The fastest 68k Amiga ever....

50 views
Skip to first unread message

Bjørnar Bolsøy

unread,
Aug 15, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/15/00
to
bme...@cs.monash.edu.au wrote in
<8nbkst$ta9$1...@wombat.cs.monash.edu.au>:

>.. is a version of UAE, at least as far as integer instructions
>are concerned.
>
>It is with great pleasure that I can finally make the first Alpha
>release of the Just In Time compiler for UAE/linux available. At
>
> http://byron.csse.monash.edu.au/uae-JIT.tar.gz
>
>you can download 2.2MB archive that contains two executables (one
>targetting XF86 4.0 specifically, the other addressing all other
>versions of X) as well as the sources they were built from.
>
>If you install that stuff on a reasonably fast linux system, you
>get something that puts most any 680x0 Amiga in existence to
>shame. Here are a few benchmarks to spark your interest:

<snip of benchmarks>

Here it is running:
http://www.jyu.fi/~sintonen/jit-uae088.gif


Regards...

bme...@cs.monash.edu.au

unread,
Aug 15, 2000, 10:42:37 AM8/15/00
to
.. is a version of UAE, at least as far as integer instructions are
concerned.

It is with great pleasure that I can finally make the first Alpha release
of the Just In Time compiler for UAE/linux available. At

http://byron.csse.monash.edu.au/uae-JIT.tar.gz

you can download 2.2MB archive that contains two executables (one
targetting XF86 4.0 specifically, the other addressing all other versions
of X) as well as the sources they were built from.

If you install that stuff on a reasonably fast linux system, you get
something that puts most any 680x0 Amiga in existence to shame. Here are
a few benchmarks to spark your interest:

Test Celeron2/566@876MHz Celeron333@458 A3000/CSPPC
Trident 3DImage975 S3 Trio3D/2X 060-66
============================================================================
RC5 (latest 812kkeys/s 407kkeys/s ~200kkeys/s
client)

OGR (latest 497knodes/s 252knodes/s ????
client)

DoomAttack, 99.6 fps 58.6fps ~40fps
-timedemo demo3

SysSpeed ImageStudio Test (in s):
---------------------------------
* JPEG Load 0.24 0.48 0.38
* Scale 0.15 0.24 0.25
* BlurHigh 0.76 1.44 0.90
* Cross 0.43 0.80 0.49
* Diagonal 0.40 0.74 0.53
* Focus 0.32 0.58 0.43
* Shake 0.46 0.86 0.51
* Texture 0.54 1.00 0.61
* EmbossHigh 0.49 0.90 0.53

SysSpeed Cruncher Test (in s):
---------------------------------
* LhaCrunch 0.75 1.46 1.64
* LhaTest 0.15 0.29 0.17
* LhaDecrunch 0.17 0.30 0.24
* XPKCrunch 1.86 3.37 4.13
* XPKDecrunch 0.28 0.58 0.61
* PPCrunch 1.03 2.08 3.23
* PPDecrunch 0.08 0.16 0.16

WarpRace:
--------------------------------- (060-50)
* Pixelomania 0.04s 0.08s 0.08s
* ByteCopy 94.05M/s 62.00M/s 15.01M/s
* TurboCopy 122.01M/s 80.02M/s 34.02M/s
* C2P 1.60ms 3.05ms 10.33ms
* Cybermand 5.17s 10.25s 1.38s

Do I have your attention? Great! Now it's time for someone to test the
compiler on a wide variety of software. If you have some software to
test with, and have a linux machine handy, why not give it a spin?
The executables were built on a Linux RedHat 6.1 system, and link
against the following libraries:

libSM.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libSM.so.6 (0x4001a000)
libICE.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libICE.so.6 (0x40024000)
libXext.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libXext.so.6 (0x4003a000)
libX11.so.6 => /usr/X11R6/lib/libX11.so.6 (0x40047000)
libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0x40109000)
libgtk-1.2.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgtk-1.2.so.0 (0x4011a000)
libgdk-1.2.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgdk-1.2.so.0 (0x4023a000)
libgmodule-1.2.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgmodule-1.2.so.0 (0x4026d000)
libglib-1.2.so.0 => /usr/lib/libglib-1.2.so.0 (0x40270000)
libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x40292000)
libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x40295000)
libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x402b1000)
/lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)

But if you lack any of those, you can always compile from the sources.

Looking forward to your feedback,

Bernie


P.S.: I posted this to csaa separately to keep the resulting flamewars
(wanna bet?) out of csam.


--
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not
sure about the the universe
Albert Einstein

Richard R. Pope

unread,
Aug 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/22/00
to
Hum, excuse me, but what does this have to do with Amiga advocacy?

Thanks, rich

Team*Amiga*
mech...@mwt.net


"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

> bme...@cs.monash.edu.au wrote in
> <8nbkst$ta9$1...@wombat.cs.monash.edu.au>:


>
> >.. is a version of UAE, at least as far as integer instructions
> >are concerned.
> >
> >It is with great pleasure that I can finally make the first Alpha
> >release of the Just In Time compiler for UAE/linux available. At
> >
> > http://byron.csse.monash.edu.au/uae-JIT.tar.gz
> >
> >you can download 2.2MB archive that contains two executables (one
> >targetting XF86 4.0 specifically, the other addressing all other
> >versions of X) as well as the sources they were built from.
> >
> >If you install that stuff on a reasonably fast linux system, you
> >get something that puts most any 680x0 Amiga in existence to
> >shame. Here are a few benchmarks to spark your interest:
>

> <snip of benchmarks>
>
> Here it is running:
> http://www.jyu.fi/~sintonen/jit-uae088.gif
>
> Regards...

--
ÐÏ à¡± á

Bjørnar Bolsøy

unread,
Aug 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/22/00
to
mech...@mwt.net (Richard R. Pope) wrote in <39A28AB5.E29ACF94
@mwt.net>:

>Hum, excuse me, but what does this have to do with Amiga advocacy?

Why, you don't feel UAE is Amiga related?


Regards...


>Thanks, rich
>
>Team*Amiga*
>mech...@mwt.net
>
>
>"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
>
>> bme...@cs.monash.edu.au wrote in
>> <8nbkst$ta9$1...@wombat.cs.monash.edu.au>:
>>

>> >.. is a version of UAE, at least as far as integer instructions
>> >are concerned.
>> >
>> >It is with great pleasure that I can finally make the first Alpha
>> >release of the Just In Time compiler for UAE/linux available. At
>> >
>> > http://byron.csse.monash.edu.au/uae-JIT.tar.gz
>> >
>> >you can download 2.2MB archive that contains two executables (one
>> >targetting XF86 4.0 specifically, the other addressing all other
>> >versions of X) as well as the sources they were built from.
>> >
>> >If you install that stuff on a reasonably fast linux system, you
>> >get something that puts most any 680x0 Amiga in existence to
>> >shame. Here are a few benchmarks to spark your interest:
>>

Richard R. Pope

unread,
Aug 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/24/00
to
Not Amiga Advocacy related. Wrong place to post, Bjornar.
rich

Team*Amiga*


"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

> mech...@mwt.net (Richard R. Pope) wrote in <39A28AB5.E29ACF94
> @mwt.net>:
>
> >Hum, excuse me, but what does this have to do with Amiga advocacy?
>
> Why, you don't feel UAE is Amiga related?
>
> Regards...
>
> >Thanks, rich
> >
> >Team*Amiga*
> >mech...@mwt.net
> >
> >
> >"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
> >
> >> bme...@cs.monash.edu.au wrote in
> >> <8nbkst$ta9$1...@wombat.cs.monash.edu.au>:
> >>

> >> >.. is a version of UAE, at least as far as integer instructions
> >> >are concerned.
> >> >
> >> >It is with great pleasure that I can finally make the first Alpha
> >> >release of the Just In Time compiler for UAE/linux available. At
> >> >
> >> > http://byron.csse.monash.edu.au/uae-JIT.tar.gz
> >> >
> >> >you can download 2.2MB archive that contains two executables (one
> >> >targetting XF86 4.0 specifically, the other addressing all other
> >> >versions of X) as well as the sources they were built from.
> >> >
> >> >If you install that stuff on a reasonably fast linux system, you
> >> >get something that puts most any 680x0 Amiga in existence to
> >> >shame. Here are a few benchmarks to spark your interest:
> >>

> >> <snip of benchmarks>
> >>
> >> Here it is running:
> >> http://www.jyu.fi/~sintonen/jit-uae088.gif
> >>
> >> Regards...
> >
> >--
> >ÐÏ à¡±

--
ÐÏ à¡± á

Bjørnar Bolsøy

unread,
Aug 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/24/00
to
mech...@mwt.net (Richard R. Pope) wrote in
<39A583A0...@mwt.net>:

>Not Amiga Advocacy related. Wrong place to post, Bjornar.
>rich
>
>Team*Amiga*

What is Amiga advocacy related IYO?


