PC still playing Amiga catchup

[the_leander]

Once you accept that Amiga can swap palette indices faster than API-based modern system

You have not provided one shred of evidence to back that assertion up.

It's been bugging me for days as to why I've had this sense of deja vu...

I know where I've read this sort of crap before. Back in the bygone days of Usenet there was a spacker there who was claiming his A4000's 233Mhz PPC cpu was *faster* then a then top end AthlonXP on the basis that the 604 took something like 3 cycles to execute an instruction compared to the XP's 5, whilst ignoring the fact that the Athlon in question ran at over 2.5Ghz.

How are you doing SG?

[the_leander]

Amigaski/SG as seen earlier in this thread:



Clearly, in need of a liberal application of

[the_leander]

i was more referring to the endless updates, some of which will result in a non-bootable system (Linux especially)

Only time I've ever had a linux update crap out an install was once when moving from Ubuntu 5.x to 6.x. But as with windows, it's better to do a clean install of an OS rather then an update. Does it happen? Sure. Happens to windows too, only when it happens there, it makes the news.

Here's one possibility:  I understand that having drivers for a lot of hardware allows things like plug and play to work.  But it also means you have information on your system about hardware that will never be used. So why not make hardware with built in flash that holds the drivers for that hardware only.  The software in flash identifies the hardware to the OS, the OS then installs the driver off the flash.  Information only relevant to actual hardware that is installed is then stored by the OS.

Which in turn would mean that either all OS's adopt compatability for these drivers, or more likely, windows alone gets drivers. The problem is that at some point the OS has to deal with all these different drivers regardless if they're supplied by CD or on onboard flash, now if you've only got to deal with a tiny handful then a loose collection of files as in the Amiga will almost certainly suffice. But at some point this will become very difficult to manage and maintain. The logical way to do with sorting it all out is a database. Given that many other OS's take this approach, perhaps the registry, far from being a bad idea, may simply have earned a bad reputation from the bad old days of windows 9x...

Strange.  Its also strange that you installed Idefix with OS 3.5 to get your IDE CDROM to work.

Nono. To get to the point where I could install 3.5/3.9 I had to get idefix to do it's thing, I then had to go back and edit the script so that it worked reliably. This is before I installed 3.5.

Mind you this was all years and years ago now.

actually office and web are pretty much the only thing that the PC will dominate in the future: console games outsell PC games, and despite Mediacentre/MythTV/Viiv the PC doesn't dominate digital TV/DVD/Bluray/PVR's in the lounge room, where consumer appliances rule.

Possibly. Tbh I think the PC as we know it will continue for a long time to come. It as a platform is far too versatile. The thing that make it what it is today will keep it going - it's flexability. It's not the best gaming system by virtue of its complexity, its not the best anything, but it does more things well enough that it is useful in its own right. What you will see however is more very capable pieces of hardware that are purpose built to do a small subset of these functions in a more appliance like fashion. I think the EeePC and Ebox are merely a taste of that.

[the_leander]

theres a logical leap here ( non-Windows support aside): why does my PC need to keep a database of thousands of hardware pieces that are not and will not be present on my machine, if each piece of hardware that i can buy comes with it own self installing drivers in flash ROM?

From an individual level, what you're saying makes sense. The problem is that Windows hardware support stretches back for nigh on a decade. With each new itteration of hardware bringing more capabilities and additions. It means that you can take your copy of windows XP and install it as easily on a machine first produced in 2000 as you could on a system that is still warm from the production line today. How do you deal with the miriad of hardware variations and mixes (which probably number tens of millions of possibilities) without one?

And if a hardware manufacturer wants to support alternative OS's whats stopping them from putting a driver on the same flash rom?  And what's stopping the alternative OS users from reading the Win driver in ROM and reverse engineering it, isn't that what they soemtimes do now anyway?

Depends on the device, but lets take graphics cards as a good example. The drivers for both windows and Linux are more or less the same size. So instead of having, lets say a 30+ meg flash chip and all the electronics that go to support it, you're now up to 60, and then there'll be some versions of linux that'll need it in a different package format and so on and so on. It comes down to two things essentially, at least for the above example: The added cost of designing it into the hardware and fitting it in the way you suggest as well. And the cost of having to supply a miriad of drivers for various OSs. Verses a 1pence CD and leaving the other OS's either to supply vender made drivers via repos or OSS equivalents.

