| Author |
Message |
maarten |
|
Post subject:
 Posted: Jun 21, 2005 - 12:09 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 20, 2002
Posts: 674
Location: DiGiLaNd
Status: Offline
|
|
| Janus wrote: | | A Unix Kernel isn't something to be proud of - try reading the Unix haters handbook sometime. |
If i tell you a 25mhz Amiga can do stuff a Dual G5 can just about pull of wtf does this have to do with liking or hating Unix?
Eh dude? You are not going to melt or die horribly if your not right about something. Trust me in life you don't have to be right about everything all the time. 
Amigas are 5 times more efficient with resources and this has nothing to do with liking Unix or having a zillion processors. I like my Amiga, it rules with its silly 25mhz processor it does things I could not even do with my 1300mhz PC.
They still use Amigas to run the information system here in the burger kings. Now show me any other home computer that lasted 15 years.
Multitasking is still 5x faster on a Amiga then on any other computer. Ok so the software if outdated but whatever runs on it runs very fast..
Forum rule 1: No Amiga dissing allowed lol
 |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
Janus |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 21, 2005 - 01:10 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 12, 2005
Posts: 142
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Status: Offline
|
|
If you read the Unix haters handbook you would know what it was about. I didn't diss your Amiga, I dissed Unix! Plus I'm sort of pissed off at the SCO (Unix owners) for attacking Linux and IBM for using Linux the way they have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO_v._IBM
Not to mention what you can and cannot do software wise solely depends upon the programmers that develop the software that you're using. Software features matter not on the hardware alone. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
maarten |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 21, 2005 - 05:38 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 20, 2002
Posts: 674
Location: DiGiLaNd
Status: Offline
|
|
SCO? hah they suck, another microsoft pawn trying to fight the evil open source army with all it ideals. How can you make money from ideals? hehe SCO is pathetic, the always have been, its a shame IBM never bought them just for fun.
I remember reading their strategy about 5 years ago, to be honest back then i figured IBM would just splatter them allover the place. I guess some microsoft money found its way into their pockets. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Janus |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 21, 2005 - 06:04 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 12, 2005
Posts: 142
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Status: Offline
|
|
| If it'll help Microsoft battle Linux, sure, whynot? |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
jon_k |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 21, 2005 - 06:53 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Posts: 45
Status: Offline
|
|
| maarten wrote: | Hah I guess you never knew the concept of the Amiga:
Unix kernel with a super effecient graphical interface on top.
Multitasking like mad on 512K of memory, I got a Amiga 4000 here and it is still very fast and does things in real time a dual 2GHZ G5 can just about manage. |
It's mostly cause amiga had a processor for each system.
Video had it's own processor
Sound has it's own processor
Keyboard Controller had its own processor
The central processor didn't have any petty HW I/O tasks to worry about -- it just worked with software.
You can imagine how this sped things up quite a bit. It costed more however, thats why everyones intigrating the shit. NIC's use to have a processor of their own to handle the TCP/IP stack, but like winmodems -- they're making it run by the central CPU. Cost is the reason. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
maarten |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 22, 2005 - 03:17 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 20, 2002
Posts: 674
Location: DiGiLaNd
Status: Offline
|
|
| Janus wrote: | | If it'll help Microsoft battle Linux, sure, whynot? |
Oh I meant SCO got some MS support, but no big surprise there I guess. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
maarten |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 22, 2005 - 03:31 AM
|
|
Joined: Oct 20, 2002
Posts: 674
Location: DiGiLaNd
Status: Offline
|
|
When someone compares a 25mhz 68040 with a 2ghz G5 its a bit stupid to say thats only because it had a processor for everything. Yeah that really makes up for the missing 1975mhz... they where all hidden in those other chips...doh.... It was and still is FIVE TIMES more efficient with resources then anything else, and thats a software thing.
That is why the Amiga was used for 10 years after they stopped making them. I could throw super high-res pics around the screen as if it was nothing. It still runs all my animations smoothly, its a fun computer.