Regards...

Richard R. Pope

unread,
Aug 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/24/00
to
Advocating the Amiga, driving the Amiga, pushing the Amiga

rich


"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

> mech...@mwt.net (Richard R. Pope) wrote in
> <39A583A0...@mwt.net>:
>
> >Not Amiga Advocacy related. Wrong place to post, Bjornar.
> >rich
> >
> >Team*Amiga*
>
> What is Amiga advocacy related IYO?
>
> Regards...
>
> >"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
> >
> >> mech...@mwt.net (Richard R. Pope) wrote in <39A28AB5.E29ACF94
> >> @mwt.net>:
> >>
> >> >Hum, excuse me, but what does this have to do with Amiga
> >> >advocacy?
> >>
> >> Why, you don't feel UAE is Amiga related?
> >>
> >> Regards...

--
ÐÏ à¡± á


Richard R. Pope

unread,
Aug 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/24/00
to
Ok, you win that one. But you can't tell how good an emulation is,
unless you compare it to the real thing.
rich


"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

> mech...@mwt.net (Richard R. Pope) wrote in <39A5B5AF.CAA9ADB5
> @mwt.net>:


>
> >Advocating the Amiga, driving the Amiga, pushing the Amiga
>

> I'd say UAE falls into that category, but it's really
> difficult to advocate something without an opposing party - you
> can't say the Amiga has greater capability without knowing
> which capabilities to compare against. That's why people speak
> about Windows in here too.
>
> Regards...


>
> >rich
> >
> >
> >"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
> >
> >> mech...@mwt.net (Richard R. Pope) wrote in
> >> <39A583A0...@mwt.net>:
> >>
> >> >Not Amiga Advocacy related. Wrong place to post, Bjornar.
> >> >rich
> >> >
> >> >Team*Amiga*
> >>
> >> What is Amiga advocacy related IYO?
> >>
> >> Regards...
> >>
> >> >"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> mech...@mwt.net (Richard R. Pope) wrote in <39A28AB5.E29ACF94
> >> >> @mwt.net>:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Hum, excuse me, but what does this have to do with Amiga
> >> >> >advocacy?
> >> >>
> >> >> Why, you don't feel UAE is Amiga related?
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards...
> >
> >--
> >ÐÏ à¡±

--
ÐÏ à¡± á


Bjørnar Bolsøy

unread,
Aug 24, 2000, 9:18:15 PM8/24/00
to


Regards...

>ÐÏ à¡± á
>
>
>

Christophe Ochal

unread,
Aug 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/25/00
to
Richard R. Pope <mech...@mwt.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
39A583A0...@mwt.net...

> Not Amiga Advocacy related. Wrong place to post, Bjornar.

IT is related, you know, that little arguement about an emulator surpassing
the amiga?
This time it could come out

<cut>

Amon_Re

Bjørnar Bolsøy

unread,
Aug 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/25/00
to
mech...@mwt.net (Richard R. Pope) wrote in
<39A5D649...@mwt.net>:

>Ok, you win that one. But you can't tell how good an emulation is,
>unless you compare it to the real thing.
>rich

Granted, I tend to compare it to my own 040 Amiga - it's better
in some areas and worse off in others. As CPU speed increases
and UAE clients improve though, I'm sure things will level out
sooner or later.

Richard R. Pope

unread,
Aug 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM8/25/00
to
I'll watch and see.
rich


Christophe Ochal wrote:

--
邢 唷��


SG

unread,
Sep 2, 2000, 12:46:33 AM9/2/00
to

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
>
> mech...@mwt.net (Richard R. Pope) wrote in

> <39A5D649...@mwt.net>:
>
> >Ok, you win that one. But you can't tell how good an emulation is,
> >unless you compare it to the real thing.
> >rich
>
> Granted, I tend to compare it to my own 040 Amiga - it's better
> in some areas and worse off in others. As CPU speed increases
> and UAE clients improve though, I'm sure things will level out
> sooner or later.

UAE is a great thing, allowing the masses to experience what a fast OS
feels like on ten year old hardware. And I'm not mocking that, it
certainly must be impressive to watch a "machine" running so much faster
than the native host OS via an emulated processor.

But don't mistake a UAE machine for real Amiga speed, just because it
runs so much faster than Windows runs on the same machine natively, a
modern Amiga benchmarks well over 100x faster than the fastest UAE pc
runs today (ref my CSPPC's 480 MIPS, using SysSpeed2.6).

Basically, what UAE users are experiencing is directly analogous to a
286-386 Windows machine compared to a modern Windows machine. Although,
AOS isn't almost always VM bottlenecked like modern Windows machines
are, so unfortunatley that well understood analogy falls well short of
the actual speed ratio of modern Amiga machines vs ten year old
UAE-performance era Amiga speed. I guess UAE users will just have to
use a modern Amiga someday, to fully grasp the jaw dropping overall
operating speed.

s...@bodycount.dk

unread,
Sep 2, 2000, 5:47:13 AM9/2/00
to
You are so full of it!

First u mention that the OS speed is SO great. and then Comparing Uae to u'r
PPC. which i know Dosnt run the OS native. so u'r 100x faster is Bullocks.
so what people is experiencing, is actually 040 performence on a Fast PC.
which is more than enough to run the AmigaOS at a Decent speed.

and maybe its just me. but i dont think a 604e@233 (maybe more OC'ed) would
benchmark at 480mips! (not that Mips is so usefull) especially not in the
Implementation that is used for the CSPPC!

I had the pleasure to Test out a 1ghz Tbird, and the Winuae benches is very
impresive. not to mention that when the JIT version finds it way into
Winuae. it will beat the crap out of u'r beloved 060. (and maybe even the
PPC)

Bjørnar Bolsøy

unread,
Sep 2, 2000, 7:51:36 AM9/2/00
to
sg...@spamfree.wf.net (SG) wrote in
<39B08629...@spamfree.wf.net>:
>"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
>>
>> mech...@mwt.net (Richard R. Pope) wrote in
>> <39A5D649...@mwt.net>:
>>
>> >Ok, you win that one. But you can't tell how good an emulation
>> >is, unless you compare it to the real thing.
>> >rich
>>
>> Granted, I tend to compare it to my own 040 Amiga - it's better
>> in some areas and worse off in others. As CPU speed increases
>> and UAE clients improve though, I'm sure things will level out
>> sooner or later.
>
>UAE is a great thing, allowing the masses to experience what a
>fast OS feels like on ten year old hardware. And I'm not mocking
>that, it certainly must be impressive to watch a "machine" running
>so much faster than the native host OS via an emulated processor.

I wouldnt say that, even an 060 Amiga feels painfully slow to me,
my Celly PC doesn't.


Regards..

SG

unread,
Sep 2, 2000, 10:05:17 AM9/2/00
to

"S...@BodyCount.dk" wrote:
>
> You are so full of it!
>
> First u mention that the OS speed is SO great.

Just when compared to Windows.

> and then Comparing Uae to u'r
> PPC. which i know Dosnt run the OS native.

Windows doesn't run on your Pentium's FPU either, so it doesn't exist
right?

> so u'r 100x faster is Bullocks.

Actually Amigas do in fact use the PPC.

> so what people is experiencing, is actually 040 performence on a Fast PC.
> which is more than enough to run the AmigaOS at a Decent speed.

Every objective magazine article quoted here (all by me, and many over
the years) places UAE @ 500MHz at roughly the unacclerated A1200
(020/14) level. Sub 68000/7 speed during heavy custom chip dependent
tasks, as high as 030 speed for 68K emulation sans Amiga chips. Thats
hardly comparable to a CSPPC.

UAE users think UAE is exceptionally fast primarily because they see
that it running much faster than their native Windows environment, so
they erroneously jump to the conclusion that they are actually
experiencing a fast Amiga. They're not, to the contrary UAE Amigas are
exceptionally slow by Amiga standards.

> and maybe its just me. but i dont think a 604e@233 (maybe more OC'ed) would
> benchmark at 480mips! (not that Mips is so usefull) especially not in the
> Implementation that is used for the CSPPC!

1) Its difficult to oc the 604e's on CSPPCs much beyond 233, maybe a
little.
2) These are dual processor cards.