No doubt you knew this.  Its not the Amiga's fault that it didn't comply with what was a hacked PC interface design initially.  IDEFix 97 worked well, and OS 3.5 and OS 3.9 included this functionality as standard.

I was using IDEfix 97. But to get to the point where you could install 3.5 or 3.9, you had to have a working dosdriver which the 3.5 boot disk could copy to itself to allow the installation to take place. Either way this is all immaterial. I fixed it, it worked for the entire of the time I had both the 1200 and the drive in question (which was many years, indeed it was still connected and functional when I finally let the system go back in.... 2003 or so).

[the_leander]

ha ha.  That neatly paraphrases what I've been saying: Pro-Amiga: "Amiga can do x better".

But as was shown in the case of joystick polling, it couldn't.

pro-PC: "i don't use or need x, i don't care, it therefore doesn't matter.  PC wins".

With a landscape as diverse as the PC, going from nano-itx through to quadcore desktops and ending with rackmounted blade servers and everything in between. With all the different operating systems that run within that ecosystem, comparasons of a technical nature are for the most part pointless, especially when what you're comparing it to was starting to look outdated compared to those same PCs by the time AGA was comming out. Hell even addon cards for the Amiga at the time could outperform AGA in every respect, graphics, sound, I/O - the works.

It's not about being pro anything, indeed to even start to think in those terms is a gross misunderstanding of the situation. This was about pure technical points. Nothing more. It is you and your chum amigaski that have attempted to turn it into a "Pro-PC, Pro-Amiga" debate, no one else.

Well Win 7's scheduler works differently and gives higher priority to user-initiated commands, and Linux offers entire kernels with different schedulers, so clearly schedulers do matter to users out there, if not to yourself.  And it would be a nice if PC gave you a choice, and a simple way of making that choice.  But they don't.

Linux is used in different roles. As you yourself pointed out in an earlier comment - Linux schedulers (at least at the time) were better suited for servers. Now you have branches more specialised toward desktop usage. Different requirements require different solutions. I would imagine that the Windows server systems have no end of tweeks that make them perform better in a server role then its desktop counterpart.

Choice in this case only makes sense if you understand the consiquences of that choice. Chances are, if you know what a scheduler is and how differences in what it does effects a system, chances are you know enough about the system to be able to change it anyway. If building computers has taught me one thing, it is that the user, for the most part doesn't particularly care about choice, so long as it does what they expect, when they expect it. If you put in a preference system that allowed the user to access and alter every single option from the get go, they would almost certainly be overloaded (at best) and complain, or worse, start fiddling and then complain when it broke.

[the_leander]

Fair points.  But what about this: On first installation, all motherboards have a BIOS that detects your OS and gives the OS details of the hardware that actually exists on the motherboard.  The OS then installs the drivers for the motherboard components which exist in flash ROM.  The OS then queries the different interfaces for any added cards eg graphics cards, sound cards, NAND drives that need their own drivers, which each card store in its own flash ROM.  If you buy a printer, scanner, external hard drive, its drivers are in flash ROM as well.  As new cards with new features come about, there is an update to the OS API's eg an update to Direct X, to support these features, and each card must have drivers in flash rom that are compliant with this new API.  HMM this is starting to sound a bit like autoconfig, where devices such as those for scsi cards, accelerators existed in ROM, or installed off floppy into devs/dosdrivers

With the exception of the motherboard being required to detect what OS was running on it, and the source of the drivers, you've also described more or less what happens when a modern OS gets installed (Windows calls it plug and play) and indeed, every subsiquent hardware change. It doesn't however address the point about having to support all of the hardware out there. How are you going to manage all this stuff, on all of the various wierd and wonderful hardware that is floating around out there, with one OS without a database at some point?

