Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Software Issues and Discussion => Topic started by: star1 on August 19, 2003, 09:38:38 PM
-
Hi everyone,
What are the requirements for OS4.0??
How much mem is needed to run it??- hopefully not
like WindosXp with 128MB.
Can someone clarify..
Thanks
-
An Amiga One :-)
128MB should be more than enough.. and its cheap anyway - a stick of 128 is entry level! - But personally you can never have enough. The more RAM the merrier!
-
I believe it was said 32 Megabytes would be the minimum.
-
Initial release:
Amiga 4000 w/ CyberstormPPC card, 32MB RAM, 500Meg HD.
-
I've heard 32MB as well. I wonder what that actually equates to in reality though... I mean, look at MS's OS minimum memory requirements... Win95 on 4MB RAM?
If OS4 is 32MB absolutely required, then it's not that different to WinNTx :-)
-
Win 95 was not an OS but a GUI for DOS.
No 'modern' OS that would perfom efficiently with Just 4MB of RAM.
-
@GadgetMaster
Ahem, I run OpenBSD on 4MB fine.
-
Win 95 was not an OS but a GUI for DOS.
Oh god... don't start this argument again. Needless to say I disagree strongly, as MS-DOS provided very little backbone for Win95. And anyone who raises the "yeah but you can still get a command prompt up for WinNTx, which means it runs on top of MS-DOS!" Cringely DOH-quote will get a slap.
All of that aside, what has Win95 being 'officially declared an OS by all parties' got to do with what I said?
No 'modern' OS that would perfom efficiently with Just 4MB of RAM.
Even if it were true, what's that got to do with the price of fish?
-
Downix said :
"Ahem, I run OpenBSD on 4MB fine."
Eh.. ok. But don't expect me to believe that you're actually using it like you use windows, fully graphical and browsers, etc. cause then it won't run "fine" anymore ;)
For a server doing static things, sure.. that could very well work. Probably need to trim down the services etc that you start, but your statement make it sound so casual that it might give others that hasn't run BSD the wrong impression.
-
@Downix
Define fine
I mean exactly what day to day desktop computing operations do you perform on that machine with 4MB ram?
@MikeyMike
I don't know much about the price of fish but the statement that "OS/4 is not that much different than NT" is a bit fishy, not least because OS4 isn't even available to you for comparison.
Having similar minimum memory requirements does not mean that the memory handling and performance will be the same.
Then again I probably misunderstood you anyway.
Also I think I mixed up Win 95 with Win 3.1 actually. All those darn MS OSs seem the same to me ;-)
It was Windows 3.x that was just a front end for DOS ...gotta remember my computing history. :-?
-
windows 9X added 32bit power (excluding Win32S stuff) Windows 3.1 and lesser were 16 bit just like DOS but provided multitasking and a GUI.
Windows 9X is an OS, you can run stuff in it that DOS can't run. Same goes for Win3.1, IIRC though to a lesser extent (for one thing most proggies were DOS anyhow)
MMMMM Swedish Fish, god's candy, well God's and the wax companie's.
-
@reflect
You did not say "GUI" or any of that. I do fine work, including text processing and web page design, on that box.
-
@GadgetMaster
Ok, let's go for a full GUI OS in 4MB:
Linux w/ nano-X, or DirectFB
QNX
PalmOS
-
IIRC Win 3.x could not be installed untill DOS was installed first.
-
@Downix
I have a feeling you knew exactly what I meant and you are purposely being pedantic just to keep this conversation lively.
I have no qualms with that so I won't bother rephrasing my statement. ;-)
-
@gadgetMaster
Actually I'm being honest. I do all "real OS" stuff with the above mentioned OS's, and do it well.
They do the job excellently.
-
I think you should have 128MB or at least 64MB. 32MB is not enough IMO.
You probably have gfx board that can do true color graphics eating lot of RAM. Decoding buffers for AmiNetRadio can easily eat few megs. PPC binaries are approximately twice as large and you need som (probably lot) RAM for JIT too.
