mac and pc sucks!!!!

[stefcep2]

I really hate these "trash windows" fests...  XP draws the desktop completely differently than Windows Vista and Windows 7. There is a new compositing engine that XP and before doesn't have. That's why Windows XP desktop refreshes are so badly done.. AERO is a completely different animal.

 Love the pace of progress: 20 years later and they got the desktop to refresh decently.  Mind you they needed multiple CPU's, GPU's and several gigabytes of ram to do it.  Great, Pat On The Back MS.

As far as the 100 byte or so file that you are talking about how about fetch and superfetch which caches up files..

And yet it still has to visibly populate its start menu one program at a time.

 

I swear if you guys really knew more about Windows internals this topic could at least be a fair comparison. Windows actually builds on many of the things that made the Amiga so popular initially.

The last time I used XP it was 2006.. . Do you realize how ridiculous it is to compare something like Windows 7 to the Amiga and believe me folks I know the classic AmigaOS and Workbench and Intuition backwards and forwards and learned it back in 1985-86. It hasn't changed ALL that MUCH..

Windows is a very different beast in many ways and is doing so much stuff behind the scenes that if the AmigaOS did all that it's doing, it would probably be performing similarly as well..

XP is dead and has been dead for two revs of Windows already.. get over it..

Umm XP is what most of the world uses.

I love the Amiga, I own Macs and Windows boxes love them too.. I don't have performance issues with Windows or Mac anymore it really just doesn't exist if you have a relatively new machine and you are up-to-date with your OS..

I can do UI development, animation, etc. anything I want really twice as fast as i could with the Amiga because of all of the tools today like Expression Blend..

Hmmmm, TWICE is fast.  With um, what factor increase in CPU power, RAM, etc, etc?

Is the penny dropping?

Y'all need to get CURRENT if you want this to be a more interesting argument..

Oh and as for the G3 G4 Mac and intel Mac Video editing comments.. None of the Mac's video is hardware accelerated by the GPU. Apple just finally released an SDK to support GPU accelerated video on macs (the CPU did it all up until now and Apple finally admits this) this came in the update for OS X 10.6.3 and isn't even support all video cards yet on apple products. It also only works on the intel ONLY snow leopard release..

So when you go to talk about how slow and bloated Flash is on the Mac, remember Apple uses your CPU for all it's worth to display video. That's why it's slow it's not that Flash is badly programmed. All other platforms that flash has access to are fully GPU accelerated. The mac version up until now has been doing something people refer to as GPUCPU acceleration (not using the NVIDIA or ATI processors)..

So the comments you guys are talking about really don't hold water..

Umm the G3 video argument was begun by me when someone said that video editing was something that became mainstream for the past 5 years.  Well, we were editing digital video in 1998 with G3 over firwire, playing back full screen PAL overscan.  So if the G3 can do that why can't it play youtube's shitty 320x200 flash video?  Beacsue flash is a bloated POS, so bloated as you said, it needs GPU accleration to run.  Hell multicore multighz, multigig ram aint enough to stream a 320x200 video without maxing the CPU out.  And you folks are OK with that?  Unbelievable.  But thats where we've ended up now, keep re-inventing the wheel, and marvel at what you can do with it

[Karlos]

This redraw argument is total b*llocks.

I have 2 RTG equipped 68040 amigas. Both machines have a visible redraw of the background whenever a layer is closed. Whilst it is true that only the area that was obscured is redrawn, the fact is that it is highly conspicuous. The only time you don't notice it is if you have the default "colour index zero" as your background.

[stefcep2]

This redraw argument is total b*llocks.

I have 2 RTG equipped 68040 amigas. Both machines have a visible redraw of the background whenever a layer is closed. Whilst it is true that only the area that was obscured is redrawn, the fact is that it is highly conspicuous. The only time you don't notice it is if you have the default "colour index zero" as your background.

i don't have my CV64 68060 A4000 to check it up and running, but I don't remember any re-draw delays.  At least AmigaOS doesn't feel the need to re-draw every icon on the desktop just for the hell of it.

[stefcep2]

If that's your conclusion then you didn't really learn anything at all.

EDIT: I mean, have you seen the sourcecode for any OS, and how do you know that they haven't already gone through the step of "making it do things twice as fast"? Just because you got your own(?) program to work twice as fast as before doesn't even mean that you did your job right.

Only what I can see: Look at Vista and then Win 7.  Why such a difference, if they got "things running twice as fast" with Vista.  Clearly they didn't.  Why should you beleive that they did with Win 7?

[jj]

i don't have my CV64 68060 A4000 to check it up and running, but I don't remember any re-draw delays. At least AmigaOS doesn't feel the need to re-draw every icon on the desktop just for the hell of it.

 
Well open a drawer on the amiga with a lot of icons in it and see how long that takes to draw compared to a Windows.
 
And at the end of the day when hardware is so cheap and getting fasteqr why bother making na tight OS there relly is no need.  So I still fail to see what your agument is ?

[Britelite]

Only what I can see: Look at Vista and then Win 7.  Why such a difference, if they got "things running twice as fast" with Vista.  Clearly they didn't.  Why should you beleive that they did with Win 7?