Ok so cost is the problem.  But flash is getting cheaper all the time.  Yes supporting Linux would fall by the way side, but its not like hardware manufacturers are falling over themselves to give Linux even a printer driver

The cost of intergrating huge flash gates however is the main cost associated with your suggestion and unlike the actual hardware, implimenting what you're suggesting and designing it into the board will only ever increase as the hardware becomes ever more capable with each generation.

[the_leander]

I'd flunk smerfs test - I don't have a floppy drive

[the_leander]

Hi,

@the_leander

Know what you mean, the last 2 people that took the challenge I had to lend them my usb floppy drive, in a way I cheated on this since most PC's almost shut down when trying to format a floppy disk and write to them.

Oddness. Formatting floppies, even on win2k always seemed fine on my athlonxp system (which is... 4PC's ago), then again I did set it so that each explorer window ran in it's own individual thread, which improved multitasking performance (not to mention stability) no end.

So, what exactly were the terms for this challenge?

I mean, was it a from boot race or?? Just curious.

[the_leander]

But Smerf don't you get their standard reply yet:  "they don't use a floppies, so they don't format them, they don't care, it doesn't matter.  PC wins"

Oh do grow up.

[the_leander]

The responses to smerfs tests has been one of curiosity and speculation on possible causes. Nothing like what you're implying.

yeah you are right, it IS a juvenile way to look at it but hell its managed to convince most people here so I thought I'd give it a shot...again.

The only person who is taking this line, parodied or otherwise, is you.

[the_leander]

How many people in the world really know what all the source code in the Linux kernel does?

Probably about the same as the number who understand what a scheduler does.

 And which would you prefer: a GUI driven utility that installs with two clicks, that lets you change your scheduler to suit you preferred usage pattern,

What, you mean something like this:

 or going through the entire source code to make sure your new kernel with the updated scheduler will even let you boot?

You don't need to do that, you select the module you want. Hell, in a large distro like Ubuntu I suspect you could replace the scheduler module from precompiled binaries from the repos if you knew where to look.

[the_leander]

Something like it, but it does not change the scheduler itself

Being able to switch modes was your big "win" for the Executive drop in replacement for the Amiga. You can't replace Exec with Executive and not have the Amiga in question reboot in order to change it.

, but merely gives you one of two choices.  You might call it Scheduler-Lite, you know, the margarine of scheduling GUI's.

It fulfills the requirement of being able to fundamentally change sheduling within the OS without requiring a reboot. Interesting that since I pointed to it you're now trying to dismiss it as something lesser when it clearly matches the original complaint.

firstly do KNOW or merely suspect?  Secondly I doubt it would interest non-coders to dabble with the kernel source code.

rotfl. Re read what you've written there, now compare it to what you're accusing everyone else who disagrees with you of doing.

[the_leander]

Err I remember that you need to restart the Executive *server* when changing schedulers, not reboot.  But I already said it doesn't matter either way, as it only takes 5 seconds longer, so who cares really?

Executive is a service within the OS, when switching between modes yes, sure it'll need to stop and restart, just like the windows scheduler. Ripping out Exec and replacing it with Executive is different altogether, and as such you're not comparing like for like.

Changing the scheduler to one of seven different types is not the same as changing the behaviour of a single scheduler.

By that omission you've just discounted Executive, since that is precisely what you're doing.

AGAIN.  ANSWER THE QUESTION:

NO U.

See, I can act a complete twunt too with caps.

[the_leander]

We're not talking about some individual's capability to program.  We are talking about OBJECTIVELY which is better-- having ASM and C together is better than just C.  Similarly, having API and direct hardware access is better than just API.

But it is not objective when you're dismissing a huge chunk of where issues lay. It would be objective only if you take into account peoples skills. I tried explaining this to you earlier but you dismissed it because it didn't fit in with your magical fairyland.

More applications use digital joystick since it's superior to analog input.

Citation. Now.

You are using a self-contradictory argument.  First you state I don't get to dismiss pots and then you go later and dismiss light pens.

You're bitching at someone else dismissing a highly specialised and none too often used tech?

Hypocrite much?

Gameports were on audio cards a few years ago and supported by XP.  Even your USB is slower to read than a MOVE.W on Amiga.

