real amiga vs winuae

[stefcep2]

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...

try convincing Karlos that the amiga boots significantly faster than a PC and that this a useful thing.  But according to Karlos you, like me, are insane or suffer from attention deficit disorder.

[stefcep2]

I'm sure your amiga boots faster than your PC. Mine does not. Nor do I particularly care since I don't spend all day rebooting either of them for the simplistic joy of it. Jose has been on these boards a lot longer than you have, I don't need to demonstrate my Amiga enthusiast credentials to him.

I really don't know where you popped up from but I honestly thought people as frantically obsessed about boot times and the superiority of 20 year old hardware over all that has come after it had all disappeared long ago :lol:

Jose made an unrelated post without seeing your posts that just happened to blow you arguments out of the water: he uses his Amiga for his music because it boots faster than windows.  And Linux unless (maybe) you can be arsed creating a custom Linux.  Clearly you can be arsed.  The rest of the world have got better things to do then that.  Jose gave a real-world example of how his Amiga is superior to the PC- YOUR PC included.

its funny how a guy with 12,000 posts can be such a sore LOSER, or may be just LOSER full stop...a moderator and all. just goes to show that a title and the number of posts counts for naught.

You selectively ignore posts that don't fit your point of view, and you even resort to name-calling just because you can't back your argument with facts.

Really you're a bit of a disgrace.

[stefcep2]

Apparently, according to some people, you aren't a real amiga user unless you rate them as superior because they boot quickly than any PC. And if you do have a PC that outperforms an amiga at booting up, it's a obviously a minority uber hacked machine. Heaven forfend if you actually use another platform for anything and recognise that it is better equipped for many tasks than your actual amiga is. If your amiga happens to be remotely expanded and be slower to boot due to loading drivers for RTG, network and all the other things that no real amiga should ever have, it's a Frankenstein monster that doesn't count either.

Conversely, I would suggest that an accelerator equipped amiga as much RAM as is feasible and with some form of graphics card is pretty standard amongst people that actually used their amiga for more than a toy.

Boo Hoo Hoo Karlos.

If you're satisfied that your quadcore overclocked behemoth- running a customised Linux thats had its guts hacked out and that you NEVER shut down- boots faster than an 15 year old A1200 running a crippled PPC card full of performance bottlenecks and bodged on interfaces proves that the PC has finally matched the Amiga in EVERY respect and no longer plays catch-up then good luck to you.  You've won your argument. I just happen not to agree with you.

[stefcep2]

@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.

Well said Jose.

I can hear the oppositions saying: "you can just put your PC to sleep".  Why?, when you can just turn on the Amiga with the flick of a switch and be ready to go in 5 seconds. "But you can use DAT, but you need the tapes and the deck".  Why , when you can just turn on the Amiga with the flick of a switch and be ready to go in 5 seconds.

The DTV example I agree with 100%:  I can do DTV, I can do PVR, and DVD burning on a PC running media centre or media portal  But then i have to boot Vista everytime I want to watch TV.  But I can do it faster, more reliably, with my Twin HD tuner Panasonic DVDR/HDR.  I agree with you totally: there is a genuine need for fast booting, low RAM, mutitasking OS's, and an OS running on a PC is not it.

[stefcep2]

My custom computer built around a pic18f processor cold boots in under 70ms and begins displaying the temperatures from single wire thermal sensors distributed around my apartment to a vt220 terminal therefor it's more powerful than any Amiga, PC, Mac, or Ti calculator. I have you all beat.

No-one asked "Is PC more powerful than Amiga".  An no-one concluded because the Amiga boots faster it is therefore more powerful than a PC.l

[stefcep2]

Hi.

@stefcep.

I tried telling Karlos that the Amiga boots faster but he is dead set that his PC wakes up from its sleep faster than an Amiga booting, I replied that the Amiga does not have a sleep mode so the Amiga beats it there because it is alway on and does not sleep. Then again when you hear about his pitiful PC running Linux I sometimes wonder about him, I tried to convince him that the Amiga also loads its OS faster than a PC loading winblows or vista, but he also denied that post to, one person even argued with him with little to no result that the Amiga's joystick port is faster, once again he denied this saying that the PC joysticks are faster even though the PC today does not have a joystick port. Poor Karlos is having delusional thoughts after using a PC for so long. We really ought to humor him. Throw him a bone every now and then to keep him happy.

smerf

This thread has gone down a path that I generally don't see at Amiga.org. The disappointing thing for me has been the "pack-mentality" of the pro-PC camp to resort to personal insults, and to belittle the arguments of the pro-Amiga camp on the basis that those arguments are trivial because these uniquely Amiga advantages don't matter to them in their own computing use.  Anywhere else thats called "missing the point".  However tempting it might be though, we ALL shouldn't go down THAT path.

