Bloatware AmigaOS?

[AndrewBell]

hamtronix wrote:
TinyXP gave me no problems and was vastly shrunk in size...

Dig deep enough and you will find problems. Buttons that no longer work, settings tabs that are completely ghosted, and software that just won't install because it needs some obscure service that you never used before. Yes, Windows can be made much smaller, but it's far from problem free.

As for AmigaOS being bloated, it's all relative. My Nokia N95 has about 100MB of software by default. Compared to that the 200MB for OS4 is quite good.
________
DAIHATSU COPEN HISTORY

[Hammer]

stefcep2 wrote:
Iif there's one thing I have learned over the years is that software will always grow to fill the hardware.  Amiga hardware has been caught in a 1993 time-warp, so the OS and software run within these hardware constraints.  It gets interesting if you emulate some of the different Amiga OS distributions out there:  Amikit looks like the most modern AmigaOs you can get in terms of eye candy and "features" but it is far slower than Amigasys or classic amiga, which aren't as "feature" rich.  Still, the Amiga would have bloated over time, but not nearly as much as X86.  Don't forget the X86 hardware platform is basically designed to suit the windows way of doing things ie its windows that demands the hardware be designed to suit it, not that windows is made to run on the hardware.

The development platform for 64bit Windows 2000 was DEC’s Alpha. This code base forms the basis for IA-64 and AMD64 (Codename: Anvil) Windows XP (NT5.2) and 2K3 (NT5.2) editions. NT5.2 codebase serves as basis for second Windows Vista development refresh i.e. early Windows Vista development builds was based from NT5.1 (Windows XP 32bit edition).

Actually, PowerPC’s little endian mode was designed with Windows NT in mind. This mode was dropped in PowerPC 970. For Xbox 360 development, Microsoft has Windows NT5.x based kernels and modifed DirectX9 stack running on Apple's PowerMac G5s and it doesn’t require PowerPC's little endian modes.

XBOX360 carries a superset of DirectX9 stack and it's Xenon CPU include instructions for Direct3D.

Win32 layers is portable enough for running on MIPS, Alpha, ARM, PowerPC and 'etc'. Windows CE (with desktop) on ARM/MIPS based device "look and feels" like Windows 9x/NT4 btw.

http://the-gadgeteer.com/review/moreio_ezpad_ce_net_device_review

 Much of the efficiency that comes from the Amiga is because the hardware and os are tightly integrated together.  But you can't get that with generic mass produced hardware,

Factor in AROS X86.

it has to be propriatory and no users  want that because its expensive eg remember the powerpc macs cost nearly twice as much as equivalent PC hardware at the time.

Windows NT runs fine on MIPS and Alphas. Remember Newtek’s Lightwave accelerators workstations such as Raptors in CUAmiga/ Amiga Format magazines?
 

[Hammer]

HenryCase wrote:

stefcep2 wrote:
Thats an issue related to the fact that the hardware x86 design is dictated by the OS that will run on it, not the other way around.

In what way is an x86 processor limited by the OSs that run on it? Windows could be ported to any processor architecture and still look and feel the same it does on x86, provided the processor was fast enough to run it. Similarly, any OS could be ported to x86.

Waccoon wrote:
I disagree. Even X86 is pretty efficient if you think about it, because hardware engineers cannot be anywhere near as sloppy as software engineers

One of the main factors that prevents x86 being efficient is the legacy of previous chip designs. One example of x86 legacy is the A20 line gate. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A20_line

For Pentium(P5) and greater, the P5 processor has a FAST A20 option that bypasses the A20 line completely. To set the A20 line, there is no need for delay loops or polling i.e. you only need 3 simple asm instructions.

in al, 0x92
or al, 2
out 0x92, al

FAST A20 capability must be detected or something else can happen. Bootloader such as Grub can enable A20 gate.  

[Hammer]

Roj wrote:
The mouse driver distribution for my Logitech cordless is just over 60 megabytes. That's just a mouse driver. I think it's the other way round. From that, it looks like Windows lacks the resources and needs special help to get a mouse to have proper behavior.

For basic mouse functions, Windows XP and Vista doesn’t need Logitech’s setpoint software.

Logitech’s Setpoint 4 software includes photos for different Logitech’s mices.

[Hammer]

stefcep2 wrote:

In what way is an x86 processor limited by the OSs that run on it? Windows could be ported to any processor architecture and still look and feel the same it does on x86, provided the processor was fast enough to run it. Similarly, any OS could be ported to x86.

