Which is better? OS 4 or Morph OS . . .

[Piru]

@X-ray

That should work, however you'd still need to figure out how to switch the monitor input (manually move the monitor cable, have a monitor switchbox, have two monitors or have a monitor with multiple inputs).

[X-ray]

@ Piru

I think I would go for a digital switchbox because the manual one I have now is poor quality with vertical ghosting.
But that is good news indeed. The big box classic may turn out to be a flexible machine for users like me who have PCs to do the serious stuff.

[Karlos]

Piru wrote:
@Karlos

There is also a JIT implementation available for it called Petunia.

It is? Damn, I must have gotten some wrong information then. My source claimed it wasn't available outside of betatesting (that is, that it wouldn't be available for mere mortals).

Sorry, I wasn't completely clear. Hey, I've been virtually dying of a cold these last few days you know. It is avaliable in that it exists, but is presently only available to betatesters. I have tested earlier versions on my BPPC but my betatesting has been very lacking of late due to other commitments :-( I can only assume, however that it will be present in the final release. I hope so anyway :-)

[Argo]

We all know which one is the Best!





          AROS!!! :-D

[Karlos]

itix wrote:

But would it give a significant performance boost compared to BOOPSI? Calling a method in BOOPSI is not very expensive after all. There is some extra overhead in dispatchers but I think current BOOPSI is quite good.

Horses for courses really. An interface call (inderect call from a function pointer) is unarguably much faster than a Boopsi call (dispatcher shennanigas), but when you consider a typical GUI is mostly waiting for stuff to happen I would say not. I do find interfaces cleaner conceptually than boopsi and a lot more general purpose too. Again, my personal opinion.

I have used only C++ and Java but there I dont have to care about low level details.

As it should be. When writing application code the very last thing I want to know about is the platform implementation detail, so I agree. However I also like to work in abstraction layer or lower occasionally where these things become important too.

Btw it seems in Windows you have interfaces too (in COM objects, I guess).

Even MS have OK ideas sometimes you know :-D