jul-2011 at 01:50 PM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
OldFart
| |
Re: X1000 and OS 4.2 Posted on 20-Jul-2011 14:51:59
| | [ #52 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 12-Sep-2004 Posts: 3059
From: Stad; en d'r is moar ain stad en da's Stad. Makkelk zat! | | |
|
| @elwood
Quote:
Now who still owns a MicroA1??? |
Me!
OldFart_________________ More then three levels of indigestion and you're scroomed! |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Mechanic
| |
Re: X1000 and OS 4.2 Posted on 20-Jul-2011 15:12:33
| | [ #53 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 27-Jul-2003 Posts: 2007
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @thinkchip
I own a ua1c and a Sam440ep
thinkchip wants something 'appreciably faster than my micro'. and 'anything for sale now that is significantly faster than my micro'.
So my advise would be wait for X1000. Even if it means having someone else help you turn it on.
edit: Duh
64 bits = 16,777,216 x 1TB drives.
I'm going to need a bigger computer room. Last edited by Mechanic on 20-Jul-2011 at 03:15 PM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
thinkchip
| |
Re: X1000 and OS 4.2 Posted on 20-Jul-2011 19:27:30
| | [ #54 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 26-Mar-2004 Posts: 1183
From: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA | | |
|
| @AmiDog
The discussion about 64 bit has been informative, but I thought multi-core support was part of the advantage of the X1000. Nobody's said much about that. Also nobody's confirmed or denied that the X1000 will have OS 4.2. _________________ X5000 / microA1(OS4.1 FE U2) / CodeBench / Imagine / Blender Lightwave 2019 / Microsoft Visual C++ |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
_ThEcRoW
| |
Re: X1000 and OS 4.2 Posted on 20-Jul-2011 21:07:17
| | [ #55 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 12-Jan-2005 Posts: 834
From: Murcia (Spain) | | |
|
| @broadblues
"Indeed anything that doesn't run on a 12 Mhz CPU in 256k of Ram isn't truly an amiga app, and it's unamiga like to dream of more. "
???. _________________ Amiga 1200 desktop. Apollo 030/50 Mhz 8mb ram + ClassicWB + Wb 3.1 Amiga 500 + ACA500plus 8mb + 30gb CF Raspberry Pi 3b+ and Amibian 1.4 Mac Mini G4 1GB Ram with the butterfly!! |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
NutsAboutAmiga
| |
Re: X1000 and OS 4.2 Posted on 20-Jul-2011 22:09:14
| | [ #56 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 9-Jun-2004 Posts: 12795
From: Norway | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
AmiDog
| |
Re: X1000 and OS 4.2 Posted on 21-Jul-2011 7:44:37
| | [ #57 ] |
|
|
|
Cult Member |
Joined: 1-Jun-2004 Posts: 917
From: Kumla, Sweden | | |
|
| Quote:
thinkchip wrote: @AmiDog
The discussion about 64 bit has been informative, but I thought multi-core support was part of the advantage of the X1000. |
Yes, even a 32-bit SMP version would be quite nice. The main issue with staying 32-bit is, IMHO, the shared address space of AmigaOS. Basically, each and every program and hardware addon has to fit within the 4GB limit implied by a 32-bit address space. Even the G3 and G4 MMUs can, AFAIK, address more than 4GB, which means that if AmigaOS had isolated address spaces (i.e. 2GB per process like I believe Windows has), then staying 32-bit would atleast give each process access to its own 2GB of RAM. Assuming you have more than 2GB of RAM that is. So unless they somehow manage to add both SMP and isolated address spaces without breaking all legacy software, than I would say its better to go 64-bit when adding SMP (as that will no doubt break some legacy software anyway). |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
NutsAboutAmiga
| |
Re: X1000 and OS 4.2 Posted on 21-Jul-2011 11:21:30
| | [ #58 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 9-Jun-2004 Posts: 12795
From: Norway | | |
|
| @AmiDog
There are some rules that will apply to support 32bit applications, if this rules are broken nothing will work.
32bit programs use shard memory, they can’t go outside the 4Gbyte boundary 0x000000FFFFFFFF, some part of OS can’t go outside 2Gbytes boundary 0x0000007FFFFFFF, because of some legacy api using negative addresses as error codes.
Programs isolated memory space does not work because libraries and memory address are shared between applications, if 32bit and 64bit application need to talk whit etch other it must be done whit in 32bit boundary.
Memory outside the boundary above 0x000000FFFFFFFF, has to be remapped to be used by old API’s, or copied part of the OS already support temporary access, Picasso 96 API has lock / unlock bitmap that can be used for remapping.
Lots of stuff that does not need to be in 32bit range can be moved outside, freeing up useful address space.
_________________ http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/ Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Seiya
| |
Re: X1000 and OS 4.2 Posted on 21-Jul-2011 19:27:39
| | [ #59 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 19-Aug-2006 Posts: 1473
From: Italia | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
opi
| |
Re: X1000 and OS 4.2 Posted on 21-Jul-2011 20:48:06
| | [ #60 ] |
|
|
|
Team Member |
Joined: 2-Mar-2005 Posts: 2752
From: Poland | | |
|
| @Seiya
Quote:
http://wiki.ooo4kids.org/index.php/EnvironmentSetup/AmigaOS |
It seems that this project is dead in the water._________________ OpenWindows Initiative. Port PS3 hardware to bananas. For free. Join today and receive expired $50 cupon from AI! |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|