> I had the pleasure to Test out a 1ghz Tbird, and the Winuae benches is very
> impresive. not to mention that when the JIT version finds it way into
> Winuae. it will beat the crap out of u'r beloved 060. (and maybe even the
> PPC)

Maybe on a 100,000MHz Wintel.

Bjørnar Bolsøy

unread,
Sep 2, 2000, 11:24:24 AM9/2/00
to
sg...@spamfree.wf.net (SG) wrote in
<39B1091D...@spamfree.wf.net>:

>Every objective magazine article quoted here (all by me, and many
>over the years) places UAE @ 500MHz at roughly the unacclerated
>A1200 (020/14) level.

Seems a bit odd, though, that close to all actual UAE/Amiga users
disagrees with this. Gives the saying "you shouldn't believe
anythin you read" some well deserved meaning.


Regards...

John Sheehy

unread,
Sep 2, 2000, 12:11:47 PM9/2/00
to
In message <39B08629...@spamfree.wf.net>,
SG <sg...@spamfree.wf.net> wrote :

>"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

>> mech...@mwt.net (Richard R. Pope) wrote in
>> <39A5D649...@mwt.net>:

>> >Ok, you win that one. But you can't tell how good an emulation is,
>> >unless you compare it to the real thing.
>> >rich

>> Granted, I tend to compare it to my own 040 Amiga - it's better
>> in some areas and worse off in others. As CPU speed increases
>> and UAE clients improve though, I'm sure things will level out
>> sooner or later.

>UAE is a great thing, allowing the masses to experience what a fast OS
>feels like on ten year old hardware. And I'm not mocking that, it
>certainly must be impressive to watch a "machine" running so much faster
>than the native host OS via an emulated processor.

No, Steve, that's not what I'm watching. I'm watching a machine run
that has simple, stripped-down apps which may or may not launch faster
than the apps I have become accustomed to use in Windows. I can, at any
time, come up with apps that launch faster in Windows (many of them
launching in only the time it takes to copy the needed code to RAM), but
they are generally not the apps I choose to use.

>But don't mistake a UAE machine for real Amiga speed, just because it
>runs so much faster than Windows runs on the same machine natively, a
>modern Amiga benchmarks well over 100x faster than the fastest UAE pc
>runs today (ref my CSPPC's 480 MIPS, using SysSpeed2.6).

I haven't seen a single person claim that UAE is a fast machine, in any
absolute sense, by modern standards. What I have seen is people make
statements about how fast it really is, when people like you claim it is
actually slower.



>Basically, what UAE users are experiencing is directly analogous to a
>286-386 Windows machine compared to a modern Windows machine.

Actually, what I am experiencing is an Amiga with about the same CPU
horsepower as a 40 MHz 030 in WinUAE, and about a 225 MHz 030 with
Bernie's JIT-compiled UAE for Linux.

>Although,
>AOS isn't almost always VM bottlenecked like modern Windows machines
>are, so unfortunatley that well understood analogy falls well short of
>the actual speed ratio of modern Amiga machines vs ten year old
>UAE-performance era Amiga speed. I guess UAE users will just have to
>use a modern Amiga someday, to fully grasp the jaw dropping overall
>operating speed.

There is no VM bottlenecking on any Wintel run by a person who decides
to spend a little money on RAM for a balanced machine. I have 384 megs
or RAM in my PC, and Win2000 almost always has about 150 to 250 megs of
available RAM at any given time, after using the machine intensely for
hours. The only time I have experienced VM bottlenecking is when I
purposely wrote code that hit the paging file purposely, to see what it
was like, and when I tried to scale a bmp in MSPaint to a size bigger
than RAM. As we both know, MSPaint accesses it's bitmaps in an
inefficent manner, which has little negative impact in RAM with it's low
random access overhead, but is very high in the paging file.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

John Sheehy

unread,
Sep 2, 2000, 12:21:43 PM9/2/00
to
In message <8FA3BB850bbols...@212.186.255.14>,
bbol...@rl.telia.no.nospam (Bjørnar Bolsøy) wrote :

CPU-wise, on my 450MHz celeron, I get about a 40MHz 25MHz 030 in WinUAE,
and about a 225MHz 030 (about a 112MHz 040, or 50MHz 060) in the Linux
JIT-UAE that Bernie wrote. A 1 GHz x86 would clearly outperform any
existing 060 at general CPU work.

SG

unread,
Sep 2, 2000, 1:33:46 PM9/2/00
to

John Sheehy wrote:
>
> In message <39B08629...@spamfree.wf.net>,
> SG <sg...@spamfree.wf.net> wrote :
>
> >"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
>
> >> mech...@mwt.net (Richard R. Pope) wrote in
> >> <39A5D649...@mwt.net>:
>
> >> >Ok, you win that one. But you can't tell how good an emulation is,
> >> >unless you compare it to the real thing.
> >> >rich
>
> >> Granted, I tend to compare it to my own 040 Amiga - it's better
> >> in some areas and worse off in others. As CPU speed increases
> >> and UAE clients improve though, I'm sure things will level out
> >> sooner or later.
>
> >UAE is a great thing, allowing the masses to experience what a fast OS
> >feels like on ten year old hardware. And I'm not mocking that, it
> >certainly must be impressive to watch a "machine" running so much faster
> >than the native host OS via an emulated processor.
>
> No, Steve, that's not what I'm watching. I'm watching a machine run
> that has simple, stripped-down apps

What apps are those? 1987 ProWrite is the only Amiga app you've ever
claimed to use (and oddly, its available on Aminet, hmmmm).

List the Amiga apps you are using as you claim above, time for another
program-features pop quiz...

Uh oh...

> which may or may not launch faster
> than the apps I have become accustomed to use in Windows.

Ouch, an OS running on an -emulated- processor and custom chip set,
thats faster than the native one using the same peripherals. Thats
gotta hurt.

> I can, at any
> time, come up with apps that launch faster in Windows (many of them
> launching in only the time it takes to copy the needed code to RAM), but
> they are generally not the apps I choose to use.

Wow, native Windows can in some rare cases, if you really search out of
the mainstream, be faster in some isolated instances than a fully
-emulated- Amiga on the same hardware running at 020 speeds. Another
ringing endorsement for Windows.



> >But don't mistake a UAE machine for real Amiga speed, just because it
> >runs so much faster than Windows runs on the same machine natively, a
> >modern Amiga benchmarks well over 100x faster than the fastest UAE pc
> >runs today (ref my CSPPC's 480 MIPS, using SysSpeed2.6).
>
> I haven't seen a single person claim that UAE is a fast machine, in any
> absolute sense, by modern standards.

You just said emulated AmigaOS its faster than naive Windows on your
latest pc.

> >Basically, what UAE users are experiencing is directly analogous to a
> >286-386 Windows machine compared to a modern Windows machine.
>
> Actually, what I am experiencing is an Amiga with about the same CPU
> horsepower as a 40 MHz 030 in WinUAE, and about a 225 MHz 030 with
> Bernie's JIT-compiled UAE for Linux.

Nah, -all- objective reviews place UAE at sub A500 speeds (running at
500MHz) for custom chip set tasks, up to 030 speeds for non Amiga
specific 68K integer only tasks, unaccelerated 020 by feel.

As far as wild claims that UAE can emulate another processor and an
entire custom chip set, with virtually no loss due to overhead, I guess
I'll believe it when I see it.

> >Although,
> >AOS isn't almost always VM bottlenecked like modern Windows machines
> >are, so unfortunatley that well understood analogy falls well short of
> >the actual speed ratio of modern Amiga machines vs ten year old
> >UAE-performance era Amiga speed. I guess UAE users will just have to
> >use a modern Amiga someday, to fully grasp the jaw dropping overall
> >operating speed.
>
> There is no VM bottlenecking on any Wintel run by a person who decides
> to spend a little money on RAM for a balanced machine.

You said a 486 Wintel with 8 MBs of RAM was blazing, what happened? Now
you agree with us.

> I have 384 megs
> or RAM in my PC,

Ouch, the money you throw dwon the drain in your never ending quest for
a tolerable experience, its just awful. I understand that some people
want a fully redundant machine at home for work purposes, but don't
pretend your lastest 5 machine upgrades in the past three years were
somehow a bargain--each time claiming they were so fast you couldn't
imagine ever needing anything more. Much like today's mantra.

> and Win2000

Ouch, yet another OS too, for what, a few bugfixes and finally better
than lack luster multitasking? Fingernails on a blackboard.

> almost always has about 150 to 250 megs of
> available RAM at any given time,

Out of 384? What a nightmare, no wonder you dumped the 486, 133, 233,
and 300 in short order. Are you trying to discredit Windows?

