PC still playing Amiga catchup

[Trev]

You're right. Joystick polling is a much better test of computational power than a particle physics simulation.

[amigaksi]

You're right. Joystick polling is a much better test of computational power than a particle physics simulation.

First read everything written before you blurt out something against someone.  Joystick reading at 1Khz is also a real-time event.  Amigas were built with better gaming interface than PCs so that's a strength of the Amiga.  PCs already had more computational power even while Amiga was being marketed.  The claim that PCs have already surpassed Amiga in every aspect or by obscene amount is FALSE and I only need to state one example.   There are other examples, but people are having a hard time grasping that even because they are blinded by the aura of modern PCs and can't see anything beyond Gigahertz processor speed.

His physics simulation is NO example of general PC power either.  It's specific to his set-up.  The examples I gave work on ALL amigas.  I can read joystick at 15Khz easily on any Amiga.  I wanted to see what the answer was for 1Khz.  I can do copper list real-time events on ALL amigas.   Perhaps, you should buy some souped up PCI graphics video card and put it in an Amiga and do the physics simulation and add in a few more hardware add-ons while you are at it and then do the comparison.

[Karlos]

Why not try it out on a REAL PC with standard hardware rather than specialized graphics cards.

First of all, it is a "real PC". The graphics card is no more out of place in this machine than any of the custom chips in my "real Amigas". This simulation runs on any PC that has a G80 or above based graphics card.

Secondly, there's nothing "specialised" whatsoever about the card. All current generation graphics cards tend to have fully programmable parallel arithmetic units.

Thirdly, I have run the same simulation entirely on the CPU. A naive single threaded implementation in the same "real PC" is about 250x slower than the GPU version on this machine. I can boost it significantly by optimizing it for four core execution and even further by using specific SSE3 vector operations. However, that naive version would still be 400x faster than my humble 040 could manage in a perfect world where memory bandwidth was infinite and all operations took one cycle. In the actual real world, it couldn't run it at all, there's not enough memory available to even hold the state information for this simulation.

Criticising the use of the GPU is also shooting your own argument for the Amiga in the foot. So far, you've extolled the virtue of using the custom chips for "realtime" performance, such as polling the joyport. If our experiment were simply filling flatshaded polygons on a 68000 amiga, would you be advocating the use of the CPU and not some "specialised graphics processor" ? Of course not.

Incidentally, do you really think a 2.6GHz CPU with 12MB of cache, even running the least optimized code in existence, isn't capable of polling a piece of hardware at 1kHz without missing a single iteration?

[Karlos]

Depends on the task. If your real-time task only involves modifying some registers, you can use the Copper and it's guaranteed with accuracy of 558ns (no +/- latency bullcrap).

Also, the argument was about "real-time OS", not what constitutes a real-time task in general. AmigaOS and Linux are in no way, shape or form "real-time" OS. You should probably look up the definition of what constitutes a real-time OS if you think differently.

A real-time OS guarantees that an event (an interrupt ot whatever) shall be dealt within a specified minimum time limit. A failure to do so is considered a complete failure of the OS.

No commonly used desktop OS makes this guarantee. You'll only see it in embedded hardware and mission critical systems.

[Karlos]

All I have to do is show one example, where Amiga wins out and your claims above are FALSE and the topic of this thread is valid-- PC still playing catchup.

Then please do. I'm genuinely intrigued as to what this one example could be. And once you deliver it, I suppose you could look at it the other way around. I would suggest the amiga has been playing catchup to the PC for some time now. Or at least it would be, if it was even in the race still. Which it isn't and it hasn't been since the last hardware amiga rolled off the production line.

There's no greater demonstration of how far behind the amiga is in hardware terms than a quick glance at the hardware upgrades that are available for it. Most of the heavily expanded classic amigas out there are using some form of (now totally obsolete) commodity PC hardware to upgrade their native kit. I have two A1200 towers, one has a BVision, the other has a voodoo 3000. Both have nice displays that are significantly better than AGA could manage for productivity work, yet both are using utterly ancient PC hardware to deliver them. Apart from retrogaming and demos, I can't use AGA at all. Which is fine, because I don't ask anything more from it.