32MB could work if you have fast HD for swapping! :-)
-
I can just FELL THE LOVE in this room :-D :-D :-D :-D
-
Windows 3.1 and lesser were 16 bit just like DOS but provided multitasking
It did not provide multitasking, it was taskswitching :-)
-
Whatever it's final minimum memory requirements are for the A1/OS4 which i assume would be anything from 16 to 64mb, give it at least 256mb and let the multitasking fun begin.
I personaly would probably give it 512mb (seems overkill in Amiga land but it's cheap) so i know i will never run out and could run as many apps at once i could possibly ever need. I could do this on os3.9 with 64mb very easily but i'm allowing alittle extra for OS4 :-)
-
An AmigaOne G3 700 with 64MB, or an Amiga classic with PPC, if Hyperion work fine, i think an Amiga classic PPC 603 with 32MB
-
I thaught OS4.0 was fast low-mem footprint os , then how is 32 or 128MB low footprint????
How are they gone market OS 4.0 in the embedded area when Qnx does everthing on one floppy disk with low mem and os 4.0 stands there with 32mb??
-
downix wrote:
@GadgetMaster
Ahem, I run OpenBSD on 4MB fine.
I'm sure it runs fine, but you must've really enjoyed installing it. Are we talking i386?
-
When i got my Openbsd 2.9 machine, i believe the bare minimum for OpenbSD with Xwindows was 16M... or , actualy i could have been 8 :)...
OpenBSD rox for memory :) and of course security. Its far better in both regards compared to linux.
I also sure its kernel is far lighter weight. I remember when i ran BSD with 64M of ram, at login i'd have 54M free... :) Custome kernels rock too :) im obssessed with customising kernels, i love it... nothing better to get the performance you need...
Which makes me wonder, i'd love to do something similar with AmigaOS if i'd ever get it or windows. But with both of those, you'r never going to get the source... do you think that maybe the kernels could support loadable modules and a configuration tool could be used to select the ones we want?
for example, if we know we're not going to be useing USB or some other devices that requires drivers untill we actualy get some hardware to use it with, we should be able to disable and no load it... is this possible currently? and if not, could loadable module support be included in execSG?
sorry for beign off topic :)
-
It would be cool if Windows 2000 got open-sourced.
Not likely, of course :-D
-
star1 wrote:
I thaught OS4.0 was fast low-mem footprint os , then how is 32 or 128MB low footprint????
How are they gone market OS 4.0 in the embedded area when Qnx does everthing on one floppy disk with low mem and os 4.0 stands there with 32mb??
QNX doesn't do the impossible with low mem. I forget the requirements for the demo disk, but they must've been at least 8MB, and it's no longer offered.
From the download page, the current suggestions for what was the RtP (now "Momentics NC"?) are
'400 MHz Pentium or better, 128M RAM , 1.0 G disk space.' I ran it on a Pentium 133, and managed to chop the system image (forgetting my terminology here... the nifty little filesystem-in-a-file that keeps your array of microkernel daemons or whatever as 'portable' as a monolithic kernel) down enough to survive in 32MB, but as soon as you want a desktop background, use of the Flash plugin, or a few pieces of useful software open... you're going to crave more memory.
Point is, you can make it quite small if you have a specific purpose in mind, and QSSL have certainly done a good job of making that process easy, but a 32MB requirement isn't that unusual for a general-purpose OS that won't use shared memory at every stage of the game.
Think about it... even something as 'simple' as a web browser really *is* more complex than the average arcade game - you can make a lithe one, but you don't get the benefit of being able to, say, pack all your graphics in some proprietary hyper-compressed format you've invented for the purpose and tuned for your particular title.
-
How much mem is needed to run it??- hopefully not
like WindosXp with 128MB
Did you by any chance notice, the first time you installed at tcp/ip stack like Miami, that all of yar 2 mb chipmem seemed to disappear somewhere, leaving you with like 150kb left to run a textbrowser such as Lynx? You know that's what happens, when things (as in computers and their functions) evolve and get even more advanced. They consume more resources and that is completely normal if you wan't to do more stuff with 'em.