> after using the machine intensely for
> hours. The only time I have experienced VM bottlenecking is when I
> purposely wrote code that hit the paging file purposely, to see what it
> was like,

Yeah right. You just got finished saying that your machine takes a few
seconds just to recognize a simpe mouse click at times (something we are
all too familiar with using 'modern' Windows machines), remember?
Whats that, a standard OS running flat out at 450MHz? Get real, we
haven't had to live with that kind of horrid performance since the A...,
or the Amig... well, we've never have had to deal with that. I can't
imagine my -latest- machine in such a long chain of feverish and
expensive machine upgrades perfroming such simple tasks so ridiculously
slowly.

Isn't it about time to upgrade?

Bjørnar Bolsøy

unread,
Sep 2, 2000, 1:54:37 PM9/2/00
to
sg...@spamfree.wf.net (SG) wrote in
<39B132CA...@spamfree.wf.net>:
>"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

>> I wouldnt say that, even an 060 Amiga feels painfully slow to
>> me, my Celly PC doesn't.
>

>Well, I think taking 5 secs, commmonly, to respond to a button
>press is completely unacceptable,

I never wait more than 0.001s. Even the 486 here releases
buttons faster than I can click.

>or waiting 20 times longer to launch a normal app (~.1 vs 2 secs)

Same here on my new Cheeta 10krpm, down from 0.4s or there
about. I'm not sure I see the real benefit though.

>, or waiting 3 secs for menu to appear

Sounds like my IBrowse1.0 experience.

>, or actaully watching as a window closes, or draws
>piecemeal, is slow--so I guess we have different standards.

Our difference in "standards" is that I'm able to attribute
erratic and slow behaviour to bad configuration or buggy software,
while you do not.

Getting rid of both, which is quite easy, turns any illbehaved
Windows into an veritable Indycar. :)

>We
>all know how poorly Windows performs, we all use so many of them
>daily, in so many walks of life. I don't know anyone who would
>entertain buying a C450 these days. Why? Because there are
>slightly more bearable Windows machines out today.

Bottomline is that this entrylevel Celly runs circles around
any Amy I've tried, including the PPCs. Now I really wouldn't
say that if I didn't mean it.


Regards...


John Sheehy

unread,
Sep 2, 2000, 2:12:59 PM9/2/00
to
In message <39B132CA...@spamfree.wf.net>,
SG <sg...@spamfree.wf.net> wrote :

>Well, I think taking 5 secs, commmonly, to respond to a button press is
>completely unacceptable,

So do I. However, this does not happen to me in WIndows, on my Modern
Wintel.

>or waiting 20 times longer to launch a normal

>app (~.1 vs 2 secs),

Only one app takes 20 seconds to launch here; Fractal Design Painter
5.5. It is a sloppy Mac port, and it reads all of the hundreds of
plugins I have when it launches. Most small apps take about 1/10th to
1/2 of a second here, and most major apps take 1/2 second to 3 seconds
to launch (the first time; they are much faster if they're been opened
before).

>or waiting 3 secs for menu to appear, or actaully


>watching as a window closes, or draws piecemeal, is slow

I agree. That's why I make sure my Wintel has enough RAM.

>--so I guess we
>have different standards.

Not really.

>We all know how poorly Windows performs,

We all know the worst-case scenario. You, however, have never seen
Windows running as it is meant to, because you use bastard office PCs,
PCs of computer-clueless relatives, and your under-powered laptop which
you treat like a stepchild that you despise.

>we
>all use so many of them daily, in so many walks of life. I don't know
>anyone who would entertain buying a C450 these days. Why? Because
>there are slightly more bearable Windows machines out today.

Maybe it's really because a 700 MHz PIII isn't much more expensive?

SG

unread,
Sep 2, 2000, 1:03:06 PM9/2/00
to

Well, I think taking 5 secs, commmonly, to respond to a button press is
completely unacceptable, or waiting 20 times longer to launch a normal
app (~.1 vs 2 secs), or waiting 3 secs for menu to appear, or actaully
watching as a window closes, or draws piecemeal, is slow--so I guess we
have different standards. We all know how poorly Windows performs, we

SG

unread,
Sep 2, 2000, 1:58:14 PM9/2/00
to

Even odder, most of those "users" have never used a real Amiga. I don't
doubt for a minute that AmigaOS isn't very fast and usable even in an
emulated UAE environment, but that doesn't make an 020 a CSPPC.

Bjørnar Bolsøy

unread,
Sep 2, 2000, 2:26:58 PM9/2/00
to
sg...@spamfree.wf.net (SG) wrote in
<39B13FB6...@spamfree.wf.net>:
>"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

>> >Every objective magazine article quoted here (all by me, and
>> >many over the years) places UAE @ 500MHz at roughly the
>> >unacclerated A1200 (020/14) level.
>>
>> Seems a bit odd, though, that close to all actual UAE/Amiga
>> users disagrees with this. Gives the saying "you shouldn't
>> believe anythin you read" some well deserved meaning.
>
>Even odder, most of those "users" have never used a real Amiga.

I don't know which "users" you're talking about, I'm talking
about the ones in c.s.a.emulation, #amigaUAE, the Cloanto
discussion groups and various UAE formus. All are either ex
Amiga users or use both. They all report the same, UAE on a
faster PC is generally like a 030/040 Amiga.


Regards...

SG

unread,
Sep 2, 2000, 3:31:51 PM9/2/00
to

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
>
> sg...@spamfree.wf.net (SG) wrote in
> <39B132CA...@spamfree.wf.net>:
> >"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:
>
> >> I wouldnt say that, even an 060 Amiga feels painfully slow to
> >> me, my Celly PC doesn't.
> >
> >Well, I think taking 5 secs, commmonly, to respond to a button
> >press is completely unacceptable,
>
> I never wait more than 0.001s. Even the 486 here releases
> buttons faster than I can click.

Right Bjornar.

> >or waiting 20 times longer to launch a normal app (~.1 vs 2 secs)
>
> Same here on my new Cheeta 10krpm, down from 0.4s or there
> about. I'm not sure I see the real benefit though.
>
> >, or waiting 3 secs for menu to appear
>
> Sounds like my IBrowse1.0 experience.
>
> >, or actaully watching as a window closes, or draws
> >piecemeal, is slow--so I guess we have different standards.
>
> Our difference in "standards" is that I'm able to attribute
> erratic and slow behaviour to bad configuration or buggy software,
> while you do not.
>
> Getting rid of both, which is quite easy, turns any illbehaved
> Windows into an veritable Indycar. :)
>
> >We
> >all know how poorly Windows performs, we all use so many of them
> >daily, in so many walks of life. I don't know anyone who would
> >entertain buying a C450 these days. Why? Because there are
> >slightly more bearable Windows machines out today.
>
> Bottomline is that this entrylevel Celly runs circles around
> any Amy I've tried, including the PPCs. Now I really wouldn't
> say that if I didn't mean it.

We've all used more pcs than any of us care to count. We all know they
Windows is entirely uncometitive with AmigaOS in terms of speed. Just
compare NT running on a 286-level chip (yes I know it won't run) to
AOS3.5 running on an 020.

This isn't worth discussing, AOS is orders of magnitude faster than
Windows. We all know that, even every the pc advocates here know that,
even though not a single one of them has ever seen a modern Amiga
operate.

Bjørnar Bolsøy

unread,
Sep 2, 2000, 5:06:24 PM9/2/00
to
sg...@spamfree.wf.net (SG) wrote in
<39B155A7...@spamfree.wf.net>:

>This isn't worth discussing, AOS is orders of magnitude faster
>than Windows. We all know that, even every the pc advocates here
>know that, even though not a single one of them has ever seen a
>modern Amiga operate.

Well, it doesn't change the fact that this 486 is just as fast
as my 040 Amiga.


Regards...

s...@bodycount.dk

unread,
Sep 3, 2000, 12:48:34 AM9/3/00
to
> > I had the pleasure to Test out a 1ghz Tbird, and the Winuae benches is
very
> > impresive. not to mention that when the JIT version finds it way into
> > Winuae. it will beat the crap out of u'r beloved 060. (and maybe even
the
> > PPC)
>
> Maybe on a 100,000MHz Wintel.
>

Maybe u havent got a clue what the JIT version of UAE actually do to the
performence of the Emulation! this is not the same slow old Winuae we are
comparing to anymore. so the actual numbers reaching 040@25 performence in
winuae, is going true the roof with the JIT version.


Stephan Schaem

unread,
Sep 3, 2000, 3:59:03 AM9/3/00
to

SG <sg...@spamfree.wf.net> wrote in message news:39B13FB6...@spamfree.wf.net...