You are probably sitting there, p!ssed at me, thinking I'm some PC fanboy and that I hate the Amiga etc. The fact is, you couldn't be more wrong. I still own two towered 1200's, both pretty heavily expanded, two desktop 1200s, modestly expanded, a presently dead (but hoping to revive) A600 and a "next generation" Amiga, namely the A1XE. I get plenty of enjoyment out of them but I had to accept reality. Aside from some of the really cool FPGA stuff, the classic line is never coming back. The "next gen" line is interesting but I don't think there's any niche it can fulfil, outside of entertaining we few enthusiasts. And at the end of the day, that's what the Amiga is today. An enthusiasts platform. It's yestyear's classic car; beautifully designed and engineered, a joy to see still out on the road, but easily outclassed at a raw technical level by modern machines.

[stefcep2]

I think the two opposing camps are arguing about 2 separate things: one side is arguing about how many calculations per second a PC can do, about how fast its display is and how much higher res it has, or how much more bandwith and speed the newer busses have.  The other side is arguing about what really matters: the user experience.  This includes boot up time and the system putting you in control to do what you want to do when you want to do it.  Personally I expected so much more than I'm getting from my current PC hardware running Vista.  The hardware specs of even a 5 year old PC are insane, the average Joe's PC is more powerful than computers used in physics labs only a few years ago, yet it takes time to open a start menu, it takes time to draw the contents of a window, i have to wait for no apparant reason to pull down a menu even though an app has loaded.  

When I went from my A500 with 3 meg ram to my A1200 40 mhz 68030 with 16 meg ram i thought WOW, now this progress!!  And then I got an A4000 with 68060 and CV64 and I thought I was in Cray supecomputer territory.  Just imagine i thought if I owned one of the piping hot 200 mhz pentiums...purely judging on mhz and necer used a PC before.  What a joke things have turned out to be: my 3000 mhz C2duo runs general operating system tasks no faster than that 200 mhz pentium running Win95, and yet we still communicate with the hardware in the same way: by a mouse menu and icons.  And yes Xp and vista are more complex beasts than Win 95, but this is NO EXCUSE because the hardware more than makes-up for the increased complexity of the OS.  Sure we can crunch numbers faster, but the user experience is just as stop-start as it ever was.  

My 13 year old son switches on his A1200 with a 68060, it boots in under 5 seconds, dpaint loads in 4 seconds and he's spray painting in real time in under 20 seconds from switching on.  He asks me "Why don't they make computers like this anymore".  He "gets" Amiga.  And those of you who are happy with your PC, quite simply, don't.

[stefcep2]

Then please do. I'm genuinely intrigued as to what this one example could be.

I'll give you THREE:

1. Boot up time
2. Shut down time
3. Application launch time  (and don't give me the spiel about how much bigger modern apps are because they do so much more so ofcourse they' take longer to load, thats all negated by the fact that you're running those apps on hardware specs that are many many factors faster clock speed and higher capacity ram and bussess, than the hardware used to launch Amiga apps.)

[Karlos]

I'll give you THREE:

1. Boot up time
2. Shut down time
3. Application launch time  (and don't give me the spiel about how much bigger modern apps are because they do so much more so ofcourse they' take longer to load, thats all negated by the fact that you're running those apps on hardware specs that are many many factors faster clock speed and higher capacity ram and bussess, than the hardware used to launch Amiga apps.)

In what sense is (1) and (2) remotely relevant unless you spend all your time rebooting? Bootup times on most machines are limited by having to wait for things. Network connections, hardware initialisation etc. All systems wait at the same speed. My current PC boots into linux in about 25 seconds, during which time it starts several server processes. It's true that my A1 can A1200 can boot faster from a warm reset, but then, I never have to reboot the linux box unless I consciously turn it off or intend to upgrade the kernel. My A1200 waits for 10 seconds just to see if anything is attached to the BPPC SCSI. It never boots in less than 20 seconds, even warm. There are additional delays whilst AmiTCP fires up and talks to the router.

3) Complete and utter rubbish, I am afraid. I can launch applications that take up more memory on this PC than I have fitted in all my amigas put together and they open faster than most applications on my actual amiga. For example, Firefox 3 is reportedly using 350MB of memory at the moment. It took about 2 seconds to start.

