@Rob

What you thought was CPU speedup caused by the PPC was in reality graphics speedup caused by the GPU and Cybergraphix.



Anyway, do AmigaOS still use icon .info file outside of the main file, I've probably 500000 files on my 300MB Amiga HD?

_________________
Using: One Commodore C64 - One Commodore Amiga 500 - One Commodore Amiga 1200 with BVision and Blizzard 68060 with PPC coprocessor running Amiga DOS - One Hellbillylitre Amigatwox86x64x6000x running Windows7

@Hillbillylitre

Quote:

Using ported software from Amiga on Amiga, WTF?

I simply copied applications from my OS3 HD to OS4 HD - these are the very same 68k applications. Or you had something else in mind?

@Hillbillylitre

Quote:

What you thought was CPU speedup caused by the PPC was in reality graphics speedup caused by the GPU and Cybergra

Windows 95 would also run like a bitch if you were using a 1987 VGA card.
And with processing things PPC OS4 is much faster than what the 68k hardware could do with AmigaOS.

_________________
Best way to enjoy Amiga is without the community

@pavlor

Wasn't PPaint recently ported to AmigaOS4? I have near zero experience with PPaint since there are much better paint programs for the Amiga.

Do it use the chipset or are you only using RTG mode?

Last edited by Hillbillylitre on 24-Apr-2015 at 08:52 PM.

_________________
Using: One Commodore C64 - One Commodore Amiga 500 - One Commodore Amiga 1200 with BVision and Blizzard 68060 with PPC coprocessor running Amiga DOS - One Hellbillylitre Amigatwox86x64x6000x running Windows7

@Hillbillylitre

Quote:

Wasn't PPaint recently ported to AmigaOS4?

Yes, my intention is to buy OS4 version, but I still use good old 68k version.

Quote:

I have near zero experience with PPaint since there are much better paint programs for the Amiga.

Better? PPaint is the best for my needs!

Quote:

Do it use the chipset or are you only using RTG mode?

PPaint has some sort of RTG support since its infancy. Version 7.x works really well with Picasso96. Most OS-friendly applications are RTG compliant and run directly in OS4 (eg. my favourite ZX Spectrum emulator ASp and many other). As emulation technology in OS4 is really clever, 68k applications can use PPC libraries and PPC applications 68k libraries (eg. MysticView is one of the best picture viewers for Amiga - 68k application - but uses PPC libraries for rendering and picture loading).

Last edited by pavlor on 24-Apr-2015 at 09:14 PM.
Last edited by pavlor on 24-Apr-2015 at 09:14 PM.

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @cdimauro Quote: Context is important also, right? That is why I emphasised MY post you quoted.

I quoted TWO posts from you.
Quote:

Quote: started with a huge code base which was also widely tested by 5+ millions of users. Code base requiring rewrite for different CPU architecture, removing legacy dependencies and still maintain backward compatibility. Sure, old code base is benefit - in some cases, but also hindrance in others.

Well, it's totally different from having only the documentation and try to rewrite entirely from scratch the code.

Having already existing code is MUCH, MUCH better than having nothing. At least you have a perfect reference which you can use if you want to rewrite the code and lifting/removing the legacy part.

Last but not least, testing. The Amiga o.s. was HEAVILY tested by millions of persons.

So, OS4 started with a HUGE advantage compared to AROS and MorphOS. The effort of the respective developers was completely different.
Quote:

Quote: So, if the situation is similar, as you stated, the development is absolutely not, because other o.ses had a bigger development. What features these OSs have and AmigaOS not? Gallium3D, Ambient, anything more?

A nice chart will help, here. Some voluntary?

Anyway, you previously stated that:

"these OSs are in similar situation (years after the fall of their platform), so comparison is fair"

Which is not true, and that's why I replied. If the situation is similar, like you says, the comparison is greatly unfair due to the very different efforts, like I reported. MorphOS and AROS (but we can also talk about Haiku, which is in a similar situation) we completely written from scratch. See above.

To summarize: we all talk about o.ses which are similar (usable and comparable feature set. One have something which others lucks, and viceversa), but the effort is absolutely not the same. So, the comparison is unfair.

I hope is clear now.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @cdimauro its a multi threaded mcu, best suited for io processing, yes. ecs/aga is totally out of the question. but cia or maybe even parts of paula should be possible.

Absolutely. The Paula name derives from "Port I/O", if I remember correctly. :-p
Quote:

if only it was memory mapped from the main cpu

But the XCore can access the memory, AFAIK. However the problem is that it's veeeeery slow on doing: a ridiculous amount of bandwidth and very high latencies.

That's why I stated that the XCore is practically useless for the average user.

@cdimauro

Quote:

Which is not true, and that's why I replied. If the situation is similar, like you says, the comparison is greatly unfair due to the very different efforts, like I reported. MorphOS and AROS (but we can also talk about Haiku, which is in a similar situation) we completely written from scratch. See above.

As I wrote, I don´t see OS3.x codebase only as benefit, but also as hindrance. Taking aside replacement projects like AROS/MorphOS/Haiku (where our opinions differ most), comparing AmigaOS 4.x to Risc OS or BeOS/Zeta or MiNT is without doubt fair.

Quote:

A nice chart will help, here. Some voluntary?

I have such chart for personal use (not to inflame forums...), results are unsurprisingly favourable to one OS.

@pavlor

we can bombard each other with charts... and surprise surprise mine would say the opposite to yours

@OlafS25

Quote:

and surprise surprise mine would say the opposite to yours

Without doubt.

@cdimauro

Quote:

But the XCore can access the memory, AFAIK.

Can you please give me more information on that?

Apparently I have been going about this all wrong.

