Philosophical question related to AROS vs OS4

[warpdesign]

As I see it...

1. Emulated applications

- AmigaOS4/MorphOS emulate 68k applications by calling native PowerPC libraries. As there's no integrated emulation for custome chips (except some basic stuff), most hardware-banging software won't run (and may easily bring the OS down).
68k applications that will work this way will be real fast (a lot faster than when run through UAE).

- AROS will call UAE when encountering 68k applications. The first thing it implies is that UAE requires a full AmigaOS 68k install or at least a compatible kickstart for simple games/demos while AmigaOS4/MorphOS don't have such requirement. So today, (freely) distributing AROS with the option to run Amiga68k applications through the UAE integration isn't possible. A kickstart replacement has been announced, but it's been 10 years at least since it's been announced, so I wouldn't hold my breath. So this is an obstacle for me.

The second difference is that UAE will run 100% of the 68k applications, not only "OS-friendly" ones, since it will emulate every custom chips. And a crash of a 68k application will only crash UAE, since the emulated application doesn't have full access to the OS'resources, unlike AmigaOS4/MorphOS'transparent emulation.

That's the big differences I can see.


2. Native applications VS emulated ones

Speedwise, some emulated applications may run slower on AROS since the emulation is a lot heavier. But native applications will run a lot faster because the x86 will be a lot faster than PPC (at least today's x86 are faster than the fastest PPC OS4/MorphOS run on: who knows ? This may change in the future ).


3. Compatibility

The 3 OS are binary incompatible: an AmigaOS4 executable won't run on AROS, nor MorphOS (well, could be run through OS4Emu but the author decided to stop its development, so let's forget about this option), and an AROS executable won't run on MorphOS nor AmigaOS4.

All 3 OS are source-compatible, if you don't use any of the OS'specific functions/libs and of course don't use inline ASM stuff (like Altivec code or SSE code).

Last but not least, the 3 OS lack modern features such as Memory Protection, Resource Tracking, etc... And these features can't be added without losing not only 68k compatibilty, but also today's native applications.

Oh, and btw MorphOS and AROS aren't based on AmigaOS sources. They are reimplementation of the Amiga's libraries, much like Linux is a reimplementation of original Unix, but isn't based on Unix sources.

[dammy]

Speedwise, some emulated applications may run slower on AROS since the emulation is a lot heavier. But native applications will run a lot faster because the x86 will be a lot faster than PPC (at least today's x86 are faster than the fastest PPC OS4/MorphOS run on: who knows ? This may change in the future ).

True, ARM may be joining x86_64  being the faster then PPC in the near future

[cicero790]

@Kolla
Quote:
Just observations from a user's point of view.
Quote:

Not my user point of view. I really am just a user and do not understand 90% of your posts. It would be great if you could find enjoyment in improving things.

[bubblebobble]

I think it is a myth that OS friendly 68K programs are executed faster on OS4 or MOS, because their emulation is more lightweight.

If you are not playing games, but running a "High-End" Amiga, you don't need cycle exact emulation of Custom Chips. Actually, apart from CIA, you don't need any Custom Chip emulation if you are using an RTG Screen and AHI Sound, and WinUAE is doing exactly that.

So what has to emulated is redicously cheap to emulate and costs a neglegtable amount of CPU Power. The execution of 68K programs under WinUAE has NO handbrake on, as people post here.

[Manu]

Even if I applaude Aros having UAE integration...
99 % of the time is spend on Aros is spent on NOT running emulated legacy apps.
Can somebody tell me what apps I need to run now that Ol1 is about to complete the bounty ?
PS.
I think I'll use Janus UAE most of the time for retro games in the future, that is when I feel for playing one.

[leszeka33]

I think it is a myth that OS friendly 68K programs are executed faster on OS4 or MOS, because their emulation is more lightweight.

Download http://aminet.net/util/moni/sspeed26.lha.
Run on a modern PC and Mini G4 and compare the results.
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.
Both MorphOS and Amiga OS 4 have graphics.library and layers.library supported by 3d hardware.  
And Radeon 9200 is still much faster than one core in modern Pc.