Karlos is interesting: he spent a large amount of energy arguing the superiority of his Linux-based machine, over Amiga AND Windows PC's BUT then in "The day or year the Linux desktop died" thread he posts:

"He's right, to be honest. And that's coming from someone that does use Linux, both for work and at home.

I don't know anybody using Linux as a desktop OS that isn't measurably more computer savvy than the majority of users. That's not to say it's an elitist thing but most people just want their desktop computer to work without any fannying about and more often than not they want it for a spot of entertainment too."

Yes most people DO just want their desktop computer to work without fannying about.  A bit like Amiga's.  Usability is a pretty compelling argument for Amiga's superiority over a PC running Linux, but I suppose that's irrelevant too because Karlos is an advanced Linux user and he doesn't mind fanning about.  Good for him.

[stefcep2]

its a bit hard not to belittle the arguments of the "pro-amiga"-people as these "unique amiga advantages" are ancient history and has no use whatsoever in todays computing.

I think some of those advantages if they were properly implemented on the PC would be welcomed by most users.  But its just a theoretical argument, because most PC's-like 99%- will never have a boot time under 10 seconds, will always have a registry, will always be wasteful and inefficient with their use of hardware resources, will always have GUI performance issues, will always make you wait for things that they shouldn't make you wait for, will always have a wait pointer, will always have major malware problems, but you'll be able to do more things, many of which you won't want, need or just plain find frustrating to work with.  But hey that might not matter

[stefcep2]

Correct.  They are only useful if they are better on the PC; otherwise, there is not much use for them.  What a lame way to argue.

i am not sure which way to take that: do you agree or disagree with the post/

[stefcep2]

ohh. i see, another thread where people go impose their personal preferences on others. boot-times, well, im not very impressed with that of my own pc's very much. might be better, sure, i could look into it, but i spare my time to study other sciences since another issue is annoying me much, much more: the shutdown. i really hate to come back home a day after to find out that a computer that i switched off leaving yesterday is still on for some rediculous reason such as it couldnt close one remaining dialog window by itself. and this keeps happening again and again. ghhhrrrmmphh...

LOL.  So I'm not the only with the shutdown that leaves your PC running for 8 hours till you get home..for exactly the same reason..

[stefcep2]

Yeah, I agree with your statement that if you implemented on the PC in a better way than Amiga, the Pro-PC camp would welcome them.  Now if those features are superior on Amiga, they are considered useless or "we left those long time ago" sort of things.  So if they implemented a digital joystick as standard or put OS in ROM or stuff like that, then PC people would find them useful features.  Just following blindly whatever is being marketed currently.

It does sound like people following blindly whatever is being marketed.  

Not long ago a local PC mag did a trip in time where they used a Win98Se in a Pentium machine with 128 Mb ram.  They found web browsing, email, Office, dvd playback, mp3 and divx playback, banking, youtube was not that different on the old machine.  And Win98Se was just as responsive as Vista if not more so. Despite hardware and software advancements.  Thats most of the stuff people do. I would have thought on an Amiga forum, people might question why things on the PC are still the way they are.  Instead the concensus is :  well i can do x number of additional things but even if I need 10x or 100x or even 1000x of the resources to do it, its OK coz hardware is cheap and I can work around it, so I'm OK with it.

[stefcep2]

WinUAE is good, but not the same.  I keep a real amiga for the same reason I keep a real SNES and a real N64: because they "feel right".

[stefcep2]

Obviously, since an emulator can't beat the rules of physics, doing IO outside of the emulator environment can lead to timing mismatches. Such as a PC joystick not actually being read out at 1Khz. The emulated environment still does it at 1Khz internally, but it won't get input at that rate from the 'outside world'.

So no, I did not break the laws of physics. I merely managed to look at this from both points of view: from the emulator and from the 'real world'.

Very relativistic.  We could I suppose apply the Lorentz transformations so as to relate the time that passes per clock cycle in the real world to the time that passes per clock cycle in the emulator world.  Obviously some sort of time dilation would be happening, although space itself would not contract.

[stefcep2]

What if a wormhole opens between the UAE binary and the CPU, how would that affect it?

you could for example find that you've completed a render in Lightwave before you even started, but at the cost of system stability, as wormholes AFAIK are themselves highly unstable.  But then it only takes 5 seconds in our time frame to reboot -but infinite in the time frame of the emulator, as time itself cease to exist for the emulator at the point when the emulated workbench guru's