_________________
question=(2b||!(2b))

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @cdimauro Quote: Which is not true, and that's why I replied. If the situation is similar, like you says, the comparison is greatly unfair due to the very different efforts, like I reported. MorphOS and AROS (but we can also talk about Haiku, which is in a similar situation) we completely written from scratch. See above. As I wrote, I don´t see OS3.x codebase only as benefit, but also as hindrance.

As a developer, if you don't like the existing code, you can change or even throw away. Having no code means that you have no other option...
Quote:

Taking aside replacement projects like AROS/MorphOS/Haiku (where our opinions differ most), comparing AmigaOS 4.x to Risc OS or BeOS/Zeta or MiNT is without doubt fair.

I don't know if the o.ses that you reported have or share the code base from the original versions, so I cannot judge.
Quote:

Quote: A nice chart will help, here. Some voluntary? I have such chart for personal use (not to inflame forums...), results are unsurprisingly favourable to one OS.

Please, report it.

@lylehaze

Quote:

lylehaze wrote: @cdimauro Quote: But the XCore can access the memory, AFAIK. Can you please give me more information on that? Apparently I have been going about this all wrong.

So the XCore's "local bus" is not able to access memory. Nice information.

It's even less usable than what was expected...

@cdimauro

Quote:

So the XCore's "local bus" is not able to access memory. Nice information.

Well darn. I was hoping that pointing out the error of your assumption would have won you over to the AmigaOS fan club. I guess I was just hoping for a bit too much.

_________________
question=(2b||!(2b))

@cdimauro

Quote:

I don't know if the o.ses that you reported have or share the code base from the original versions, so I cannot judge.

Risc OS shares code-base even in two forks (5.x and 4.x/6.x).
Zeta was source continuation of BeOS (with dubious legality).
MiNT was used as basis for last generation "Atari OS" (MultiTOS), it was originaly alternative third party OS for ST/TT.

Risc OS 5.21 is free and useable in RiscPC emulators (eg. RPCEmu), there are some distributions of MiNT suitable for Aranym "emulator" (eg. Afros, EasyAraMiNT etc.). Zeta was fully commercial and developement stopped few years ago.

Quote:

Please, report it.

Someday...

@lylehaze

Quote:

lylehaze wrote: @cdimauro Quote: So the XCore's "local bus" is not able to access memory. Nice information. Well darn. I was hoping that pointing out the error of your assumption would have won you over to the AmigaOS fan club. I guess I was just hoping for a bit too much.

Nice try.

But the problem here, is the lack of clear information about products. Something which affects the post-Amiga community.

See here: http://www.a-eon.com/?page=nemo

"CPU Local bus", "direct communication with the system"

And in the past there were talks, even in this forum, about memory bandwidth. It's countless the number of speculations about what the XCore can make ad how it can used.

So, I apologize for the mistake. As it happened in the past, I was TOO MUCH OPTIMISTIC about the post-Amiga hardware...

@cdimauro

Quote:

Nice try.

Thank You.

Quote:

"CPU Local bus", "direct communication with the system"

The XMOS chip does have a direct connection to the CPU local bus.
Through which it can communicate to the system processor.

As far as I know it was never claimed that the XMOS chip can take over the bus and read/write directly with system RAM. Except possibly by people who have no idea what they are talking about.

Quote:

And in the past there were talks, even in this forum, about memory bandwidth. It's countless the number of speculations about what the XCore can make ad how it can used.

On that we can agree. There's a lot of speculation going on. And some people even believe it. I can not be held responsible for all the speculation that's being passed around here.

Quote:

So, I apologize for the mistake. As it happened in the past, I was TOO MUCH OPTIMISTIC about the post-Amiga hardware

I really have no experience with post-Amiga hardware. I am still running Amiga systems here.

_________________
question=(2b||!(2b))

@lylehaze

Quote:

lylehaze wrote: @cdimauro Quote: "CPU Local bus", "direct communication with the system" The XMOS chip does have a direct connection to the CPU local bus. Through which it can communicate to the system processor. As far as I know it was never claimed that the XMOS chip can take over the bus and read/write directly with system RAM. Except possibly by people who have no idea what they are talking about.

"system" and "system processor" are two different things.

If I read "direct communication with the system" I think the chip was (also) able to access to the memory. Directly. Without any intermediary.

Is the people who has written that sentence which had no idea of what he was talking about, since it's totally misleading. In fact, it brought to totally misunderstandings about the capabilities of the chip.
Quote:

Quote: And in the past there were talks, even in this forum, about memory bandwidth. It's countless the number of speculations about what the XCore can make ad how it can used. On that we can agree. There's a lot of speculation going on. And some people even believe it. I can not be held responsible for all the speculation that's being passed around here.

I never accused you. Everyone responds of his personal writings.

Is the smart guy which reported "direct communication with the system" which responds of the speculations that were built on top of that bullshit.
Quote:

Quote: So, I apologize for the mistake. As it happened in the past, I was TOO MUCH OPTIMISTIC about the post-Amiga hardware I really have no experience with post-Amiga hardware. I am still running Amiga systems here.

Or AmigaOnes? They are different.

@cdimauro

Quote:

Or AmigaOnes? They are different.

There is no definition of 'Amiga' hardware that says they have to have custom chips maybe your thinking of Commodore Amigas ! The definition of Amiga hardware for 90% of users on this website is surely hardware that allows to use AmigaOS so that includes AmigaOnes. Most on this thread don't consider the Amiga Mini an Amiga even though it had the branding because it couldn't run AmigaOS natively and wasn't supported by Hyperion. This thread really is tiresome.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

What Amiga hardware of Aeon or Acube do you own?