Guys, you need to stop perpetuating the "amiga boots faster" argument until you have any idea of what tasks the machines are performing while they're booting.
...
That example was also given. You can launch applications from AmigaDOS; you can't under Windows XP/Vista which is what most PCs have.
>... which is why the argument was totally redundant and irrelevant to this discussion. I can make a bloated "Hello world" for Amiga, too, but I wouldn't hold it against the Amiga system.
You missed the point again. The default compiler settings produced it; it's not on purpose. It's an observation-- not meant to say that PCs cannot produce optimized code.
>Where exactly is the "hard drive storage" on a floppy? This is exactly what you were saying, seemingly unrelated to the floppy example. Concerning the example you gave with the Amiga (play an animation LOADED from floppy), uncompressed images would be faster anyway.
You missed the point again. There's no hard drive involved. The animation boots from floppy and runs.
>All in all it's a pretty whimsical argument anyhow to say that PC code is usually too "unoptimized" to play full frame rate animation, since pretty much all common media formats used on the PC are compressed and optimized enough to be streamed with low band-width.
NEVER said that. PCs have enough horsepower to run the animation even with the bloat. Chewbacca defense.
>Seeing them run perfectly on any "standard" Amiga is not common, though.
That's what I stated-- that size matters to affect the speed ON THE AMIGA. Your blunder that size has no bearing on speed is your problem in understanding.
>Hahaha, yeah, well in reality most OCS demos are pretty incompatible with anything other than the machine they were coded for (remember, we have to GET REAL). "Optimizing" in the early Amiga days usually meant bypassing standard system functions, controlling the hardware directly and taking full advantage of the exact specifications of the machine. Change the hardware? Stops working. That's how it was for all Amiga models, as is it for all PC models. Even if you used the proper kernel functions on the Amiga old software titles would stop working properly with new ROM revisions and clock speeds.
Complete rubbish. My boot block stuff runs on all Amigas across the board. Don't argue against things you don't understand.
>Since audio cards are all "non-standard" there is a standard API present in any modern PC OS to provide transparent access to the functionality (like AHI on the Amiga), so yes, most PC demos and small intros (both in Linux and Windows) use the sound card...
Now is that after the OS loads or before. If your demo is 1K (as you say) but relies on the OS functions, then you have to wait for OS to load.
> Can't you bother to
look that up yourself? And even in the DOS days before there were standard APIs some demos (and most serious software and games) supported multiple soundcards perfectly anyway.
In 1k? Bullcrap.
>Pretty damn cool, but hardly relevant to your argument.
Sure it is. You asked for small demo; I gave you a full application.
>Oh, you could probably record ultrasound in the MHz range but that still doesn't mean that it's relevant information to our hearing, much like kHz recording of hand movement isn't relevant to joystick handling (and if this isn't getting obvious to you by now, I don't really know what to tell you).
You should really think about it rather than repeating your mistake. If I move the joystick around while pressing/releasing fire button, the time in state change can be 1 ms or less.
>How exactly were you recording anyhow? Were you just recording the joystick directly, or were you counting how often the game polls for the joystick? In the latter case I would be pretty surprised since River Raid is one of those games where once-per-frame sampling would probably be sufficient.
I'm recording the state changes and timing the difference between the state change.
>But you can still have them predictable enough, apparently. My PS2 to USB interface performs great in all games I've tried it with.
Sorry, don't know of any joystick using PS2 port.
>Who's playing catchup again? I'm not saying that the Amiga can't do stuff, my point is that PC:s don't really have anything to catch up to.
They are still playing catchup to joystick interface. They are still playing catchup to real-time useage of hardware registers (those that you are forced to go through APIs); they are forced in playing catchup to timing things with zero latency. I'll sum up later...as this reply times out with Amiga.org for some reason.
>If USB is the primary interface of your joystick (which probably is the common case), it must have!
It's not the primary case; there are millions of gameports. USB joystick requires more cycles to read the joystick port than reading I/O port on Amiga as it is currently-- not the nonexisting ones you are speculating on.
>Modern PC:s playing catchup with the Amiga are also non-existent, but we've been arguing religiously about those for the last few pages.
First show a joystick that beats the amiga. Show me a timer that can do the 558ns accuracy on any PC. Etc.
>USB is not analogous to the expansion connector. USB is exactly what it is called - a universal serial bus. The closest thing you'l find in the "standard" Amiga hardware design? Don't know, maybe the clock port?
So don't compare apples and oranges then. Pick a joystick port.