I do not know enough details about x86 **processors**, i was talking to the whole PC architectural design which nowdays is x86 based for home use.

AMD's EV6 bus architecture (for K7 Athlon) was based on DEC's Alpha EV6 i.e. "big-tin" or workstation platform.

There are K7 Athlon (slot versions) motherboards that supports both Alphas and K7 Athlons. With AMD’s X86 motherboard partners, AMD managed to make an EV6 based motherboard cheaper.

AMD's HyperTransport (for K8/K10) is based on Alpha EV7’s bus architecture.    

(Nevertheless per clock cycle its my understanding that the x86 processors did less than 68k.).

Motorola 68060 IPC would be blown away by AMD K7/K8 and Intel Pentium III/Pentium M/Core/Core 2.

Motorola 68060 is not same league as DEC’s Alpha in running Lightwave.

In basic terms, AMD K7/K8/K10 Athlon and Intel Pentium III/Pentium M/Core can issue and retire 3 X86 instructions per cycle. Intel Core 2 Duo can can issue and retire 4 X86 instructions per cycle.

68060 can only issue two instruction (one integer and one float) per cycle or 2 integer instructions and one branch instruction per clock cycle.

AMD K7 3-way issue instruction can be a mix of float or integer e.g. 3 integer, 3 floats, 2 integer + 1 float, 1 integer + 2 floats,  

X86 is just an ISA and modern X86 processors (Intel Pentium Pro, AMD K5) translates (emulates) these CISC (variable length) instruction to RISC like instructions (e.g. fix length instructions) over multiple-pipelines (i.e. 6 wide for K7 Athlon).  

[zhulien]

I think the majority want bloatware and if you look at the typical Linux distro that is exactly what you get.  Although you can make Linux run from a floppy, it generally doesn't do much.  Not only do they add lots of functionality to the Linux kernel to make a distro which is arguably decent, but then they go further and instead of making a nice lean (as possible) full-featured OS, they go stick bundles of applications INTO THE OS DISTRO itself. Often WITHOUT the option of NOT installing them.  This is a real putoff!

[nBit7]

@Hammer
Sounds like you know your processors in detail that few know.

However comparing 68060 that came out in 1994 to a PIII or K7 (1999) is not being very fair.
What were the abilities of the 1993 Pentium or 1995 Pentium Pro in regards to clock cycles?
Was a Pentium better than a 68060 performance wise at the same clock speed?

If the 68k line was not effectively killed (as far as desktop CPU goes) would it not have been improved to still be competitive.
Or is the some architectural reason that would have limited it from the same type of improvements that make the x86 still viable?

[AmiGR]

they go stick bundles of applications INTO THE OS DISTRO itself. Often WITHOUT the option of NOT installing them. This is a real putoff!

Eh? Which distro does not give you the option of not installing the bundled apps? I've worked with RedHat, Debian and Gentoo and I selected what I wanted to install in all of them.

[HenryCase]

stefcep2 said:
Absolutely, an OS is nothing without Apps, but I think we should care when we buy hardware that is 1000 times faster and spacous and only to find we go 50% slower in being able to control those apps just because we 'upgraded" the OS.

I agree that wasting the power of a computer system is foolish, and one of the ways this is done is to use a bloated OS. However, the fact of the matter is a true upgrade will always have to offer new features so that people will upgrade, and if you want these new features to be running alongside the old features you are going to have a greater drain on resources. The real issue is that most OS upgrades are unnecessary.

@Hammer

I would just like to say that I mentioned the A20 line as an example x86 legacy, but I dont know all the details of legacy support for older software. Do you know of any other examples?

zhulien said:
I think the majority want bloatware and if you look at the typical Linux distro that is exactly what you get."

One of the strengths (and weaknesses) of Linux is the sheer diversity of distros. Most mainstream distros do come with a lot of software ready to install from the disk. I am grateful for this because I find installing Linux software a pain (lack of an .exe type of program container is one major reason Linux isn't ready for widespread acceptance IMHO).

However, the Linux distro ranges from super-bloated (Sabayon for example) to small yet useable (Puppy Linux, DSL, etc...). You also have distros built for speed (ArchLinux, VectorLinux, etc...) and customisation (Gentoo is a good example). Of course the most customisable distro would a LFS (Linux From Scratch), more info here: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

[uncharted]

I thought I'd sit back and see what people's opinions where on the matter.  There are a couple of interesting thoughts in here, but it seems that more people either completely missed the point or are still hung up on the same old arguments from 1996.