Since you also beleive UAE on a fast PC deliver a500 speed, its clear you
beleive an A500 is "very fast and usable"...
The issue tho is that UAE perform pretty well in 1280x1024, in the sysspeed
test, only the fastest PPC/CyberGFX combo came to deliver some of the
GFX speed of UAE. DiskIO is blazing under UAE, network is also running very
well, GFX operation are also top... Result you need an upgraded A4000 with
CPU and gfx cards to get UAE level.
A very old version of UAE on a P166 already compiled my amiga apps at
~12mhz 030 speed. (half speed VS my 25mhz A3000).

I wouldn't use UAE for computation inensive ask... but them I would NOT use
ANY amiga for computation bound apps. It makes no sense whatesoever.
For that reason, UAE is the 'perfect' amiga solution.

Stephan

Marijan Franovic

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 2:47:46 AM9/5/00
to

John Sheehy wrote:

> In message <39B3B21B...@msan.hr>,
> Marijan Franovic <mari...@msan.hr> wrote :


>
> >> > > and Win2000
> >> >
> >> > Ouch, yet another OS too, for what, a few bugfixes and finally better
> >> > than lack luster multitasking? Fingernails on a blackboard.
> >>

> >> Have you used it yet?
> >>
> >
> >I used it and it's much more stabile, and it doesn't block system when it tries
> >to format a single floppy disc.
>
> I haven't seen that since Win3.1. Since Win95, formatting a floppy has
> had zero impact on the system, except that in Win95 there was a slight
> hiccup for a fraction of a second when the process was first initiated.

Your fraction of second can take a while, you know.

>
>
> >But it is slower in graphics perfomance
>
> Huh? Sure it's not an immature graphics driver you saw?
>

Well Detonator 6.16 can't be immature. Also that's my job to know what is good and
what isn't good driver (i work for largest computer suplier in Croatia - in service
and support department - so don't worry I saw several hundred of PC configurations
just last year with different OS'es and different strenght.


>
> >and uses
> >HDD even much more often then Win98SE or NT4.0.
>
> It uses more RAM than them to boot, resulting in more swapping in
> systems with less than 100 megs of RAM, but the memory management is
> much better, and when you get up into the 192 meg + range, you can do a
> lot more in Win2k than you can in the others with the same amount of
> RAM, without swapping.
>

I have 128Megs.

>
> >It is a good system for firms
> >and professional users though because of it's much greater stability.

Christophe Ochal

unread,
Sep 4, 2000, 11:22:49 AM9/4/00
to
Marijan Franovic <mari...@msan.hr> schreef in berichtnieuws
39B3B21B...@msan.hr...

> Christophe Ochal wrote:
>
> > SG <sg...@spamfree.wf.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > 39B139FA...@spamfree.wf.net...


> > >
> > >
> > > John Sheehy wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > > > >> Granted, I tend to compare it to my own 040 Amiga - it's better
> > > > >> in some areas and worse off in others. As CPU speed increases
> > > > >> and UAE clients improve though, I'm sure things will level out
> > > > >> sooner or later.
> > > >
>

> Later I would say, because current UAE clients are usefull only for games
and
> some aplications. Limitations of Windows ae limitations of WinUAE (bad CD
> filesystem at first) - how do you install OS 3.5 when all files copied
from CD
> have write protection 'coz winblows only have read-only flag and no write
flags.
> Did you copied files and then manually changed protection bits on every
file?
> Well, you can have even more powerfull machine then I (Duron 850) but on
my PPC
> 603/200/040/25 time for OS 3.5 instalation is about 10 minutes for whole
OS, but
> on my PC I lost almost three hours and a hell of a lot more nerves.

I cheated, i installed OS3.5 onto a zip disk formatted in FAT, and copied
those to my HD (after archiving them into an LHA, and expanding that into my
sys: drive on UAE)

>
>
> > > > and Win2000
> > >
> > > Ouch, yet another OS too, for what, a few bugfixes and finally better
> > > than lack luster multitasking? Fingernails on a blackboard.
> >

> > Have you used it yet?
> >
>
> I used it and it's much more stabile, and it doesn't block system when it
tries

> to format a single floppy disc. But it is slower in graphics perfomance
and uses
> HDD even much more often then Win98SE or NT4.0. It is a good system for


firms
> and professional users though because of it's much greater stability.

Precicely, but SG won't see this

Amon_Re


Marijan Franovic

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 2:48:57 AM9/5/00
to

"Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

> jsh...@ix.netcom.com (John Sheehy) wrote in
> <cki7rsooqdtt7569f...@4ax.com>:


> >In message <39B3B21B...@msan.hr>,
> >Marijan Franovic <mari...@msan.hr> wrote :
> >

> >>> > > and Win2000
> >>> >
> >>> > Ouch, yet another OS too, for what, a few bugfixes and
> >>> > finally better than lack luster multitasking? Fingernails
> >>> > on a blackboard.
> >>>

> >>> Have you used it yet?
> >>>
> >>
> >>I used it and it's much more stabile, and it doesn't block system
> >>when it tries to format a single floppy disc.
> >

> >I haven't seen that since Win3.1. Since Win95, formatting a
> >floppy has had zero impact on the system, except that in Win95
> >there was a slight hiccup for a fraction of a second when the
> >process was first initiated.
>

> Not a chance John. :) It's rarely a problem today, but lot's of
> Windows boxes used to freeze when you accessed the floppy.
> It's a BIOS interrupt issue, not Windows.
>
> Regards...

Well, if it's a BIOS then why don't Win2000 or WinNT suffer from the
same problem on the same machine?

Marijan Franovic

Paul Smith

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 6:25:50 AM9/5/00
to
"Marijan Franovic" <mari...@msan.hr> wrote in message
news:39B49712...@msan.hr...
> I have 128Megs.

I'm using 128MB with Win2000 and while it feels fine, you can't help but
feel that it's kinda reaching it's limit. I've got another 128MB coming
tomorrow that will sort out that 'problem'. While 98 absolutely flys with
128MB I rekon 2000 could do with 256, just to be on the safe side. OF
course, messing with Max, Lightwave, Photoshop and Q3A doesn't help matters
;-)

--
<<--==-->> Paul Smith <<--==-->>

Marijan Franovic

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 6:52:03 AM9/5/00
to

Paul Smith wrote:

Well that certainly is a achivement - to have a OS that can't work properly
(and we're not talking running several programs, just OS) in 128 Megs. Just
look at BeOS or QNX to see how proper OS SHOULD be running. All that powerfull
hardware is wasting it's time with something someone dares to call an OS
(Windows xxyyzz)

Marijan Franovic

Christophe Ochal

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 3:11:39 AM9/5/00
to
Bjørnar Bolsøy <bbol...@rl.telia.no.nospam> schreef in berichtnieuws
8FA6DCA3bbolso...@212.186.255.14...

<cut>

> >Second, I hate WinUAE and Windows limitations it generates (I
> >cannot copy 3.1 installation from OS3.5 disk - it can't find
> >espana.country and freezes Win98SE when trying to copy AUX file
> >from CD to Harddrive.)
>
> It wouldn't suprise me if it turns out that you're using an old
> realmode (dos) CDrom driver that does not support Joilet.

Not really, i've incountered the same things (without the lockups tho) when
using AmigaCD's (files that can't be copied due to invalid characters, well,
according to winblows ^_^)

> >Whole Windows CD filesystem sucks.
>
> It's actually a fairly clean, flexible and fast working
> implementation. But what did you have in mind exactly?

I prefer the Linux implementation tho, Juliet sux, rockridge rules ^_^

> >I have powerfull hardware but software - OS I can't find one I
> >would like to use frequently.
> >I think I'll sell my PC and buy PCI for my A1200 and some faster
> >PPC's and install OS3.5 and MorphOS 'cos nothing gives me such
> >good feel to use every day.
>
> If so you probably should. Taking real advantage of what technology
> has to offer though, I'd never go for an 1200 instead of a Windows
> box - it's really a step backwards in time for people like myself.

What if you get nostalgic? ^_^

Amon_Re


Christophe Ochal

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 3:15:35 AM9/5/00
to
John Sheehy <jsh...@ix.netcom.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
cki7rsooqdtt7569f...@4ax.com...

> In message <39B3B21B...@msan.hr>,
> Marijan Franovic <mari...@msan.hr> wrote :
>
> >> > > and Win2000
> >> >
> >> > Ouch, yet another OS too, for what, a few bugfixes and finally better
> >> > than lack luster multitasking? Fingernails on a blackboard.
> >>
> >> Have you used it yet?
> >>
> >
> >I used it and it's much more stabile, and it doesn't block system when it
tries
> >to format a single floppy disc.
>
> I haven't seen that since Win3.1. Since Win95, formatting a floppy has
> had zero impact on the system, except that in Win95 there was a slight
> hiccup for a fraction of a second when the process was first initiated.

