Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: real amiga vs winuae  (Read 49225 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jose

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2002
  • Posts: 2871
    • Show all replies
Re: real amiga vs winuae
« on: June 02, 2009, 04:53:05 PM »
It all depends on what you want. I'm setting up one of my real Amigas to record guitar riffs (so that I don't forget them if I wake up in the middle of the night with a riff in my head...) because booting is much faster than windows.
Maybe it could be done with minimal Linux install though, but that would probably be too complicated even for advanced users with the gazillion options and dependencies...

Even for AGA games it might be better to just use a real Amiga if you want to connect to a TV. That said I haven't followed up lastes developments on WinUAE, I remember there was some tweaks it made to the gfx (antialiasing etc.) that real Amigas didn't, that might make the output more acceptable on a high resolution screen.
\\"We made Amiga, they {bleep}ed it up\\"
 

Offline Jose

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2002
  • Posts: 2871
    • Show all replies
Re: real amiga vs winuae
« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2009, 10:18:47 PM »
@paolone

"Jose has made a post that just brought here another questionable attitude with technology we can agree with or not. Jose has all the rights to decide that the best feature for a music recording equipment is a fast boot time, but if I had to record music I have in my head, I would be happier to wait 2 more seconds to do that on modern applications for MacOS X and, why not, Windows, which maybe will provide more processing options, memory and CPU power to do all."

Hey I didn't say I used it to do music production but even then it's perfectly doable, PC/Mac is better for production didn't arg against that...

"As I have already said, I consider all this "my computer boots before yours" total crap, something that a serious user should never even think for an architecture comparison. First of all, 'cos boot time depends on too many factors, and all over because in the real world (the one where normal people with normal attitudes live) it doesn't matter how many seconds you need to boot a system, but instead the time (hours, days, maybe months and years) that the same system can stay turned on, without a shutdown or a reboot (we call it "uptime"). Are our Amigas enough stable to outperform Windows, Linux or MacOS X uptimes?""

You're wrong. It all depends on the application, what will the machine be doing. There are some rarer cases where boot time is critical, I just gave you one. Another one is the settobox market, in an AV system you normally want to sit on the living room turn on the equipment and start watching TV, not wait 30 seconds or more (not that there is any Amiga software doing DVB reception which is a shame..).
By the way, there is an attitute towards technology, oposite to the one you describe, that is not very smart either, which is to buy the latest super duper hardware to do things that don't need it. It's like buying a Ferrari to go buy bread at the supermarket.
The low memory footprint and multitasking speed and efficiency of the AmigaOS architecture could find market niches, there's just not anyone marketing any product with it.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 10:21:34 PM by Jose »
\\"We made Amiga, they {bleep}ed it up\\"
 

Offline Jose

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2002
  • Posts: 2871
    • Show all replies
Re: real amiga vs winuae
« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2009, 10:29:08 PM »
Looking back it seems that you guys are comparing classic Amiga hardware only VS PC, so my settopbox example doesn't apply here...
\\"We made Amiga, they {bleep}ed it up\\"