What's more, like 1 and 2, it's a contrived measure of user experience. I don't know about you but I tend to start applications once and then carry on using them for as long as needed. I don't sit there opening and closing them repeatedly and marvelling at the speed.

My ZXSpectrum boots from cold in about 1 second. It's obviously the best of the lot, by your reckoning.

[meega]

Application (game) launch times generally weren't very good on the ZX series though... (cassette tapes).

[Karlos]

Application (game) launch times generally weren't very good on the ZX series though... (cassette tapes).

I had the expansion interface that had the rom cartridge slot. They launched pretty damn quick.

To this day I have no idea what happened to that expansion.

[stefcep2]

In what sense is (1) and (2) remotely relevant unless you spend all your time rebooting? Bootup times on most machines are limited by having to wait for things. Network connections, hardware initialisation etc. All systems wait at the same speed. My current PC boots into linux in about 25 seconds, during which time it starts several server processes. It's true that my A1 can A1200 can boot faster from a warm reset, but then, I never have to reboot the linux box unless I consciously turn it off or intend to upgrade the kernel. My A1200 waits for 10 seconds just to see if anything is attached to the BPPC SCSI. It never boots in less than 20 seconds, even warm. There are additional delays whilst AmiTCP fires up and talks to the router.

3) Complete and utter rubbish, I am afraid. I can launch applications that take up more memory on this PC than I have fitted in all my amigas put together and they open faster than most applications on my actual amiga. For example, Firefox 3 is reportedly using 350MB of memory at the moment. It took about 2 seconds to start.

What's more, like 1 and 2, it's a contrived measure of user experience. I don't know about you but I tend to start applications once and then carry on using them for as long as needed. I don't sit there opening and closing them repeatedly and marvelling at the speed.

My ZXSpectrum boots from cold in about 1 second. It's obviously the best of the lot, by your reckoning.

well you must be the only person on the planet that sees no value in fast booting and shut down.  Go to any Win 7 forum and you'll see boot up and shut down time is a MAJOR concern of many many PC users, so much so that MS has gone out of its way to reduce both of these in Win 7, making sure that people know about this as well.  Unlike you, most people do turn their computers on and off numerous times in a day, maybe to surf a bit, send an email, do some banking, and then live the rest of their lives, only to do boot up a few hours later to do the same, or something completely different.

Regarding shut down, I don't like to remeber the times I've had to leave the house quickly but have to wait for the PC to shut down, or I leave after shut down, and coming home to find some stupid process has stopped the shut down and the PC's been on for 8 hours.  Never happened with Amiga..

Application start up time is a real measure of the user experience.  I get on the net on my A1200 68060 far more quickly than my PC.  I have the google home page up faster on ibrowse than i do with Firefox; from the time I launch both browsers  Its a joke that ancient hardware can do this.  Try loading Word 2003 on a PC from 2003 see how fast it loads..and tell me if you enjoy your experience with loading Fireox3 on that as well.

BTW you only needed ONE, you've got three..

[Karlos]

well you must be the only person on the planet that sees no value in fast booting and shut down

Wow, really? Sh!tfire, I must be a total freak if I think waiting 20 odd seconds either way is fast enough for something I do at most once a day. My work machine takes a whopping minute to start on a slightly less powerful PC. However, it's only been rebooted about 6 times in 3 years, 3 of those times were due to office moves.

I get on the net on my A1200 68060 far more quickly than my PC. I have the google home page up faster on ibrowse than i do with Firefox

No way! Rock on. Guess what? I don't actually have to connect. I just start a browser (this is also true on my A1200 and A1, both of which are connected to the same router). I just opened firefox and it was at my homepage instantly. I really can't shave any time off.

I think maybe lynx is slightly faster.

BTW you only needed ONE, you've got three..

Three what? Totally limp wristed non-arguments I've heard dozens of times that have never gotten any more meaningful no matter how many times repeated? If you ask any sane person if they have to choose between slightly faster boot times or the actual need to reboot in the first place, I wonder which they'd choose?