I disagree, on all the systems i've seen & used, formatting disks always had
a negative impact on the computer, under win9x it *HAS* improved, but if you
let an app format a disk through windows you're stuck again...

> >But it is slower in graphics perfomance
>

> Huh? Sure it's not an immature graphics driver you saw?

I think he means the fading of the menu's (Why in heavens name did they ever
made that?)

> >and uses
> >HDD even much more often then Win98SE or NT4.0.
>

> It uses more RAM than them to boot, resulting in more swapping in
> systems with less than 100 megs of RAM, but the memory management is
> much better, and when you get up into the 192 meg + range, you can do a
> lot more in Win2k than you can in the others with the same amount of
> RAM, without swapping.

100+ megs... What ever happened to Bill Gates's statement that "640K should
be enough"? ^_^
I miss my C64.... hehe


Amon_Re


Bjørnar Bolsøy

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 9:17:11 AM9/5/00
to
chris...@online.be (Christophe Ochal) wrote in
<H26t5.767$BG2....@iguano.antw.online.be>:
>Bjørnar Bolsøy <bbol...@rl.telia.no.nospam> schreef in
>berichtnieuws 8FA6DCA3bbolso...@212.186.255.14...
>
><cut>
>
>> >Second, I hate WinUAE and Windows limitations it generates (I
>> >cannot copy 3.1 installation from OS3.5 disk - it can't find
>> >espana.country and freezes Win98SE when trying to copy AUX file
>> >from CD to Harddrive.)
>>
>> It wouldn't suprise me if it turns out that you're using an old
>> realmode (dos) CDrom driver that does not support Joilet.
>
>Not really, i've incountered the same things (without the lockups
>tho) when using AmigaCD's (files that can't be copied due to
>invalid characters, well, according to winblows ^_^)

"invalid characters" you say? Sounds like RockRidge extensions
on those Amiga CDs. In that case you'd have to use Mscdex.exe
and the dos drivers provided by the cdrom drive manufacturer.

Oh well..

>> >Whole Windows CD filesystem sucks.
>>
>> It's actually a fairly clean, flexible and fast working
>> implementation. But what did you have in mind exactly?
>
>I prefer the Linux implementation tho, Juliet sux, rockridge rules
>^_^

Well Juliet at least supports Unicode. :^)

>> >I think I'll sell my PC and buy PCI for my A1200 and some
>> >faster PPC's and install OS3.5 and MorphOS 'cos nothing gives
>> >me such good feel to use every day.
>>
>> If so you probably should. Taking real advantage of what
>> technology has to offer though, I'd never go for an 1200
>> instead of a Windows box - it's really a step backwards in time
>> for people like myself.
>
>What if you get nostalgic? ^_^

UAE. :)


Regards...

Paul Smith

unread,
Sep 5, 2000, 11:32:46 AM9/5/00
to
"Marijan Franovic" <mari...@msan.hr> wrote in message
news:39B4D053...@msan.hr...

> Well that certainly is a achivement - to have a OS that can't work
properly
> (and we're not talking running several programs, just OS) in 128 Megs.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. The OS runs absolutely fine in
128. It would run fine in less too if you knew what you were doing. It's
the apps that I run that need more memory. Win98 speeds along because the
only thing I use it for is Counter-Strike, Quake3 and Unreal Tournament.
Windows 2000 is for work. Windows 98 is for games ;-)

> Just
> look at BeOS or QNX to see how proper OS SHOULD be running. All that
powerfull
> hardware is wasting it's time with something someone dares to call an OS
> (Windows xxyyzz)

BeOS is nice but it doesn't have any apps that I want. QNX I've never seen
so can't comment on. It's the apps that are useful, not the OS. Nobody
uses an OS, they use Apps. If those apps are available for Amiga, Windows,
unix, BeOS then use them, but don't make the mistake of thinking that you're
using the OS, that's simply not true.

Marijan Franovic

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 3:47:17 AM9/6/00
to

Paul Smith wrote:

> "Marijan Franovic" <mari...@msan.hr> wrote in message
> news:39B4D053...@msan.hr...
>
> > Well that certainly is a achivement - to have a OS that can't work
> properly
> > (and we're not talking running several programs, just OS) in 128 Megs.
>
> I think you misunderstood what I was saying. The OS runs absolutely fine in
> 128. It would run fine in less too if you knew what you were doing. It's
> the apps that I run that need more memory. Win98 speeds along because the
> only thing I use it for is Counter-Strike, Quake3 and Unreal Tournament.
> Windows 2000 is for work. Windows 98 is for games ;-)
>

I agree with that, but win2000 just eats too much resources by itself (without
apps).


>
> > Just
> > look at BeOS or QNX to see how proper OS SHOULD be running. All that
> powerfull
> > hardware is wasting it's time with something someone dares to call an OS
> > (Windows xxyyzz)
>
> BeOS is nice but it doesn't have any apps that I want. QNX I've never seen
> so can't comment on. It's the apps that are useful, not the OS. Nobody
> uses an OS, they use Apps. If those apps are available for Amiga, Windows,
> unix, BeOS then use them, but don't make the mistake of thinking that you're
> using the OS, that's simply not true.
>

I know that, but OS is something that makes your apps work faster or more
elegant. And I know that there are people out there who think when I say
wordprocessor that I mean M$ Word. I used lot of wordprocessors or spreadsheets
and don't find Word necessary to use. So for every OS there are applications
(BeOS is still lacking in these areas I confess) and for Amiga there is a wider
choice than on some others (again BeOS). Linux has wide variety of software for
every user and I don't think anybody must use Windows and his apps if he/she
doesn't want to.

I personaly don't like to use Windows and its apps because of the sluggish
response I get even on my Duron 850 (I don't get it under my Storm Linux 2000).
And also I don't like when someone charges 400DEM just for a few bugfixes (Win98
->Win98SE).

Marijan Franovic


John T Maguire

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 6:44:22 AM9/6/00
to
On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 09:47:17 +0200, Marijan Franovic
<mari...@msan.hr> wrote:
...

>
>I personaly don't like to use Windows and its apps because of the sluggish
>response I get even on my Duron 850 (I don't get it under my Storm Linux 2000).
>And also I don't like when someone charges 400DEM just for a few bugfixes (Win98
>->Win98SE).

This would be in SGDEMs? M$ lists the 98 to SE CD for 24 euros


John T Maguire, Kennebunkport
Planning a visit to Maine? http://www.docksquare.org
Want to take a look? http://www.maine-webcams.net

bme...@cs.monash.edu.au

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 11:39:54 AM9/6/00
to
bbol...@rl.telia.no.nospam (Bjornar Bolsoy) writes:

> SysSpeed2.6 doesn't even test the PPC. :^)

Does too! ;-)

Bernie
--
All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is
for enough good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish-born Whig politician, 1729-97

bme...@cs.monash.edu.au

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 11:49:33 AM9/6/00
to
John T Maguire <wiz...@ispchannel.com> writes:
>On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 09:47:17 +0200, Marijan Franovic

>>I personaly don't like to use Windows and its apps because of the


>>sluggish response I get even on my Duron 850 (I don't get it under
>>my Storm Linux 2000). And also I don't like when someone charges
>>400DEM just for a few bugfixes (Win98 ->Win98SE).

>This would be in SGDEMs? M$ lists the 98 to SE CD for 24 euros

Not to mention that the Duron 850 (No such thing as a Duron 850, anyway ;-)
came out waaaay later than Win98SE; I.e. one has to wonder why it had
Win98-nonSE installed in the first place.

Bernie
--
An activist is the guy who cleans the river, not the guy who
concludes it's dirty
H. Ross Perot
Independent Presidential candidate in the 1992 US election

John Sheehy

unread,
Sep 6, 2000, 5:49:10 PM9/6/00
to
In message <39B5F685...@msan.hr>,
Marijan Franovic <mari...@msan.hr> wrote :

>I agree with that, but win2000 just eats too much resources by itself (without
>apps).

