Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Amiga Kit Amiga Store Iridium Banner AMIStore App Store A1200/A600 4xIDE Interface

AuthorTopic: Comparative between AmigaOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.3 on Pegasos II  (Read 5619 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline cv643d

Re: Comparative between AmigaOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.3 on Pegasos II
« Reply #30 on: August 12, 2009, 06:51:47 PM »
Quote from: TheMagicM;518932
MorphOS p\/\/n3d OS4.1.     There it is in plain black n white, the numbers dont lie.  Congratulations MorphOS developers, then again, I knew those coders were the best!


You did?

So the difference is bad code? Have you got any facts backing up this statement? and with facts I do not mean assuming that something is or is not in ones fantasy.
Amiga articles
"New shell. It was finished a while back, but I still see bugs, haha" - SSolie
 

Offline Delta

Re: Comparative between AmigaOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.3 on Pegasos II
« Reply #31 on: August 13, 2009, 03:30:10 AM »
@takemehomegrandma:  I have no idea what you are talking about and why I have pissed you off that much. (must have hit the sensible Peg2 spot...sorry)  

I was commenting from the point of view of a user that has no more Amiga but is hoping for new hardware/software to be available at a fair price with average consumer level standards.

This test made by the french guys is merely stating that MorphOS runs faster on the Peg2 thans OS4.1 with numbers to prove it.  They also say at the end:

""Il faut mettre tout de même un bémol à ce comparatif. Il a eu lieu sur un matériel sur lequel l'AmigaOS 4.1 est soi-disant en version "bêta"."""

Which translates roughly to: "Don't take these comparisons too seriously.  They were made on hardware that OS4.1 is supposed to be in beta version"

For the buyer (me for example) that means, nothing is final, stay tuned for more.
-=Delta
 

Offline TheMagicM

Re: Comparative between AmigaOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.3 on Pegasos II
« Reply #32 on: August 13, 2009, 03:38:11 AM »
Quote from: cv643d;518988
You did?

So the difference is bad code? Have you got any facts backing up this statement? and with facts I do not mean assuming that something is or is not in ones fantasy.


LOLOL!!!!

Here is my post again:

Quote from: TheMagicM;518988
You did?
MorphOS p\/\/n3d OS4.1. There it is in plain black n white, the numbers dont lie. Congratulations MorphOS developers, then again, I knew those coders were the best!


Read it.  Read it again.  Cut-n-paste it into your favorite Amiga text editor (CygnusED is mine) and search for "bad code".  Do that a few times.  Then re-read my quote again.  Rinse, repeat.  Come back and then edit your post with a "my bad".  :)   Nowhere did I say it was bad code.  I just said in layman's terms MorphOS beat OS4.1 on the same system.
PowerMac G5 dual 2.0ghz/128meg Radeon/500gb HD/2GB RAM, MorphOS 3.9 registered, user #1900
Powerbook G4 5,6 1.67ghz/2gb RAM, Radeon 9700/250gb hd, MorphOS 3.9 registered #3143
 

Offline hooligan

Re: Comparative between AmigaOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.3 on Pegasos II
« Reply #33 on: August 13, 2009, 07:43:20 AM »
Quote from: TheMagicM;519032
LOLOL!!!!

Here is my post again:



Read it.  Read it again.  Cut-n-paste it into your favorite Amiga text editor (CygnusED is mine) and search for "bad code".  Do that a few times.  Then re-read my quote again.  Rinse, repeat.  Come back and then edit your post with a "my bad".  :)   Nowhere did I say it was bad code.  I just said in layman's terms MorphOS beat OS4.1 on the same system.


I'd go as far as saying there indeed IS bad code. How else can one explain some of those multiple times worse figures.
 

Offline takemehomegrandma

Re: Comparative between AmigaOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.3 on Pegasos II
« Reply #34 on: August 13, 2009, 08:57:28 AM »
Quote from: hooligan;519042
I'd go as far as saying there indeed IS bad code. How else can one explain some of those multiple times worse figures.


Indeed. And code is written by the coders, and the resulting quality is depending on their education, experience and motivation (in other words: competence).

I would also guess that OS4 doesn't make as much use of the Altivec that MorphOS does. It would be kind of interesting to see this test done all over again, but with a Pegasos 2 *G3*. Then you should be able to spot the impact of Altivec, which I definitely think is there.
MorphOS is Amiga done right! :)
 

Offline Painkiller

Re: Comparative between AmigaOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.3 on Pegasos II
« Reply #35 on: August 13, 2009, 12:43:22 PM »
Quote from: cv643d;518988
So the difference is bad code?

Seriously what else could it be as the hardware is the same. Or not bad but just not as good / optimized which makes it bad compared to MOS ;)
 

Offline platon42

Re: Comparative between AmigaOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.3 on Pegasos II
« Reply #36 on: August 14, 2009, 10:21:03 AM »
Quote from: Painkiller;519058
Seriously what else could it be as the hardware is the same. Or not bad but just not as good / optimized which makes it bad compared to MOS ;)

As umisef already pointed out, there are lots of things. MMU setup for example. For all I know AOS4 uses the MMU to invoke the 68k emulator when jumping from PPC into legacy code. This causes a context switch which in turn penalizes performance. MorphOS uses a different approach without causing exceptions. So it's better, while the AOS4 way makes it more "comfortable" in from the OS point of view.