No 'modern' OS that would perfom efficiently with Just 4MB of RAM
well said. unless you enjoy null-modem networks (oh man, the transfer speeds are brutal!) or like to have a desktop with fewer colors (like 8 color desktop) coz more bitplanes eat more memory. That's just the way it is!!!
Then there are OS:es such as windows. they like memory a lot. they eat it and do nothing of it. bloated code and so on... (bla bla)
Do remember: OS4 "needing" more memory than 3.1 is not a bad thing. That depends on what it should be able to do....
-
I think 32 is a good number to start with, I'd recommend 64 megs or more for decent performance, the extra room is good for all the little 68k tasks to be happy. I'll also point out that a blank bootable partition will also be needed to get OS 4 running. Given the amount of change between OS 3.X and OS 4 and most of the "hacks" we know and love so much being redundant starting fresh might be our only option.
Bill "tekmage" Borsari
-
I'm surprised no-one's mentioned this - the biggest memory hog on OS4 (and I bet it is on MOS too) will most probably be the native code caches for the 68K JIT translators. The bigger the caches, the more the JIT benefits.
-
Amiga OS is low footprint, but if you're thinking of running large m68k applications emulated you'll need more memory than on a classic machine. Due to the way the emulation works.
Can you even BUY less than 128MB sticks nowadays? (I know SIMMS for CSPPC and BPPC are generally a bit smaller, but remember that on these systems you could dual boot with 3.9 to run old applications without emulation).
It's also expected that you'll be working with higher resolutions in all your programs, and with larger documents. I mean, you can easily play videos on the CPU power in an AmigaOne or a CSPPC, so why wouldn't you? This means you'll need some memory as well.
But a MINIMUM requirement to run OS4 without any JIT emulation should be somewhere around 8MB. On a 320x200 8 bit screen ;-) (most people don't actually know how much memory screens take up. Try to calculate memory for 32 bit graphics in your preferred screensize and you'll see that 32MB won't last for many applications at all... 1600x1200 takes up 7.5MB of memory)
-
OS4 requires: [color=CC0000]Patience, and lots of it![/color][/i]
-
Floid : QNX doesn't do the impossible with low mem. I forget the requirements for the demo disk, but they must've been at least 8MB, and it's no longer offered.
Hi Floid,
That's because it used QNX's 4.x-lineage products, which since early Phoenix days have been surpassed by the 6.x stuff. Incidentally, the reason this would even require 8 megabytes was for browser caches. I think the demo would run in considerably less though (4 meg I think, but it's been so long since I read about the QNX 4.25 demo and then tried it...)
There were people developing QNX-based products that used less - bring what ya need and leave the rest at home ; } ...There are and have been embedded products that ran in less of course, but these were based on some pretty limited OSes - some really had little that could be called an OS.
From the download page, the current suggestions for what was the RtP (now "Momentics NC"?) are '400 MHz Pentium or better, 128M RAM , 1.0 G disk space.' I ran it on a Pentium 133, and managed to chop the system image (forgetting my terminology here... the nifty little filesystem-in-a-file that keeps your array of microkernel daemons or whatever as 'portable' as a monolithic kernel) down enough to survive in 32MB, but as soon as you want a desktop background, use of the Flash plugin, or a few pieces of useful software open... you're going to crave more memory.
There were more than a few people in Phoenix who got useable systems running in 16 meg (first place to check is buffers and cache defaults, then find the libraries you might never require, etc), some that got it down to running in 8 - and I think a couple of QNX vets got it running in 4 (still with the Photon MicroGUI, I believe!) ... So, even sophisticated products can definitely run on modest Flash - and that's with an OS that has way more services than the old, simpler 4.x microkernel and process manager, etc.
