Seems like MOS is faster on most things..

Slightly off topic but I noted 4.1 took twice as long to boot on the Peg as it does on a Sam.
I assume this down to the difference between SATA and IDE.

Would be interesting to see how quick MorphOS could boot on a Sam.

_________________
If your nose runs and your feet smell, you're upside down.

They titled the article "The Shock of the Summer". I don't think that anyone who uses both OS4 AND MOS would be shocked at all. I didn't run any benchmarks, other than boot timing on my PegII which has both operating systems installed. And MOS trounces OS4 in that area. And subjectively, almost everything seems to run faster on MOS than OS4. The numbers now prove what I've been experiencing for several months.

Ferrels : it's not "shock" (or "surprise") but "choc" in french, which mean something diffirent, like "collision" or "impact". The word "choc" in french is also used when the two best teams of football play a match for exemple.

Last edited by Daff on 11-Aug-2009 at 04:32 PM.

So why is everything so slow on OS4 then..?

Aren't for example MPlayer and Lha based on the same sources? How can there be such a difference? It can't be the file systems or RAM disk because those comparisons were more similar.

_________________
- Don't get fooled by my avatar, I'm not like that (anymore, mostly... maybe only sometimes)
> Amiga Classic and OS4 developer for OnyxSoft.

Interesting reading but why is OS4.1 so behind

_________________
AmigaOS 4.1 FEu2 on Sam440ep-flex 800MHz 1GB RAM
C128, A500+, A1200, A1200/40, AmigaForever 2008+09+16, 5 x86/x64 boxes
Still waiting (or dreaming) for the Amiga revolution...
m4rko.com/AMIGA

Nice comparison, thanks for that.

_________________
The Rear Window blog

AmigaOne X5000/020 @ 2GHz / 4GB RAM / Radeon RX 560 / ESI Juli@ / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition
SAM440ep-flex @ 667MHz / 1GB RAM / Radeon 9250 / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition

Oh my, sure mos has a few years on os4, but to me it seems like something is holding os4 down, it would be interesting to hear from some os4 devs on this massacrer?

Great comparison btw.

_________________
C= Amiga addict
,,,
(Oo)
⎛☮ໄ
ﮑὠՀ
Couldn't care less what other people think, seeing that there's concrete evidence they don't.

@Deniil715

Maybe because OS4 it's still in beta on Pegasos 2 and Sam ?

_________________
BACK FOR THE FUTURE

http://www.betatesting.it/backforthefuture

Sam440ep Flex 800 Mhz 1 GB Ram + AmigaOS 4.1 Update 6
AmigaOne XE G3 800 Mhz - 640 MB Ram - Radeon 9200 SE + AmigaOS 4.1 Update 6

@Deniil715

The a1 and peg use the exact same cpu dont they(that means its a port from the a1)? i dont get how os4 gets beaten by os4emu tho

Last edited by mike on 11-Aug-2009 at 04:58 PM.

_________________
C= Amiga addict
,,,
(Oo)
⎛☮ໄ
ﮑὠՀ
Couldn't care less what other people think, seeing that there's concrete evidence they don't.

So why is everything so slow on OS4 then..?

Because MorphOS has better programmers.

_________________
Reggae · MorphOS Files · DigiBooster 3

@Daf

Ok, thanks for the proper translation. I used Babel Fish to translate the page and it isn't very accurate at times.

Last edited by ferrels on 11-Aug-2009 at 05:13 PM.

@Krashan

I'm not so sure that it's a case of better programmers. I think it has to do with how each OS was initially designed. MOS has the underlying Quark micro-kernel which was designed from the ground up to be light and fast. I think that the benchmarks would be much closer if Hyperion optimized portions of OS4. I think the application programmers on both systems are equally talented.

I wish they'd collaborate more on the areas where OS4 and MOS are weak, such as a decent office suite and mature web browser. OS4 has AmiCygnix, MOS does not. MOS has OWB with YouTube video support, OS4 does not. Why can't these guys get together and share the same code base?

Last edited by ferrels on 11-Aug-2009 at 05:27 PM.

I think the application programmers on both systems are equally talented.

I do not mean application programmers. I mean system developers.

_________________
Reggae · MorphOS Files · DigiBooster 3

Well my first question is was DMA disk access enabled for the tests under OS4.1 as its not enabled by default?

As I would expect that to make a big difference to all file copying, boot speed and any other speed test that has disk access happening in background.

_________________
Sam440ep 667mhz, 512MB, 120GB 2.5" HD, OS4.1FE
WinUae 3.0.0, OS 3.9, BB3, Catweasel MkIV
Amiga 1200, Blizzard 040/40 (BlizzardPPC 060/200 with SCSI removed at present), mediatorSX pci, Voodoo3, PCI network card os 3.9BB2
4MB Minimig with ARM addon boar

@Krashan
Quote:

I mean system developers.

...and the more talented users, I suppose? (Sorry, I couldn't resist...)

_________________
X1000|II/G4|440ep|2000/060|2000/040|1000

I know I'll soon regret having bothered to answer on that clearly as lame provocation meant insult, but anyway..

@ Krashan

You aren't probably really interested in facts but just for the records: OS4 has a heck of all that ancient almost 25 years old #### onboard simply because that is where it stems from.. MorphOS in contrary does not have this burdon but had all chances to make things internally better than the original AmigaOS up to v3 did.

That is reason enough for AmigaOS4 not to be as fast as it could be if that ancient #### wouldn't have to stay around... well, that may change at some point.

_________________
Regards, Cyborg.
AmigaOS4 development team member

"In the beginning was CAOS.."
-- Andy Finkel, 1988 (ViewPort article, Oct. 1993)

Quote:

So why is everything so slow on OS4 then..? Aren't for example MPlayer and Lha based on the same sources? How can there be such a difference?

There's a very simple explanation, actually: memory setup.

If you compile a simple copy loop which copies some data from A to B in memory and run it on both OS'es, you'll find that the same binary runs considerably faster under MorphOS. It seems that MorphOS uses a different memory setup (or memory controller configuration), which makes memory operations faster. In fact the same binary on an AmigaOne under OS4 runs considerably faster than on the Pegasos2, indicating that the issue is somehow specific to the Pegasos2 and its memory controller. OS4 does not perform any configuration of the memory controller of the Pegasos2, it relies on the configuration which is set up by OpenFirmware, however it's possible that the MorphOS developers know some way to make it faster, and change some configuration registers.

So to sum it up: On the Pegasos2 anything which uses memory accesses will run faster under MorphOS because it uses a different memory setup making memory accesses on the Pegasos2 memory controller faster overall.

I wish they'd collaborate more on the areas where OS4 and MOS are weak

This would be not easy because there is different vision behind both the systems. MorphOS gathers and extends the best Amiga programming and software design style. Even programs ported from Unix world are heavily optimized and made system friendly. OWB, SDL library, Kryptos are good examples. Amiga design ideas like modularity, code sharing and optimization are used and extended in components like MUI, Ambient, Reggae, Poseidon.

Amiga OS4 paradigm is to bend system to ported software instead of bend software to the system. It results in introducing ineffective solutions like AmiCygnix, partially working virtual memory or Linux shared objects. Then Amiga spirit of lightweight and flexibility is sacrified for more and more Linux ports. I do not like this philosophy personally and that is why AmigaOS 4 can offer me nothing over MorphOS.

_________________
Reggae · MorphOS Files · DigiBooster 3

Well, isn't OS 4.1 on Pegasos still BETA...?

_________________