[stefcep2]

Wow, really? Sh!tfire, I must be a total freak if I think waiting 20 odd seconds either way is fast enough for something I do at most once a day. My work machine takes a whopping minute to start on a slightly less powerful PC. However, it's only been rebooted about 6 times in 3 years, 3 of those times were due to office moves.

i can assure you its not 20 seconds, its no less than 2 minutes, often 2 and half.  Well you ARE a freak if you boot up once per year, excluding office moves.  Seriously, thats not representative of the average PC users experience, not even in the same universe..

No way! Rock on. Guess what? I don't actually have to connect. I just start a browser (this is also true on my A1200 and A1, both of which are connected to the same router). I just opened firefox and it was at my homepage instantly. I really can't shave any time off.

I think maybe lynx is slightly faster.

BS.  it takes time to start Firefox, and that time is longer than Ibrowse.  you're not at you home page "instantly"

Three what? Totally limp wristed non-arguments I've heard dozens of times that have never gotten any more meaningful no matter how many times repeated? If you ask any sane person if they have to choose between slightly faster boot times or the actual need to reboot in the first place, I wonder which they'd choose?

You only wanted ONE thing that the PC is playing catch-up at, I gave you boot-up time shutdown time and application load times.  You only hear what you want to hear and dismiss what doesn't sit well with your argument.

[Karlos]

i can assure you its not 20 seconds, its no less than 2 minutes, often 2 and half. Well you ARE a freak if you boot up once per year, excluding office moves.

Assure me? It's my system. Would you like me to time it for you? It isn't as if I don't have any better use for a computer than rebooting it.

[Karlos]

BS.  it takes time to start Firefox, and that time is longer than Ibrowse.  you're not at you home page "instantly".

Yes, I am a dirty liar:

karlos@Megaburken-II:~/Desktop$ time firefox

real   0m0.138s
user   0m0.032s
sys   0m0.012s

That's very nearly 0.14 seconds OMGZ!

[Wayne]

@stefcep

I understand your need to feel like the 1985 Amiga is still as capable as a modern day PC or Mac.  I really do.  Everyone feels the need to justify why they're still running what they do, especially in light of overwhelming evidence to support the contrary.

Using an Amiga today is a hobby for everyone, and I mean 99.999% of everyone on the planet.  Aside from the strange car wash or local public television station, there are literally no more legitimate uses for an Amiga in a professional setting.  

Take away professional settings, and you're left with personal use, which -- when you consider there are better and faster alternatives out there -- means "a hobby".

There's nothing wrong with that.

For the record, I loathe Windows to my very core and even moreso when I have to use it at work.

That being said, there simply isn't any single way on the planet that you can compare a 2 GIGAhertz machine to a 7 (or even 14) MEGAhertz computer and have the latter come out ahead in ANY category on the planet.  Sorry.  You just can't do it.

I often laugh when some people trot out reboot times and "I don't have to shut my machine down".

What you, and every other stalwart defender of the faith always forget is that yes, Windows and Macs take longer to boot, but when they boot, they're loading up easily 100 times more active features than the antiquated Amiga.  

If you want a fair test on boot times, take your 14mhz machine, load it down with network stacks, font handling stacks, printer handlers, and everything else that a stock Windows box does by default.  Have it then automatically connect to everything from your printer to the network to.. well, everything that Windows does automatically, then time it from the moment you hit the power button until the time the hard drive quits gronking.

You *will* find that your precious little Amiga will take -- at a minimum -- more time to boot than even a mid-level Windows box.  That is, *if* you could get the Amiga to even load 1/10th the features that Windows has, and you can't do it because frankly, the features Windows has by base install don't even exist for the Amiga.

I don't say this to tear you down.  I really don't.  Like I said, I'm a Mac guy and I hate Windows as much as you do, but... You can't sit here defending the Amiga as being better because it boots faster and come out sounding the least bit credible.  It just makes you sound like a fanboy, which I'm sure is not your intent.

Also for the record, prior to the demise of my last Windows box, which I worked on 10 hours a day, 6 days a week professionally for an Internet Registrar doing everything from programming to tech support.  During that time, my average "up time" (between reboots) was well over 6 months between reboots for a matter of 8 YEARS.  

Most of those reboots caused by extended power outages which drained the UPS system I have in place.

Live well, Learn much, Love often,

Wayne