For the minimalist user, Win2000 is obviously not the thing to use.
Anything less than 128 megs is going to be tight. If you use lots of
apps, though, and lots of data, Win2000 becomes pretty efficient at high
levels of usage. It has veryy efficient memory management, but the
overhead in terms of RAM is rather large, and this efficiency is only
realized when you get into high levels of usage with large amounts of
RAM. With 384 megs, I can keep opening programs until I turn blue in
the face, and it doesn't seem like I ever run out of RAM, or get any
closer to doing so. One of the first things I did after installing
Win2000 was load every program I could think of at once, in multiple
instances, with large canvases opened in the graphics programs, large
sound files in audio programs, etc, etc. There was over a gigabytes of
memory allocated, yet I still had available RAM, and no swapping.

You can do a lot more on an Amiga with 16 megs of RAM, no question. I
think you can do more in Win2000 with 384 megs, though.

Bjørnar Bolsøy

unread,
Sep 7, 2000, 7:51:38 AM9/7/00
to
bme...@cs.monash.edu.au wrote in <8p5oga$3dh$1
@wombat.cs.monash.edu.au>:

>bbol...@rl.telia.no.nospam (Bjornar Bolsoy) writes:
>
>> SysSpeed2.6 doesn't even test the PPC. :^)
>
>Does too! ;-)

Ah shoot, forgot to check the PowerPC box under \Preferences\
TestPrefs. :^)

My appologies to Steve.


Regards...

Christophe Ochal

unread,
Sep 7, 2000, 6:01:33 AM9/7/00
to
<bme...@cs.monash.edu.au> schreef in berichtnieuws
8p5oga$3dh$1...@wombat.cs.monash.edu.au...

> bbol...@rl.telia.no.nospam (Bjornar Bolsoy) writes:
>
> > SysSpeed2.6 doesn't even test the PPC. :^)
>
> Does too! ;-)

Really?

Amon_Re


SG

unread,
Sep 7, 2000, 8:30:29 AM9/7/00
to

Christophe Ochal wrote:

> > > >UAE is a great thing, allowing the masses to experience what a fast OS
> > > >feels like on ten year old hardware. And I'm not mocking that, it
> > > >certainly must be impressive to watch a "machine" running so much
> faster
> > > >than the native host OS via an emulated processor.
> > >

> > > No, Steve, that's not what I'm watching. I'm watching a machine run
> > > that has simple, stripped-down apps
> >
> > What apps are those? 1987 ProWrite is the only Amiga app you've ever
> > claimed to use (and oddly, its available on Aminet, hmmmm).
> >
> > List the Amiga apps you are using as you claim above, time for another
> > program-features pop quiz...
> >
> > Uh oh...
> >
> > > which may or may not launch faster
> > > than the apps I have become accustomed to use in Windows.
> >
> > Ouch, an OS running on an -emulated- processor and custom chip set,
> > thats faster than the native one using the same peripherals. Thats
> > gotta hurt.
>
> That's not his point, you dork

I knew the standard argument of the Amiga-uneducated would rear its ugly
head: name calling. It always works out to be all you have left. How
predictable.

SG

unread,
Sep 7, 2000, 9:22:10 AM9/7/00
to

Christophe Ochal wrote:

> > Well, I think taking 5 secs, commmonly, to respond to a button press is
> > completely unacceptable, or waiting 20 times longer to launch a normal
> > app (~.1 vs 2 secs), or waiting 3 secs for menu to appear, or actaully
> > watching as a window closes, or draws piecemeal, is slow--so I guess we
> > have different standards. We all know how poorly Windows performs, we
> > all use so many of them daily, in so many walks of life. I don't know
> > anyone who would entertain buying a C450 these days. Why? Because
> > there are slightly more bearable Windows machines out today.
>

> Then howcome my P-II 266 outperforms my Amiga with a BlizzardPPC? Just try
> WarpNeomame & play some neogeo games with no frameskip & sound enabled, and
> tell me how 'well' it works....

Sure, some games are better on a pc. Though My 266 is, as a rough hack,
ten to a hunred times slower than my 060, in terms of general
operation. Probably even a lot more than that at the top end (into the
thousands of times slower), but I know the Windows users here freak out
and start name calling when you point out that even an A1000 doesn't
takes a few seconds just to recognize that a mouse button has been
pressed, or sit and buzz for several seconds, routinely, while spinning
memory mega-bloat contends with simple hard drive access, etc.

Bottomline, there is no way you can compare the raw speed and joy of
instant gratification of AmigaOS on a modern Amiga to the downright
sluggishness of modern day Windows. Those who use -both- in modern form
every day wouldn't dream of comparing the two, the pc loses so badly it
simply isn't worth discussing.

SG

unread,
Sep 7, 2000, 9:27:00 AM9/7/00
to

Christophe Ochal wrote:
>
> Bjørnar Bolsøy <bbol...@rl.telia.no.nospam> schreef in berichtnieuws

> 8FA3CECA7bbols...@212.186.255.14...
>
> <cut>


>
> > >, or waiting 3 secs for menu to appear
> >
> > Sounds like my IBrowse1.0 experience.
>

> LOL, who uses ibrowse anyway? :)

Correct, mentioning IB1.0 is pretty ridiculous. Especially since even
current forms of NS are so bug filled its borerline unusable (I'm
actually using it now... how long til the next crash? It does add a
dimension of suspense to the computing experience, I must admit, even if
it is i-n-c-r-e-d-i-b-l-y sluggish, and it is).

I'll be back to my Ami soon enough, thank you God.

SG

unread,
Sep 7, 2000, 9:50:12 AM9/7/00
to

Christophe Ochal wrote:

> > UAE is a great thing, allowing the masses to experience what a fast OS
> > feels like on ten year old hardware. And I'm not mocking that, it
> > certainly must be impressive to watch a "machine" running so much faster
> > than the native host OS via an emulated processor.
>

> And here's SG's favourite mantra! The great SG is again showing how superior
> AmigaOS is and how bad windows is.... Don't you ever give up?

Of course AmigaOS being so much faster than Windows is my favorite
material. This is csaa. ITs better too.

Christophe Ochal

unread,
Sep 7, 2000, 10:10:08 AM9/7/00
to
SG <sg...@spamfree.wf.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
39B797A4...@spamfree.wf.net...

> Christophe Ochal wrote:
> >
> > Bjørnar Bolsøy <bbol...@rl.telia.no.nospam> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > 8FA3CECA7bbols...@212.186.255.14...
> >
> > <cut>
> >
> > > >, or waiting 3 secs for menu to appear
> > >
> > > Sounds like my IBrowse1.0 experience.
> >
> > LOL, who uses ibrowse anyway? :)
>
> Correct, mentioning IB1.0 is pretty ridiculous. Especially since even
> current forms of NS are so bug filled its borerline unusable (I'm

What's Ibrowse got to do with NS? Can't you make *ONE* comment without
*attacking* something else?

> actually using it now... how long til the next crash? It does add a
> dimension of suspense to the computing experience, I must admit, even if
> it is i-n-c-r-e-d-i-b-l-y sluggish, and it is).

If it's that bad, *why* do you use it? Get yourself Linux if you don't like
windows, or shut up & jump of a cliff, i couldn't care less

> I'll be back to my Ami soon enough, thank you God.

I pity that amiga to have an owner as moronic as you

Amon_Re


Christophe Ochal

unread,
Sep 7, 2000, 10:15:47 AM9/7/00
to
SG <sg...@spamfree.wf.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
39B79682...@spamfree.wf.net...

> Christophe Ochal wrote:
>
> > > Well, I think taking 5 secs, commmonly, to respond to a button press
is
> > > completely unacceptable, or waiting 20 times longer to launch a normal
> > > app (~.1 vs 2 secs), or waiting 3 secs for menu to appear, or actaully
> > > watching as a window closes, or draws piecemeal, is slow--so I guess
we
> > > have different standards. We all know how poorly Windows performs, we
> > > all use so many of them daily, in so many walks of life. I don't know
> > > anyone who would entertain buying a C450 these days. Why? Because
> > > there are slightly more bearable Windows machines out today.
> >
> > Then howcome my P-II 266 outperforms my Amiga with a BlizzardPPC? Just
try
> > WarpNeomame & play some neogeo games with no frameskip & sound enabled,
and
> > tell me how 'well' it works....
>
> Sure, some games are better on a pc. Though My 266 is, as a rough hack,

*some*?? All NeoGeo games are *slower* on the Amiga, and no decent sound
output

> ten to a hunred times slower than my 060, in terms of general

A *rough hack*? What the hell are you smoking? Even a simple Celeron Outruns
your 060

> operation. Probably even a lot more than that at the top end (into the
> thousands of times slower), but I know the Windows users here freak out

Proof? Stats? Facts? Anything? Stop pulling facts out of your arse

> and start name calling when you point out that even an A1000 doesn't
> takes a few seconds just to recognize that a mouse button has been

Nor does windows, i never encountered *Any* of the crap you mention,
however, i remember my A500 coming to a grinding halt when playing mods with
more then 8 channels with Delitracker, so much for that "power sheduling you
refer too....