As has been shown, USB can be made to poll as fast, if not faster then ithe Amigas.

Have you actually shown an Amiga game yet that uses even a tenth of your supposed 1khz response time?

You have no choice but to read analog.  If you had both analog and digital (like Amiga), you will see how quickly people would have used digital in majority of cases.

Citations, do you have any?

We are comparing with REALITY-- PCs have mainly relied on gameport for joystick input and Amiga has relied on digital joysticks.  When you write a game, you have to live with REALITY of what's out there.

The reality is that there hasn't been a Gameport based joystick, digital or otherwise released for sale in at least 6 years. It's all USB.

I compared to both since both are out there.

Good luck trying to find a supply of Gameport joysticks. You'll need it.

But he is correct, if you're going to make a comparason you do so on what is actually in use, we're not even talking top end gear here either, USB has been the standard pretty much this whole century. Even by the time of Windows2000 Gameport was considered legacy.

To do anything else would be an excersise in redundancy. What's next, you prove Amigas are superior to PC's because of ISA?

[the_leander]

So why are there Linux kernels compiled with different schedulers readily available in most Linux repo's?

Because What works well in one situation (desktops) does not work so well in others (servers). When you support as much hardware, in so many different circumstances as linux, or BSD or even Windows for that matter, it makes sound sense to have a platform flexable enough to allow for such tuning.

[the_leander]

I never even argued point about ASM vs. high level languages with you before so stop lieing.

Actually you have repeatedly gone on about how APIs are so slow without providing any data whatsoever to back it up. You sir, are lying.

You are in a fairyland because you are inept to even comprehend what I am stating.  I can also write insults, but I prefer rationality.

Right... The hardware guys, the software guys, and everyone in between else have effectively stated in various degrees of detail where you are going wrong. You willfully ignore this and continue talking about something that isn't (your makebelief world of total hardware compatability) in order to shore up your argument. Anyone using logic would have long ago started to re-evaluate their position. That you haven't shows you to be nothing more then a fundie.

I already gave citation in this thread.

No, you gave a p-poor example that was shot down soundly by every other person on this thread for a variety of reasons.

You only reply many days later

Oh I'm sorry, some of us have a life outside of evangelising 20 year old hardware.

>You're bitching at someone else dismissing a highly specialised and none too often used tech?

I compared with both USB and Gameport.  Where have you been?

Which brings us back to the point that Gameport has been dead for the better part of 10 years now and unavailable to purchase via soundcards outside of ebay and similar for at least 5.

>Hypocrite much?

You are a biased side-kick.  He seems to understand the subject more than you so why not let him reply.

Hah! Biased? Probably, I have a low tollerance for demonstrably BS posts such as those you have been ejaculating.

That's not the point.

Yes it is, your original point was that the Amiga was better suited on the basis that it could react faster. You have since modified (I'm being kind here, slimed would be more accurate) your argument when it was shown that your original had no legs.


 

I said USB is slower than reading joystick on Amiga.  You are lost.

And you were shot down, you then added the nonsense about the gameport.

How many times are you going to keep repeating the same question and not reply to the responses given?  I don't forget that fast.

I have replied whenever asked and no one else has replied with a more technical answer. And to answer your question: I'll stop when you start backing up your argument with facts instead of baseless statements.

Good for you.  There's about a billion Gameports out there so it's still should be considered in the analysis along with USB.

Err, no. As has been pointed out (repeatedly), Gameport is dead, in the same way that ISA is dead. Or are you now going to go on about other random legacy I/O to prove the supposed superiority?

You can fantasize with your fairy tales all you want.

It was a reasonable point. That you can't see it only goes to back up my assersions that you're nothing but a fundie.

It's a fact that gameports and USB devices are both out there.  As I stated, people still sell joysticks based on gameport.  XP supported gameports as well and most people where I live still use XP.

By that same argument, so is ISA and I suspect if you looked hard enough, MFM and other wonderful ports of yesteryear. So again you've been thoroughly shot down on, well everything you've said so far, got anything else or are you done making a fool of yourself?



TL;DR

NO U