[bubblebobble]

I was talking about the 68K Emu, not how well the RTG Driver supports the hardware.
WinUAE has great room for improvement here, indeed, since it is pure software as far as I know.
But if you run the test on actual 68K code, the results will look very different. See the FFT Benchmark which I wrote and Bernd send around. You can also check DSP effects of HD-Rec.

Or AmegaOne (68K), this runs much faster on WinUAE than on OS4/MOS, how come?

All I want to say is that WinUAE execution speed of 68K Code is faster than OS4/MOS. I am not comparing Gaphicscard drivers.

[warpdesign]

I was talking about the 68K Emu, not how well the RTG Driver supports the hardware.

Funny you're comparing 68k Emu and you are showing something that involves (RTG) graphics, and not really 68k... RTG Graphics stuff *is* much faster on WinUAE...

Basic CPU emulation stuff is slower on WinUAE.Now I don't know why, you should ask some developer for that. But it's a fact.

[fishy_fiz]

@Manu
Actually it's apps Im looking forward to using rather than games when 68k/uae intergration is complete. Being able to continue using old favorite apps on a modern hardware platform is one of the reasons I use AROS. The amiga charm was in its software just as much as the OS and/or hardware. No other amiga like system (os4.x/mos/aros) is likely to ever see the quality (and just plain fun) software that the classics had. Graphics software (aros has next to none, lunapaint was promising, but too immature to use, grafx2 has bugs that stop it being useful, no 3d rendering software (yet) apart from the powerful, but cumbersome (3d rendering in a shell ? no thanks) Povray), audio software is next to non existant apart from a few trackers, little in the way of development software. I could go on and on. Having access to os3.x's vast library of software is what will keep me with AROS. If it wasnt for that Id stick with Amithlon.

[Manu]

@fishy_fis

I understand what you are saying. Amiga had apps back then that was fun to use. I used Dpaint lots and Imagine. When I was in school I wrote my lab reports in Wordworth, I tried to write my final exam (thesis) in Wordworth too but as I added lots of footnotes to my document Wordworth finally took too long to rearrange the whole document when I added more footnotes to it. (WW became slow on my acclerated A1200) So I had to start over on my first win95 box in Word. That was 1996.

The reason i use Aros is because it behaves as amiga OS did. It gives me the same feeling as using an Amiga. At the moment I browse the web a lot with OWB for example. I play a few games when I feel like it, SDL ones, old Amiga goodies too. I can't lie and say I'm satisfied with Aros, sure a lot is missing, but for me I can't see that the things missing is to come via emulation of old applications. IMO the future is in the other direction, to bring more "new" apps to Aros. Part comes from porting and part comes from native apps.

I like the fact that we CAN run old legacy software and I would not want Aros not to be able to. But a few moments back in this thread it almost became a contest of which amiga-like OS runs the old software the best. I say I don't think it matters for the future, the future is not in our old applications. I have somewhat put the past behind me, I revisit it from time to time by playing old games, checking out old applications but I can't see me getting productive in those applications anymore. Not even Imagine 3D.

Lunapaint was "getting there", I would gladly use it, and suggest how to improve it (and I did) but then the development stopped so that was a dead end. Sad. I hope Mazze (that has the sources now) finds time to work on it but I doubt that, he's needed in so much other areas of Aros.

My 2 cents.

[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

[bubblebobble]

Funny you're comparing 68k Emu and you are showing something that involves (RTG) graphics, and not really 68k... RTG Graphics stuff *is* much faster on WinUAE...

Basic CPU emulation stuff is slower on WinUAE.Now I don't know why, you should ask some developer for that. But it's a fact.

Well, hard to show something that does not involve (RTG) graphics. Given that it is rendered in software, I count it as CPU intensive.
(BTW, OT: Does SDL.library use HW acceleration on OS4/MOS ?)

But I also mentioned Bernds FFT Benchmark (FPU and non-FPU version) and some HD-Rec DSP Effects (Interger and or float).