You mention Momentics: As you surmise Momentics itself is the offspring of RtP, essentially being a developers' desktop complete with the GNU toolchain and a fair number of other facilities for development and personal use, has generous buffer defaults, etc. This makes it possible to comfortably design, self-hosted with QNX, for products that run in a lot tighter space - targetting multiple architecures with runtimes, natch - which I still think is the superior way to painlessly have top performance on many processor architectures.
(The "pro" version adds Eclipse IDE with extensive third-party tools, really deep systems analysis tools, custom libraries for embedded work, and lots of othjer goodies).
...Anyway, it's incredible what they've achieved in a few short years - but back to the memory requirements issue: as RtP (QNX6) alphas and beta progressed it became obvious that people were wanting more more more and that the price of memory and storage was becoming cheap enough to design cost-competitive products with greater features and facility. QSSL even pretty much shelved the non-MMU version, offering it only as custom work, since the median architecture for their OS was logically more sophisticated anyway.
Taking this back to AOS4 (or my fave before even QNX, MorphOS), it's indeed as you've said: we DO want more more more and it takes more space to do that. But really (and thus the lengthy QNX talk here) these OSes are probably in no danger of becoming bloated and slow by ruling desktop-OS standards. It's just a natural progression, with a little extra "weight" there to serve legacy needs.
-
olegil:good post there boy! , i might add a few tips here...
all: so now , how much memory does a tripple buffered screen take ..if its ..lets say 1024x768x16 ? :) , we want speed or? ..no it wont be like pc and that kind of hogging , pc's (windows) doesnt utilize memory in the same way so dont fear you that u will only buy mem for the use of nothing ...
anyway games and sdl stuff etc should have tripple buffers activated , do we want games and stuff? ....yeeeees... i agree on stuff like ..os4 should work on 32megs ram , but i also agree on ...hey u need atleast 128megs ram to have fun with it.. why? because i have 128megs ram in my a1200 now (had for a couple of years) and i noticed how muc difference that gave me in the ppc games/demos field and to think of this as just a low context switch task...aiaiaiaiaa :)
also , have anyone seen a sdramm mem stick at 32mb or lower the last 3 years ? ..i havent seen any at all tbh!!
(lowst i have seen is 64mb)
AmigaOne and Os4 will....will... TAKE ON THE WORLD!
-
Note that you would probably keep as many screens as possible in GFX memory, though.
But still, a large screen with triple buffering takes up one heck of a lot of memory ;-)
Anyway, even something as simple as a word processor running on a 4 times larger screen will use 4 times as much memory. And DO NOT tell me you're gonna be getting a larger CPU and not run more things.
-
I don't know much about the price of fish but the statement that "OS/4 is not that much different than NT"
Pardon? When did I say or even imply that?
Having similar minimum memory requirements does not mean that the memory handling and performance will be the same.
No, but an explanation for the requirement, what kind of requirement it is would be useful. eg. Is 32MB only just enough to boot OS4 and do nothing else, like have TCP/IP configured and running.
-
I think you should have 128MB or at least 64MB. 32MB is not enough IMO.
Don't you think that depends on what you're going to use the computer for? Some Amiga user may absolutely require 2GB RAM in their A1 but that doesn't have any effect on recommending an amount for someone who is going to fire up a text editor from time to time.
And until Hyperion throws in an explanation of what the requirement actually means, saying "128MB or at least 64MB" is pretty much just wetting your finger and seeing which way the wind is blowing.
32MB could work if you have fast HD for swapping!
For all we know 32MB might be the minimum requirement so that the OS doesn't swap all the time and therefore suck performancewise.
-
by olegil on 2003/8/20 8:50:02
But a MINIMUM requirement to run OS4 without any JIT emulation should be somewhere around 8MB. On a 320x200 8 bit screen (most people don't actually know how much memory screens take up. Try to calculate memory for 32 bit graphics in your preferred screensize and you'll see that 32MB won't last for many applications at all... 1600x1200 takes up 7.5MB of memory)
Can you actually use a 320x200 screen? I mean without scrolling a 640x200 workbench left and right all the time?