[HenryCase]

uncharted wrote:
I thought I'd sit back and see what people's opinions where on the matter.  There are a couple of interesting thoughts in here, but it seems that more people either completely missed the point or are still hung up on the same old arguments from 1996.

That's because there was nothing to discuss. Could AmigaOS have become the most bloated OS of all time? Yes. Was the size of the OS limited by the storage options? Yes. Does that answer your original questions?

It's more interesting to debate how AmigaOS compares with more modern OS's, especially considering the role of the OS has stayed constant.

[DonnyEMU]

AmigaOS wouldn't be mean and lean if you were running the following items when it booted up:

A web server

SQL Server

Encryption Software

You guys should really think about what people have running in the background in their Windows and MacOS machines these days all the time. Services for instance. If you shut these things down, you can't do half as much with the particular OS but even those systems run faster when they are paired down and less is running.

[HenryCase]

DonnyEMU wrote:
You guys should really think about what people have running in the background in their Windows and MacOS machines these days all the time. Services for instance. If you shut these things down, you can't do half as much with the particular OS but even those systems run faster when they are paired down and less is running.

But how many of those services are necessary to keep running all the time? Also, I'm pretty sure that the services don't get used fully, it would make sense to keep the size of them to a minimum (i.e. split them into smaller chunks).

[uncharted]

HenryCase wrote:

That's because there was nothing to discuss.

Really? Perhaps you'd like to explain that further?

Could AmigaOS have become the most bloated OS of all time? Yes. Was the size of the OS limited by the storage options? Yes. Does that answer your original questions?

No.  Because those were not questions I was asking.  Did you read the original post?

It's more interesting to debate how AmigaOS compares with more modern OS's, especially considering the role of the OS has stayed constant.

How is that more interesting?  It's so {bleep}ing tedious reading through the same antiquated arguments over an over again.

I give up.  :-(

[HenryCase]

uncharted wrote:
I give up.  :-(

Please dont give up. I apologise for the tone of my previous post, it was a little rude.

Could AmigaOS have become the most bloated OS of all time? Yes. Was the size of the OS limited by the storage options? Yes. Does that answer your original questions?

No.  Because those were not questions I was asking.  Did you read the original post?

Yes I did read the OP. These were the questions you asked:

1. Is AmigaOS really mean and lean because of its design philosophy or is it more to do with its situation?
2. If you think about it, could it be that AmigaOS is so lean because it was never given the resources by Commodore and has been left to rot ever since?
3. Back in the early 90's AmigaOS was, size-wise, on a par with MacOS. Could it be that had development continued with a decent amount of resources that AmigaOS would be as fully featured and as large as modern OSes?

My answers:
1. The hardware AmigaOS runs on did stop Commodore going too over the top with the design. However, you have to consider the time when AmigaOS was designed (the first version, the rest followed the same template). AmigaOS was certainly more flash than the other OS's released at the same time, it only seems small in comparison with modern OS's.
2. AmigaOS had no need to be bloated, especially considering it wasn't an open platform (all Amiga h/w produced by Commodore at the time), so they could make it compact. I'm a bit worried that you're looking for a bloated OS (that's how I'm interpreting it, apologies if I'm wrong).
3. I already answered this, but yes as long as there was new Amiga h/w produced there is nothing intrinsic in the design of the OS that would prevent AmigaOS becoming bloated. Whether the developers would have chosen to take this route is another matter.

It's more interesting to debate how AmigaOS compares with more modern OS's, especially considering the role of the OS has stayed constant.

How is that more interesting?  It's so {bleep}ing tedious reading through the same antiquated arguments over an over again.

You may not have found it interesting, but others might have. Your questions only make sense when you consider the historical context so it is natural to compare what AmigaOS is now with the modern computing world.

uncharted wrote:

HenryCase wrote:

That's because there was nothing to discuss.

Really? Perhaps you'd like to explain that further?

My comment was a reaction to your comment: "I thought I'd sit back and see what people's opinions where on the matter. There are a couple of interesting thoughts in here, but it seems that more people either completely missed the point or are still hung up on the same old arguments from 1996."

From that I was quite rightly assuming that you weren't interested in listening to a debate about bloat on AmigaOS vs modern OS'. Hence why I gave you the two answers to the questions we could ask if we weren't going to discuss AmigaOS in comparison with newer/other systems.

Does that help you see my point of view?

[uncharted]

@HenryCase

Don't mind me, I'm just being a grumpy sod today.