> pressed, or sit and buzz for several seconds, routinely, while spinning
> memory mega-bloat contends with simple hard drive access, etc.

Huh? Can you translate that to English?

> Bottomline, there is no way you can compare the raw speed and joy of
> instant gratification of AmigaOS on a modern Amiga to the downright

What raw speed? A PII-266 outruns an 060-604 combo without breaking a sweat!

> sluggishness of modern day Windows. Those who use -both- in modern form
> every day wouldn't dream of comparing the two, the pc loses so badly it
> simply isn't worth discussing.

You are very predictable indeed, why am i not suprised to see the same lie
over & over & over again from you?

All you're arguments are suggestive, and *can NOT* be backed up with any
facts

In other words, you're an ass

Amon_Re


Christophe Ochal

unread,
Sep 7, 2000, 10:35:06 AM9/7/00
to
SG <sg...@spamfree.wf.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
39B79D14...@spamfree.wf.net...

I didn't know csaa stands for lying, or is it Cons.Scams.Amiga.Advocacy

Amon_Re


SG

unread,
Sep 7, 2000, 10:51:17 AM9/7/00
to

Marijan Franovic wrote:

> > >> > Ouch, yet another OS too, for what, a few bugfixes and finally better
> > >> > than lack luster multitasking? Fingernails on a blackboard.
> > >>
> > >> Have you used it yet?
> > >>
> > >
> > >I used it and it's much more stabile, and it doesn't block system when it tries
> > >to format a single floppy disc.

:^)

> > I haven't seen that since Win3.1. Since Win95, formatting a floppy has
> > had zero impact on the system, except that in Win95 there was a slight
> > hiccup for a fraction of a second when the process was first initiated.
>
> Your fraction of second can take a while, you know.

John used to say his 486 did everthing in fractions of seconds too.

> > Huh? Sure it's not an immature graphics driver you saw?
> >
>
> Well Detonator 6.16 can't be immature. Also that's my job to know what is good and
> what isn't good driver (i work for largest computer suplier in Croatia - in service
> and support department - so don't worry I saw several hundred of PC configurations
> just last year with different OS'es and different strenght.

Pretty much very Amiga user has, perhaps unfortunately.

> > >and uses
> > >HDD even much more often then Win98SE or NT4.0.
> >
> > It uses more RAM than them to boot, resulting in more swapping in
> > systems with less than 100 megs of RAM, but the memory management is
> > much better, and when you get up into the 192 meg + range, you can do a
> > lot more in Win2k than you can in the others with the same amount of
> > RAM, without swapping.
> >
>
> I have 128Megs.

Sorry to hear that. :^(

John advocates 384MBs, assuming one isn't using one of his old 486s.

Christophe Ochal

unread,
Sep 7, 2000, 11:24:43 AM9/7/00
to
SG <sg...@spamfree.wf.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
39B7AB65...@spamfree.wf.net...

> Marijan Franovic wrote:
>
> > > >> > Ouch, yet another OS too, for what, a few bugfixes and finally
better
> > > >> > than lack luster multitasking? Fingernails on a blackboard.
> > > >>
> > > >> Have you used it yet?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >I used it and it's much more stabile, and it doesn't block system
when it tries
> > > >to format a single floppy disc.
>
> :^)
>
> > > I haven't seen that since Win3.1. Since Win95, formatting a floppy
has
> > > had zero impact on the system, except that in Win95 there was a slight
> > > hiccup for a fraction of a second when the process was first
initiated.
> >
> > Your fraction of second can take a while, you know.
>
> John used to say his 486 did everthing in fractions of seconds too.

Can you prove that?

> > > Huh? Sure it's not an immature graphics driver you saw?
> > >
> >
> > Well Detonator 6.16 can't be immature. Also that's my job to know what
is good and
> > what isn't good driver (i work for largest computer suplier in Croatia -
in service
> > and support department - so don't worry I saw several hundred of PC
configurations
> > just last year with different OS'es and different strenght.
>
> Pretty much very Amiga user has, perhaps unfortunately.

You *saw* them <period>

> > > >and uses
> > > >HDD even much more often then Win98SE or NT4.0.
> > >
> > > It uses more RAM than them to boot, resulting in more swapping in
> > > systems with less than 100 megs of RAM, but the memory management is
> > > much better, and when you get up into the 192 meg + range, you can do
a
> > > lot more in Win2k than you can in the others with the same amount of
> > > RAM, without swapping.
> > >
> >
> > I have 128Megs.
>
> Sorry to hear that.


How much mem did you have?

> John advocates 384MBs, assuming one isn't using one of his old 486s.

John advocates his point of vision, you lack vision

Amon_Re


John Sheehy

unread,
Sep 7, 2000, 6:06:01 PM9/7/00
to
In message <39B7AB65...@spamfree.wf.net>,
SG <sg...@spamfree.wf.net> wrote :

>
>
>Marijan Franovic wrote:
>
>> > >> > Ouch, yet another OS too, for what, a few bugfixes and finally better
>> > >> > than lack luster multitasking? Fingernails on a blackboard.
>> > >>
>> > >> Have you used it yet?
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >I used it and it's much more stabile, and it doesn't block system when it tries
>> > >to format a single floppy disc.
>
>:^)
>
>> > I haven't seen that since Win3.1. Since Win95, formatting a floppy has
>> > had zero impact on the system, except that in Win95 there was a slight
>> > hiccup for a fraction of a second when the process was first initiated.
>>
>> Your fraction of second can take a while, you know.
>
>John used to say his 486 did everthing in fractions of seconds too.

You have only been here for less than three years, and my 486 hasn't
been active since about early 1996, and yet you know what I used to say?

What I have said is that switching between apps took a fraction of a
second in Win95 when I had enough RAM that I wasn't always swapping. I
never said anything even remotely resembling a statement about
"everything" taking a fraction of a second. Why are you such a liar?

>> > >and uses
>> > >HDD even much more often then Win98SE or NT4.0.
>> >
>> > It uses more RAM than them to boot, resulting in more swapping in
>> > systems with less than 100 megs of RAM, but the memory management is
>> > much better, and when you get up into the 192 meg + range, you can do a
>> > lot more in Win2k than you can in the others with the same amount of
>> > RAM, without swapping.
>> >
>>
>> I have 128Megs.
>
>Sorry to hear that. :^(
>
>John advocates 384MBs, assuming one isn't using one of his old 486s.

No, that's what I have, and it's overkill for most people. I would
recommend 128 megs for Win98, and 192 for Win2k, for most people. Once
again, you lie.

John Sheehy

unread,
Sep 7, 2000, 6:08:19 PM9/7/00
to
In message <39B79D14...@spamfree.wf.net>,
SG <sg...@spamfree.wf.net> wrote :

The problem is, you've never seen Windows running at full speed, as
evidenced by your frequent assertion that Windows always depends on
"spinning memory".

Bjørnar Bolsøy

unread,
Sep 7, 2000, 8:09:00 PM9/7/00
to
jsh...@ix.netcom.com (John Sheehy) wrote in
<ev3grs0hdb402ua0n...@4ax.com>:

>No, that's what I have, and it's overkill for most people. I
>would recommend 128 megs for Win98, and 192 for Win2k, for most
>people. Once again, you lie.

A poweruser would easily do with half that, by making a few
ajustments to the system and going for more efficient apps.


Regards...

SG

unread,
Sep 8, 2000, 3:53:09 AM9/8/00
to
Bjørnar Bolsøy <bbol...@rl.telia.no.nospam> wrote:

I don't know of a pc in my work place with less than WinNT4/128MB today,
yet all are very slow machines by comparision to my CSPPC. Same with
friends machines, though there's a lot of Win98 out there still.
--

-Steve.

SG

unread,
Sep 8, 2000, 4:50:16 AM9/8/00
to
Noel <zz...@oisin.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 08:50:12 -0500, SG <sg...@spamfree.wf.net> wrote:
>
> >Of course AmigaOS being so much faster than Windows is my favorite
> >material.
>

> Your choice of fiction is up to you entirely.

You have no basis to comment. Only one of us uses both in modern form,
me.


--

-Steve.

Bjørnar Bolsøy

unread,
Sep 8, 2000, 5:11:03 AM9/8/00
to
sg...@spamfree.wf.net (SG) wrote in <39B85495.MD
-1.4.4...@spamfree.wf.net>:
>Bjørnar Bolsøy <bbol...@rl.telia.no.nospam> wrote:
>>