-
Can you even BUY less than 128MB sticks nowadays?
What's that got to do with anything? I for one would like to know what the 32MB requirement actually means, because if I wanted to keep my costs low and buy "only" 128MB, then I'd want to know that I had enough slack with that memory to do what I wanted to do effectively/fast enough.
-
@MikeyMike
I think i did misunderstand you then.
BTW does anyone know if there is there a limit on the amount of memory that can be used as a RAM disk? Is there a percentage that must remain free?
-
AFAIK there wasn't a software limit in previous versions of AmigaOS, just that it would complain about lack of memory when trying to start a program that asked for more memory than was available. I don't see why that should change with OS4, but then I'm not a programmer.
-
For all we know 32MB might be the minimum requirement so that the OS doesn't swap all the time and therefore suck performancewise.
32MB is not much for OS3 even if you have highend setup. 64MB is not exaggarated at all.
-
OS3x can run on less than 2MB RAM, but has about 1% of the featureset that OS4 does!
-
itix wrote:
For all we know 32MB might be the minimum requirement so that the OS doesn't swap all the time and therefore suck performancewise.
The OS doesn't have the ability to swap yet. Wait for 4.1. ;-)
-
greenboy wrote:
Floid : QNX doesn't do the impossible with low mem. I forget the requirements for the demo disk, but they must've been at least 8MB, and it's no longer offered.
Hi Floid,
That's because it used QNX's 4.x-lineage products, which since early Phoenix days have been surpassed by the 6.x stuff. Incidentally, the reason this would even require 8 megabytes was for browser caches. I think the demo would run in considerably less though (4 meg I think, but it's been so long since I read about the QNX 4.25 demo and then tried it...)
There were people developing QNX-based products that used less - bring what ya need and leave the rest at home ; } ...There are and have been embedded products that ran in less of course, but these were based on some pretty limited OSes - some really had little that could be called an OS.
Yep, and I oversimplified. I can't remember if I managed to find pages that would overload the browser, because my most vivid memory is unfortunately a lack of support for the keyboard in my particular 486! (Random chipset incompatibility, doubtless another reason ATX-era hardware is now recommended.)
There were more than a few people in Phoenix who got useable systems running in 16 meg (first place to check is buffers and cache defaults, then find the libraries you might never require, etc), some that got it down to running in 8 - and I think a couple of QNX vets got it running in 4 (still with the Photon MicroGUI, I believe!) ... So, even sophisticated products can definitely run on modest Flash - and that's with an OS that has way more services than the old, simpler 4.x microkernel and process manager, etc.
Hmm, I wish they'd told me. ;) (Note that I did write a quick HOWTO based on what cam? told me that may still be archived somewhere on the QNX.com newsgroups.)
But yes, it can be done. With my buffers trimmed, I personally found Photon + Voyager + Shelf just a hair bulkier than I would've liked, to be comfortable within my constraints, with the features I wanted enabled... But that was because I'm a gimp, and every time I added more RAM, I wanted to *do* more! (I don't think I ever got to the point of figuring out which libraries could be weeded.)
Once I threw 128MB in, it became a nonissue anyway. I'm holding a grudge over grandmother's iOpener, but that's not QSSL's fault, and there's not much anyone can do about that (unless I get off my butt and clone the interface under QNX6 with the Opera server)...
The point I was trying to get at is, of course, that the RtP and followon distributions are 'development' platforms, as claimed - you don't dump them on a machine and get a browser running in 1MB on a 386SX any more than you dump OpenBSD on a machine and get 'instant security.' (Well, okay, bad example, given 'Secure by Default,' but hopefully someone gets my point.) They do, however, make life a lot easier if you're willing to put the thought into it!
