Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: real amiga vs winuae  (Read 49534 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: real amiga vs winuae
« Reply #44 on: June 03, 2009, 09:23:02 AM »
@stefcep2

An old-fashioned cassette recorder doesn't even boot. It's even faster for recording 3am riffs. Of course, finding tapes for it is the limit of usefulness there...
int p; // A
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: real amiga vs winuae
« Reply #45 on: June 03, 2009, 09:27:17 AM »
Quote from: Trev;508922
What's with all the c**k swinging lately? What happened to, "You like Amigas? Sweet. Me, too."

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.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 09:45:36 AM by Karlos »
int p; // A
 

Offline hooligan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2006
  • Posts: 515
    • Show only replies by hooligan
    • http://www.mikseri.net/hooligan
Re: real amiga vs winuae
« Reply #46 on: June 03, 2009, 09:50:18 AM »
Quote from: stefcep2;508920
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.


On the other hand why even switch off PC? Just turn on energysaving on harddrive and monitor, and your machine is all set in a couple seconds by moving mouse. No need to use sleepmode.

The same goes for Amiga aswell, but I wouldn't risk breaking my dear Amiga by keeping it on 24/7. The riskfactor is just too big.
 

Offline stefcep2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2007
  • Posts: 1467
    • Show only replies by stefcep2
Re: real amiga vs winuae
« Reply #47 on: June 03, 2009, 10:32:44 AM »
Quote from: Karlos;508932
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.
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: real amiga vs winuae
« Reply #48 on: June 03, 2009, 11:27:44 AM »
Quote from: stefcep2;508942
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.


Erm, what exactly is customised in my linux? I'm running Ubuntu 8.10 64-bit out of the box, with PHP, MySQL, Apache and several other server services installed?

Far from having any "guts ripped out of it", it has extra bloat crammed in.
int p; // A
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: real amiga vs winuae
« Reply #49 on: June 03, 2009, 11:39:13 AM »
Furthermore, I timed my A1 bootup this morning , booting into a fresh, unhacked OS4.0 install.

Despite running "bonafide" AmigaOS and running natively on an 800MHz G4 (compared to a 25MHz 040) and a UDMA6 mode hard disk, it booted in about 15 seconds after the SLB stage. As you can see, the "scalability of boot time" is an entirely worthless metric. Having a 32x increase in clockspeed, 5x increase in bus speed, bigger cache, better pipelined and DMA loading of data, It should have booted in 3% of the time according to your logic.

So, what exactly does that do to your argument?
int p; // A
 

Offline paolone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Dec 2007
  • Posts: 382
    • Show only replies by paolone
    • http://www.icarosdesktop.org
Re: real amiga vs winuae
« Reply #50 on: June 03, 2009, 03:43:46 PM »
Quote from: danybebe;508737
Hi all.
I want to assemble a working amiga that is actually usable, and is not too
difficult to use (I want my kids to be able to load games too), but  I've
never actually owned or used an amiga in the past until now

Your kids won't ever understand why they should play on a computer, connected to a TV, games that look and act like the ones they can easily play on their mobile phone. A Radeon HD4770 powered Phenom II PC is a cheap but powerful gaming platform, an Amiga - whatever it is - is "vintage gaming crap" for young people. So, buy the gaming platform and run WinUAE onto if from time to time: your kids will be happier.
p.bes

 

Offline paolone

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Dec 2007
  • Posts: 382
    • Show only replies by paolone
    • http://www.icarosdesktop.org
Re: real amiga vs winuae
« Reply #51 on: June 03, 2009, 03:57:56 PM »
Quote from: stefcep2;508920
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.

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.

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? No, they aren't. So, just multiply Amiga short boottime for the times you need to reboot it, and you'll notice that PC and Macs make you loose less time, even if they need 2x or 3x or even 10x the time to boot an Amiga.
p.bes

 

Offline AmigaHeretic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2002
  • Posts: 821
    • Show only replies by AmigaHeretic
Re: real amiga vs winuae
« Reply #52 on: June 03, 2009, 05:47:32 PM »
U guys so funny. lolz!!  

Is this 1989 again,  

Kid1 - "Nintendo walks all over Sega!"  

Kid2 - "Shut up!  You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Sega.  It uses Military Spec hardware so the games are better!"

Kid1- "...uh...well... your moms dumb!!"

Kid2- "My mom was made in Germany so she can eat your mom!"
A3000D (16mhz, 2MB Chip, 4MB Fast, SCSI (300+MB), SuperGen Genlock, Kick 3.1)
Back in my day, we didn\'t have water. We only had Oxygen and Hydrogen, and we\'d just have to shove them together.
 

Offline brianb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 175
    • Show only replies by brianb
Re: real amiga vs winuae
« Reply #53 on: June 03, 2009, 05:47:58 PM »
Quote from: paolone;508986

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.


No way, I can't believe that!   My TI-85 graphing calculator boots up in .5 seconds.   So I know it's the most powerful computer ever invented!
 

