Philosophical question related to AROS vs OS4

[unusedunused]

More philosophically speaking, the Amiga community has become so fragmented because the Amiga brand has been floundering for over 15 years.  But *if* Hyperion and partners can bring back respectability and reliability, should we all stand behind a sanctioned Amiga once again or continue in a fragmented manner?

>But *if* Hyperion and partners can bring back respectability and reliability, should we all >stand behind a sanctioned Amiga once again or continue in a fragmented manner?

when the product is not good enough and the price is not ok, the support is slow or bad, wy should we stay behind it ?

thats always the trick of bad constructors to sell some crap under a good brand.See for example some fake rolex or something else.

it doesnt help the amiga when user accept anything.OS4 is the offical AOS, but its really a shame for that much money Preorder money, Marketing and support by devs and community flow in it since 2001 what is here.

OS4 is the only AOS System that support no USB2.

but whats here with OS4 are the great future announces.

Look at IBM/PS2 what happen with that.SO you can see if the price/quality is too bad, then there help also no nice brand.

""""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_System/2

The PS/2's controversial hardware design was tied to a marketing strategy that was similarly unsuccessful. During the 1980s, IBM's advertising of the original PC and its other product lines had frequently used the likeness of Charlie Chaplin. For the PS/2, however, IBM augmented this character with a notorious jingle that seemed more suitable for a low-end consumer product than a business-class computing platform:

“How ya' gonna' do it?
PS/2 It!
It's as easy as I.B.M.”
“How ya' gonna' do it?
PS/2 It!
The solution is I.B.M.”
Another campaign featured the actors from the television show M*A*S*H playing updated versions of their characters from the series.[1][2]

The profound lack of success of these advertising campaigns led, in part, to IBM's termination of its relationships with its global advertising agencies; these accounts were reported by Wired Magazine (Issue 3.08, August 1995) to have been worth over $500 million a year, and the largest such account review in the history of business.

Overall, the PS/2 line was largely unsuccessful with the consumer market, even though the PC based Models 30 and 25 were an attempt to address it. With what was widely seen as a technically competent but cynical attempt to gain undisputed control of the market, IBM unleashed an industry and consumer backlash. The firm suffered massive financial losses for the remainder of the decade, forfeited its previously unquestioned position as the industry leader, and eventually lost its status as the largest single manufacturer of personal computers (ironically, only after it decided to deemphasize Microchannel), first to Compaq and then to Dell. Still, the platform experienced success in the business sector where the reliability, ease of maintenance and strong support from IBM offset the rather daunting cost of the machines. Also many people still lived with the motto "Nobody ever got fired for buying an IBM." The model 55SX and later 56SX were the leading sellers for almost their entire lifetimes. Many models of PS/2 systems saw a production life span that took them well into the late 1990s.
""""

[unusedunused]

>By the way, a highly clocked core2 is faster than a standard i7, which must be confusing >for you if youre going to make such claims ?

http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=29964&forum=25&19

The I7 is lots faster at same clockrate.its more than 60% this mean a 2 GHZ I7 is faster as a 3.2 GHZ Core2 or Athlon CPU.

because the bench use for all CPU exact the same simple RISC instructions, you can see what CPU have the best intern out of Order performance optimazing and register renaming features and can execute the given code at best speed.

Sure a not so good CPU design can perform maybe better with a better optimized code for the CPU, but in reality Compilers only produce best code when they can optimize well known code, the peephole optimizer are special trim for it.

So this common specint specfp say in my eyes nothing about the best CPU design, because the compiler developers know this code and can tweak the compiler for it, the CPU developers can choose a compiler that perform best.In real world programs the compilers produce not so good optimize code, and a better out of order execution give then more better performance /MHZ

Also when in I7 run only 1-2 core it can overclock.

winuae Core Duo 1,8 GHZ Notebook

Speed test for FFT + iFFT: (float)
time needed 1149ms for 413696 samples, => 4.0821852684021x speed
@44100Hz/stereo
------------ (4136 ms at 500 MHZ)

-----------------------------

winuae 3.9GHz Core i7 920.


3.harddrive0:d> fftdemo
Speed test for FFT + iFFT: (float)
time needed 312ms for 413696 samples, => 15.0334320068359x speed
@44100Hz/stereo
------------ (2433 ms at 500 MHZ)

[unusedunused]

>Speedwise, some emulated applications may run slower on AROS since the emulation is a >lot heavier.

thats wrong since Core ix more, because PPC is not so good CPU design in compare to X86 from Year 2005 and above.Also PPC have no fast clockrates comparable to X86.

PPC need very good compilers to reach good speed.

But with emulate 68k code, the simple PPC CPU design is more worse than X86 with performance /MHZ.

You see that in this benchmark too.

http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=29964&forum=25&19

In FPU X86 is more than 2* faster at same clockrate as PPC.
in integer.most time consuming things need FPU.

And with Integer X86 is too 20% faster at same clockrate on winuae

Even if winuae need emulate the chipset and PPC have a big advantage that it have enough register for 68k, and X86 must byteswap Data.The Bench need lot Data access so lot byteswaps are need but it work most in 1. Level range when the CPU have at least 32 kb 1. Level Cache.So you see a 604e get near same performance /MHZ as a Mac mini

Mac Mini 1,5 GHZ MOS 2.4

Speed test for FFT + iFFT: (float)
time needed 2020ms for 413696 samples, => 2.32199525833129x speed
@44100Hz/stereo
------------ (6060 ms at 500 MHZ)
Speed test for FFT + iFFT: (integer)
time needed 1071ms for 413696 samples, => 4.37948703765869x speed
@44100Hz/stereo
------------ (3213 ms at 500 MHZ)


winuae 3.9GHz Core i7 920.


3.harddrive0:d> fftdemo
Speed test for FFT + iFFT: (float)
time needed 312ms for 413696 samples, => 15.0334320068359x speed
@44100Hz/stereo
------------ (2433 ms at 500 MHZ)
Speed test for FFT + iFFT: (integer)
time needed 340ms for 413696 samples, => 13.7953844070434x speed
@44100Hz/stereo
------------ (2652 ms at 500 MHZ)

>Graphics work 3 to 30 times faster on the G4 1.33 GHz with Radeon 9200 than on Athlon >4400 with the 9600 GT PCIe.

graphic work faster on MOS or OS4, thats because UAE P96 cant use the GFX Card Blitter.

But who care when a benchmark say that there can 400 000 lines draw/sec or 4 Million line draw/sec.

There are just no apps that need so much line draw, and the slower GFX speed cant measure in real world apps