You mention Momentics: As you surmise Momentics itself is the offspring of RtP, essentially being a developers' desktop complete with the GNU toolchain and a fair number of other facilities for development and personal use, has generous buffer defaults, etc. This makes it possible to comfortably design, self-hosted with QNX, for products that run in a lot tighter space - targetting multiple architecures with runtimes, natch - which I still think is the superior way to painlessly have top performance on many processor architectures.
Sure works great for embedded applications. Not the quite the same market as what some of us hoped the DE would be, of course, since with general-purpose software, you're still at the mercy of the developers, rather than the marketers of the runtime.
Any cool design wins lately?
(The "pro" version adds Eclipse IDE with extensive third-party tools, really deep systems analysis tools, custom libraries for embedded work, and lots of othjer goodies).
Sweet; last time I dropped by on IRC, the port was in progress, and the 'community' sites were shuffling, so I couldn't keep track. Freebie developers still have to live with vi?
...Anyway, it's incredible what they've achieved in a few short years - but back to the memory requirements issue: as RtP (QNX6) alphas and beta progressed it became obvious that people were wanting more more more and that the price of memory and storage was becoming cheap enough to design cost-competitive products with greater features and facility. QSSL even pretty much shelved the non-MMU version, offering it only as custom work, since the median architecture for their OS was logically more sophisticated anyway.
That's been a better move than anyone could probably have expected. I'm counting down the weeks until we see a watch with a Geode in it.
For those who haven't been watching, today's problem is figuring out what to *do* with all this cheap memory. Other than bloat Office another 500MB.
Taking this back to AOS4 (or my fave before even QNX, MorphOS), it's indeed as you've said: we DO want more more more and it takes more space to do that. But really (and thus the lengthy QNX talk here) these OSes are probably in no danger of becoming bloated and slow by ruling desktop-OS standards. It's just a natural progression, with a little extra "weight" there to serve legacy needs.
Exactly. When it's no cheaper to use a PIC than the practical equivalent of a workstation from a few years ago... then it's time to figure out how to make that complexity work for us (modular OSes, 'safe' languages, rapid-development systems), not against us (Windows CE?).
So what does MorphOS have going for it over QNX? :-D
-
@CodeSmith
I'm surprised no-one's mentioned this - the biggest memory hog on OS4 (and I bet it is on MOS too) will most probably be the native code caches for the 68K JIT translators. The bigger the caches, the more the JIT benefits.
Not on MorphOS, Trance is very modest in memory usage. Naturally it depends on the applications you run, but typically only few megabytes of memory is used. But there are no extra "caches" to hog the memory, only the required memory is used.
I'm currently running AmTelnet, FACTS, PFS3, lots of 3rd party 68k libraries and classes, IBrowse 2.3, and the Trance total memory usage is 2781KB.
1214592512 bytes available. :-)
I can't comment on Petunia memory usage.
-
Hi Floid,
I don't have time to reply to your entire post right now {though it's a good'un : } ...But I can handle that closing query quickly -
So what does MorphOS have going for it over QNX? :-D
Very simply, MorphOS is ready, has been ready, to run Amiga applications. There's been some gold in those hills, and the way things are looking they are not mined out ...A lot of us wanted that for QNX when the Gatemiga fiascos commenced. And it was possible technically. Some great people were involved, but things didn't work out for them or for us.
Now that's changing in a different way. It's almost like lost time is being made up for. And MorphOS is there doing what it does, while QNX does what it does. Lots of possibilites for developers, and for users. I'm curious to see what will come of having both OSes on Pegasos.
Indeed, of the three "OS" companies I have worked with in Phoenix, two have been positive experiences. Today I thank QNX the for showing me more about what it takes, and Genesi for allowing me to develop that knowledge further. (All credit to Ralph and crew for having the persistence to push forward during those Gatemiga and post-Gatemiga days when threats and innuendo insisted that he and they could not and should not).