Offline hooligan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2006
  • Posts: 515
    • Show only replies by hooligan
    • http://www.mikseri.net/hooligan
Re: real amiga vs winuae
« Reply #54 on: June 03, 2009, 06:08:57 PM »
Quote from: AmigaHeretic;508992

"My mom was made in Germany so she can eat your mom!"


Ok, now you are scaring me :)
 

Offline Failure

  • Lifetime Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jun 2004
  • Posts: 332
    • Show only replies by Failure
    • http://awhitlock.net/
Re: real amiga vs winuae
« Reply #55 on: June 03, 2009, 06:23:22 PM »
Just wanted to say this thread makes me smile.  :-)
You can\'t spell evil without "vi"
AMIX Wiki | AmixBP
 

Offline Damion

Re: real amiga vs winuae
« Reply #56 on: June 03, 2009, 06:37:11 PM »
WinXP could be made to boot fairly quickly with a little trimming... about 35 seconds on my circa '03 Athlon, no different than most Amigas that load a few extra things on startup. My A1200 boots to 3.9 in about 5 seconds... actually a pretty useful feature considering how often it crashes :P
 

Offline amigaksi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Posts: 827
    • Show only replies by amigaksi
    • http://www.krishnasoft.com
Re: real amiga vs winuae
« Reply #57 on: June 03, 2009, 07:31:01 PM »
Quote from: Karlos;508762
Unless you can demonstrate why using an emulator is less convenient for the average user, you should shut yer cakehole.

How much would a real system with the fastest 060 available, HD, high end RTG, network and 128 MB ram cost you to set up? And it would still be massively slower than UAE on a reasonable PC for everything, with the sole exception, perhaps, of polling the joyport every 500ns, which I'm quite sure most users couldn't give a toss about.

The experience of using a real amiga is, I agree, an entirely unique one. However, it has no bearing whatsoever on the claim that UAE is far more convenient.

How many real amigas can you put to sleep and resume later? How many real amigas are capable of executing 68K code at the sort of speed UAE's JIT achieves on a 2GHz x86? How many real amigas can be pimped to the extent that AmiKit allows and still run like greased lightning?

Not many, that's for sure.


Your logic is faulty.  If it's not a real amiga, you can't discuss which is more convenient and cheaper amiga.  It's like I state fake diamond is not the same as real diamond and you stating "this diamond is a lot cheaper and convenient" already presuming it's the same.  And your 500ns polling of joystick is a straw-man argument.  And by the way "convenient" is a subjective term.
--------
Use PC peripherals with your amiga: http://www.mpdos.com
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: real amiga vs winuae
« Reply #58 on: June 03, 2009, 07:44:38 PM »
Quote from: amigaksi;509011
Your logic is faulty.  If it's not a real amiga, you can't discuss which is more convenient and cheaper amiga.  It's like I state fake diamond is not the same as real diamond and you stating "this diamond is a lot cheaper and convenient" already presuming it's the same.  And your 500ns polling of joystick is a straw-man argument.  And by the way "convenient" is a subjective term.

Your diamond argument is totally worthless since the context is utterly different. Unless your computer is a fashion accessory (hmm, mac lol), what matters is that you can use it. In use as a computer platform* UAE has all of the advantages I cited. If you already own a PC, the cost of setting up your emulated amiga is, well potentially nothing. Yet it will do pretty much everything you could ever want a genuine hardware amiga to do. 500ns joystick polling aside, maybe.

Your diamond analogy might be better if it were in relation to drilling purposes, but then industrial diamonds are relatively cheap anyway, since they are totally unsuitable for jewellery. What's more, I don't think any normal woman is going to reach for her DeBeers special to wear on a night out on the town when her cheap and cheerful cubic zirconia is just as sparkly in the club and a damn sight less of an issue if lost :lol:

PS, I'm glad you realised your 500ns joyport polling argument (as an example of ways in which the amiga was way ahead of the PC) was, well, a poor one. A more domain specific example you'd be hard pressed to find. Especially given that the old soundcard "joyport" traditionally isn't a standard bit of PC hardware anyway.

You might as well have said the amiga is streets ahead in having a real 68000 based CPU than a PC. I mean it's true, the PC will probably never catch up in having one... ;)


*As a cool looking machine on your desk, I'll certainly agree with you that the classic Amiga wedge is hard to beat. I still think the A500 looks simply beautiful even now. I never liked the A1200 form factor much at the beginning, but it has grown on me since.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2009, 07:56:27 PM by Karlos »
int p; // A
 

Offline Gibbersan

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2004
  • Posts: 43
    • Show only replies by Gibbersan
Re: real amiga vs winuae
« Reply #59 from previous page: June 03, 2009, 07:50:19 PM »
I agree with Karlos here.  Regarding WinUAE, if it runs everything you need to run with it, what's the problem with using it on a modern computer?
A4000D - A1200 - WinUAE