Moreover, while both AOS4 and MorphOS have virtual memory, AOS4 needs to keep far more complex MMU tables for their paging stuff -- also not all TLBs fit into cache at the same time, this causes penalities during memory access. I'm not sure, maybe additional complexity comes from the Supervisor mode MMU tables in this case during context switching.

Finally, and ChrisH won't like this: The Slab allocator is inferior to TLSF. That's a fact. Read the publications, do some research. Slab has higher internal fragmentation (i.e. it wastes memory) and because it wastes memory, CPU and L2 caches are not used optimally because the used memory is more sparse. The external fragmentation on TLSF is also very small, but I don't have a comparing figure to the Slab allocator right now. Also I suspect (consider this not confirmed) that due to the paging that AOS4 allows, external fragmentation might be further increased due to alignment restrictions to MMU page sizes (probably paging is disabled for very small allocations). Allocations and freeing are always O(1) on TLSF with the amount of instructions being not significantly higher than other memory allocators, especially since Slab is very complex and I'm fairly sure that Slab is no O(1) allocator (but probably still sub-linear, so this is certainly an improvement over AmigaOS 3.x).

These are all design decisions that have nothing to do with bad coding style. More with design goals and experience. Live with it. AOS4 allows paging, but this makes the system slower overall. Similar to having memory protection on other operating systems and separate address spaces for every process. You gain something, but you lose other stuff.

I dunno why USB is so slow under AmigaOS4, but having seen that Poseidon under AROS also performs "not optimal" for access to USB sticks due to the non-caching implementation of the FAT file system, I'd rather suspect the CrossDOS file system of is worse than the MorphOS implementation there. One could try "scsispeed" to out-rule the filesystem rather than the USB subsystem.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2009, 01:24:31 PM by platon42 »
--
Regards, Chris Hodges )-> http://www.platon42.de <-(
hackerkey://v4sw7CJS$hw6/7ln6pr7+8AOP$ck0ma8u2LMw1/4Xm5l3i5TJCOTextPad/e7t2BDMNb7GHLen5a34s5IMr1g3/5ACM
 

Offline Painkiller

Re: Comparative between AmigaOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.3 on Pegasos II
« Reply #37 on: August 14, 2009, 12:29:00 PM »
So the code is rotten by design ;) That is even worse as they would have to change the whole design in order to fix it :P
 

Offline jj

Re: Comparative between AmigaOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.3 on Pegasos II
« Reply #38 on: August 14, 2009, 05:03:29 PM »
Quote from: Painkiller;519208
So the code is rotten by design ;) That is even worse as they would have to change the whole design in order to fix it :P

Don't think you really understand what was said or what you were saying.  What has been said is that the code is different as it has/had different goals, which was not just speed.
“We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw

Xbox Live: S0ulA55a551n2
 
Registered MorphsOS 3.13 user on Powerbook G4 15"
 

Offline warpdesign

Re: Comparative between AmigaOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.3 on Pegasos II
« Reply #39 on: August 15, 2009, 09:25:23 AM »
Quote

IIRC the AOS4 Pegasus port uses a BIOS API for the hardware

No. OS4 Pegasos port uses the smart firmware, just like MorphOS. Look for another explaination...

Or just accept the fact OS4 is slower, and live with it :)
 

Offline actung_bab

Re: Comparative between AmigaOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.3 on Pegasos II
« Reply #40 on: August 15, 2009, 12:24:36 PM »
or chould look how slow new versions of windows work on older machines which werent desined for l guessing as am not a programer or know much about this at all

maybe os 4.1 runs better on hardware was orginally coded on eg A1

and of course sam 440 is designed after this point as well with more modern

sata hd and faster acess which must help alot and faster memory interface

it seem realitive anyway most machines run real good when first install get bit slower more things u have running just a thought.

makes intresting reading
Acthung baby
http://telnet://midnight-blue.dyndns.org
Cnet 4.60 PRO bbs software
Amiga 1200 020 14 mhz mbz 1200 z pcmcia network card 4 meg ram 2 Gb scandisk cf
Amiga 2000 020
Amiga 4000 030 25 mhz broken
Amiga x 4 1200
x 6 Sony Ps 3 Orginal 60 gb 4  port usb 160 gb hd (os 4.1 ready :-)
what can i say i like thse machines
x 3 XBOX 360 1x xbox 360 slim
url=http://avatars.jurko.net][/url]
 

Offline warpdesign

Re: Comparative between AmigaOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.3 on Pegasos II
« Reply #41 on: August 15, 2009, 03:37:34 PM »
Quote

maybe os 4.1 runs better on hardware was orginally coded on eg A1

When comparing other OSs on the same platform, we don't use any explainations. It's faster or slower. Period. There's no "well, maybe Windows uses a different way than Linux to initialize the memory controller and this explains it's slower... Linux hasn't been optimized for NVidia boards so 3D speed is inferior",...

It's faster or slower, period.

OS4 is current slower than MorphOS on the same hardware. Now just live with it ! This isn't the end of the world :)
 

Offline delshay

Re: Comparative between AmigaOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.3 on Pegasos II
« Reply #42 on: August 16, 2009, 09:59:59 AM »
i for one don't care which is faster,whats important to me is that it is usable and most important it is stable.
-------------
power is nothing without control