That is one thing you can not say about Linux, being five times more efficient.
| jon_k wrote: | | maarten wrote: | Hah I guess you never knew the concept of the Amiga:
Unix kernel with a super effecient graphical interface on top.
Multitasking like mad on 512K of memory, I got a Amiga 4000 here and it is still very fast and does things in real time a dual 2GHZ G5 can just about manage. |
It's mostly cause amiga had a processor for each system.
Video had it's own processor
Sound has it's own processor
Keyboard Controller had its own processor
The central processor didn't have any petty HW I/O tasks to worry about -- it just worked with software.
You can imagine how this sped things up quite a bit. It costed more however, thats why everyones intigrating the shit. NIC's use to have a processor of their own to handle the TCP/IP stack, but like winmodems -- they're making it run by the central CPU. Cost is the reason. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Janus |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 22, 2005 - 12:49 PM
|
|
Joined: Apr 12, 2005
Posts: 142
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Status: Offline
|
|
A lot of it does depend on the hardware. You can't get true color if the video card only supports 8-bit access. PCs haven't always had that capability, not as long as Amiga. So yeah, the hardware of the Amiga tops a PC by far, why not? You're paying a shit load more for it!
Linux on the other hand can compete with something like an Amiga, -BIG IF- the hardware of the PC can measure up with bitrate access. Perhaps you just have to explorer Linux more.
Any computer is limited by it's hardware. Amiga has had better hardware on the lower levels where access time and accessibility of the software counts. Don't knock Linux for not being able to out do the 'almighty Amiga' simply because the hardware driving the Operating System was lacking. PCs have and always will be the cheapest PoS on the market. Linux could match or out perform an Amiga better if Linux had the hardware to back it to a 'level playing field'.
I believe this argument is 100% founded on the basis of something like Microsoft's hidden APIs vs. a 3rd party application written with public APIs - not a level playing field! |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
maarten |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 22, 2005 - 12:51 PM
|
|
Joined: Oct 20, 2002
Posts: 674
Location: DiGiLaNd
Status: Offline
|
|
| Damn you can talk some serious bullshit. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
jon_k |
|
|
Post subject:
Posted: Jun 23, 2005 - 04:03 AM
|
|
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Posts: 45
Status: Offline
|
|
| maarten wrote: | | Damn you can talk some serious bullshit. |
Microsoft is much better... [apologies, but I had to fit it in there]
I actually think they have accomplised porting Linux over to Amiga. Check it out: http://linux-apus.sourceforge.net/
Description: Linux/APUS is the project that allows you to run
Linux/PPC on PowerUP Amiga computer systems.
I almost wish I own an Amiga so I could actually try it out. I heard they were great machines; but to actually expierience it would be awesome.
Since your Amiga is almost a paperweight due to everything being old and outdated, maybe you could get that to run on your amiga box and try it out. That would be excellent if it works and runs fairly fast.
If you ever decide to undertake the project; I'd be delighted to see your results!
I'm not certain however, that it will run as fast as AMIGA OS; partly why it was so quick was because programs were small (they fit on floppies!) and since Linux has become bloated (albiet never as much as Microsoft -- Windows XP has 40,000,000 lines of source. -- Linux 4,287,449 lines of source) it won't run as fast as the True AMIGA OS.
It's sad really, how back then people coded OS's to be efficient as possible and small as possible because of limited processing power and memory. Now days since we have so much memory and processing power-- it's kind of like code as sloppy as you like.
Imagine how fast your system would go TODAY if they coded todays OS's/Programs with the same determination to keep it slim and efficient as they did in the past.
Anyways, if you do that Linux on amiga install; I'd like to hear about it  [edit] It won't be as easy as installing RH linux though I'm afraid, closer inspection of the site says that you'll have to do your own bootstrapping and such. eeek. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
members: 9720
guests online: 54
member online: 1
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking 
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Sub-Forum