-
olegil wrote:
But a MINIMUM requirement to run OS4 without any JIT emulation should be somewhere around 8MB. On a 320x200 8 bit screen ;-) (most people don't actually know how much memory screens take up. Try to calculate memory for 32 bit graphics in your preferred screensize and you'll see that 32MB won't last for many applications at all... 1600x1200 takes up 7.5MB of memory)
You couldn't imagine just how much I hate windows...anyhow, the ram needed for your 1600x1200x32bit colour screen should be zero. But pc architecture DOESN'T work. How can I say this? I seem to recall that my Ti4600 video card has 128 megs of ram; period! Why doesn't that ram actually DO something?
Oh, and directx8.1 only needs 64 megs of hd space. BS!
If it wasn't RISC, we could chop it to 20 megs, and if crazy card drivers weren't involved, down 16 or 12, probably.
Cheating a bit here, I posted this on AmigaWorld.net, here goes:
----------
PC133 ECC Reg. 1 Gig. costs
$320.00 + 7% + 7.5% = $366.40 Canadian
$366.40 = 235.20 Eu = 164 UKP = $261.26 US
I paid $560 in 1990 for 8, 1 meg. 70 ns SIMMs. $70 dollars each. I would do the SAME thing again, without question. Best thing I ever did, I knew it at that time, and I know it now.
Production of PC133 is in danger of being shut down, or curtailed. Then the price will shoot up. So get it or regret it.
AmigaOne! Get AOS4.0, then SHOW OFF!!!!
P.S. You know, it's funny how just by using AOS4.0 will be showing off....i.e. the fact that it works, while windows doesn't!!!!
-
@ Atheist
You couldn't imagine just how much I hate windows...anyhow, the ram needed for your 1600x1200x32bit colour screen should be zero. But pc architecture DOESN'T work. How can I say this? I seem to recall that my Ti4600 video card has 128 megs of ram; period! Why doesn't that ram actually DO something?
Erm, video RAM is used for display drawing... what evidence were you relying on to say that it wasn't?
And 3D games would really suck performancewise if they couldn't use video RAM :-)
The only thing I can think of that you might be seeing is that on Windows, if you have a wallpaper, that is stored in explorer.exe's memory space.
AmigaOne! Get AOS4.0, then SHOW OFF!!!!
P.S. You know, it's funny how just by using AOS4.0 will be showing off....i.e. the fact that it works, while windows doesn't!!!!
For an atheist, you sure don't talk like one :-D
-
The only thing I can think of that you might be seeing is that on Windows, if you have a wallpaper, that is stored in explorer.exe's memory space.
And where would the backdrop for Workbench be stored, I ask you?
Seriously: On an Amiga, open up a REALLY FRELLING BIG Workbench and tell me that FAST memory doesn't drop.
Oh, and remember:
WindowsNTWorkstation
WindoesNTWorkstation
The difference between working and non-working is only one typo away :-)
-
mikeymike wrote:
Erm, video RAM is used for display drawing... what evidence were you relying on to say that it wasn't?
My point is this, if I have 128 megs of ram on the video card, and at least 512k on my audigy card, why couldn't the OS work in 4 megs?
AmigaOne! The elegant OS!
-
@ olegil
I'll tell you what - you design a graphics card that runs at the same bus speed as the FSB (so it can talk at a fast enough speed to talk to main memory without a performance hit), which can be quite a few different values >FSB100, then maybe mobo manufacturers can talk about completely redesigning how 99% of computers are designed today. Not just PCs, but the Pegasos, A1, and Mac range. Then we'll bring in the obscene chip/fast legacy rubbish again. It was good for once upon a time, not anymore.
And purely setting an obscenely high resolution/colour depth on Windows does not drain system memory.
-
My point is this, if I have 128 megs of ram on the video card, and at least 512k on my audigy card, why couldn't the OS work in 4 megs?
You want Windows to run out of video memory and sound card memory, regardless of what it is doing?
AmigaOne! The elegant OS!
AmigaOne isn't an OS.
-
mikeymike wrote:
You want Windows to run out of video memory and sound card memory, regardless of what it is doing?
???? How would it run out of video memory?
AmigaOne isn't an OS.
Oops.
AmigaOne! AOS4.0, The elegant OS!
-
???? How would it run out of video memory?
Apologies, ambiguous wording. I meant, Windows use video memory rather than system memory.
AOS4.0, The elegant OS!
How would you know, it's not even out yet.
-
mikeymike wrote:
Apologies, ambiguous wording. I meant, Windows use video memory rather than system memory.
128,000,000 bytes of ram on the card.
1600 x 1200 = 1,920,000 pixels x 4 bytes for 32 bit colour = 7,680,000 bytes
AmigaOne! AO4.0, in developement!
(That's accurate?)
-
128,000,000 bytes of ram on the card.
1600 x 1200 = 1,920,000 pixels x 4 bytes for 32 bit colour = 7,680,000 bytes
Yes, and the graphics card uses that memory as it was designed to. Windows asks it to draw a screen with said specifications and details, it draws the image into graphics memory and displays it on the VDU.
AmigaOne! AO4.0, in developement!
(That's accurate?)
You spelt development wrong :-)
-
@GreenBoy:
" I think the demo would run in considerably less though (4 meg I think, but it's been so long since I read about the QNX 4.25 demo and then tried it...)"
no it was stated that the demo-disk required at least 8Megs to run BUT it didn't run with 8MB because it needed some space to decompress its files... I say that because I tried it on a 8MB 486DX2-66 and it didn't run... later it was upgraded to 16MB and it booted without problems. 10-12MB may have been enough, thought.
BTW I don't think we can see many 133Mhz DIMM modules of less than 128MB...
And Cyberstorm PPC owners usually have 128MB +16MB on the motherboard... more than enough to run current apps comfortably...
-
@olegil:
I noticed that in AmigaOS3.9 when the backdrop is loaded it takes up chip ram (even thought I have selected in the workbench preferences that gfx should be stored in other ram), then it is freed once the image has been loaded... maybe I have bad datatypes? I think the image should be decompressed in fastram and then copied to gfx-ram...
-
Recap:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atheist:
My point is this, if I have 128 megs of ram on the video card, and at least 512k on my audigy card, why couldn't the OS work in 4 megs?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mikeymike:
You want Windows to run out of video memory and sound card memory, regardless of what it is doing?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atheist:
???? How would it run out of video memory?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mikeymike:
Apologies, ambiguous wording. I meant, Windows use video memory rather than system memory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atheist:
128,000,000 bytes of ram on the card.
1600 x 1200 = 1,920,000 pixels x 4 bytes for 32 bit colour = 7,680,000 bytes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mikeymike:
Yes, and the graphics card uses that memory as it was designed to. Windows asks it to draw a screen with said specifications and details, it draws the image into graphics memory and displays it on the VDU.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End recap.
What started this was
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atheist:
You couldn't imagine just how much I hate windows...anyhow, the ram needed for your 1600x1200x32bit colour screen should be zero. But pc architecture DOESN'T work. How can I say this? I seem to recall that my Ti4600 video card has 128 megs of ram; period! Why doesn't that ram actually DO something?
Oh, and directx8.1 only needs 64 megs of hd space. BS!
If it wasn't RISC, we could chop it to 20 megs, and if crazy card drivers weren't involved, down 16 or 12, probably.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, I started talking about windows, then at the point where I said RISC, I switched to AOS4.0. I was trying to say that OS4.0 may be able to work in 12 megs on a CISC CPU (16 on RISC CPU). Also, I was wondering why so much regular ram was needed anyway, when the video card has huge swaths of it available for display purposes?
Sorry for the confusion.
I advocate maxing the ram out anyway! :-D
AmigaOne! AO4.0, in development!
/*fixed*/
-
128,000,000 bytes of ram on the card.
(That's accurate?)
You have 122MB graphics card?
128MB is 134,217,728 bytes.
-
Well, that'll teach me, I should
Check, double check, and check again...
just like microsoft does. ;-)
AmigaOne! :-D