Because there's really no such thing as "things running twice as fast", that's something you made up. There's always room for improvement, but YOU certainly don't know where things can be improved and where not.

And following you own example, maybe Vista was like your(?) program before you rewrote it and Win 7 is the program after it was rewritten.

[Karlos]

i don't have my CV64 68060 A4000 to check it up and running, but I don't remember any re-draw delays.  At least AmigaOS doesn't feel the need to re-draw every icon on the desktop just for the hell of it.

Well, on both my 8MB Permedia2/CGX 4 and 32MB Voodoo3000/P96 I see it in OS3.1, 3.5 and 3.9. I think I even noticed it in OS4.0 on the Permedia, though it was less conspicuous.

Just stick a nice workbench background image, open a few windows, move them, resize them, close them. I even notice it when using a fill colour (in wbpattern prefs) other than the default grey.

If you don't get a similar visible redraw, let me know what your settings are and I'll try them. The smart/simple refresh only seems to apply to window contents (GUI gadgets) on my machines.

[dougal]

Im not following this thread... but wow it seems popular

[Arkhan]

WTF?  This is the desktop we are talking about here. How about just drawing an icon when the program is added and deleting it when the program is removed?  Other OS's seem to do fine without re-drawing the whole fricken thing even when nothing is added or removed.  In XP, the World's most used OS this can even results in generic icons replacing the originals

You know every time you do something the screen redraws stuff?
You just don't see it because it happens mighty fast?  Unless you think the GUI has 2049204980 layers and thats how you can open hundreds of windows and still be able to see what's behind them.

Look up clipping.  Maybe a semester of things like that will make you the master of GUIs also.

Right.  How about indexing that as you go along, storing that in 500 byte file at the last shutdown, and all being ready to go when you next boot up,taking a microsecond to load at the next boot?  And for all the Win 7 talk, XP is still by far the most used OS on the planet.  Try launching from the start menu in a fully populated PC and see how long XP takes to draw its menus and icons

Lol, I think you're the only person whose 7 box can't handle the start menu.  Like I said, 4 fully loaded Win7 machines over here don't exhibit these issues.  They're just as snappy, if not snappier than XP.

And, XP is still the most widely used because it's been in use for what a decade now?  Windows 7 hasn't been commercially out for a year yet really...

Give it some time and it will replace XP on all fronts.

No, the point thats eluded you is I only NEEDED ONE SEMESTER to know that your computer could be made to do things twice as fast if you did your job as a programmer right.  There is a discrepancy between the hardware capability and the end product.

The point didn't elude me, because it doesn't exist.  I like how you keep saying you are saying things that elude the rest of us, and that we don't get things.  

Sorry, one semester of programming is not going to make you an expert on anything.  People like you are the people I laugh at in school.  "I GOT MY PROJECTS TO WORK THEREFORE I AM AN EXPERT.".   Putsy university assignments teach you the bare ass basics of everything.  If you think you could now walk into M$, sit down and optimize all of their OS stuff, then you are a complete goon.

I took two semesters of operating systems courses.  I have a CS degree, and soon to be a masters.  Still, I'm not going to pretend I know enough quite yet to make judgements on an a company with an OS that has been around since I was still wearing diapers.  There is crap going on in Windows that would make me pee my pants trying to work with it.  

It takes way more than a semester of jerking off to actually know/understand these complex/advanced/intricate/massive projects like full blown commercial OS's.

Yep, your modern day OS is pushing your hardware to the limit, but too much of that is not doing anything useful.

My level 80 warrior is pretty useful.  He likes Windows 7 quite alot.

[Einstein]

I like JJ's avatar !

As for icons and start menus, I'm hungry !

[persia]

@Karlos

I just noticed the redraw in AmigaOS on one of my machines, I guess I had been ignoring it until you mentioned it!  Funny how one's mind adjusts to things...

[Karlos]

@Karlos

I just noticed the redraw in AmigaOS on one of my machines, I guess I had been ignoring it until you mentioned it!  Funny how one's mind adjusts to things...

Once you've used a compositing GUI, the old "redraw on expose" methods suddenly look a bit dated. This applies to most user systems, not just OS3.x.

[Karlos]

Right. How about indexing that as you go along, storing that in 500 byte file at the last shutdown, and all being ready to go when you next boot up,taking a microsecond to load at the next boot? And for all the Win 7 talk, XP is still by far the most used OS on the planet. Try launching from the start menu in a fully populated PC and see how long XP takes to draw its menus and icons

Really, do you honestly think the delay when you first access the start menu is caused by having to search a directory tree to see what to populate the menu with? I don't really think that's the killer. Somehow I suspect that physically loading all the icon images and producing their scaled versions for the menu takes longer than that. Then it's all cached for the remainder of your session.

[the_leander]

requires more than double that memory space-more likely at least 4 times- just let you make the computer do something?

Right back at ya

You really don't see why its Not A Good Thing that you have 10x hardware resources to do things 3 or 4 x as well, if you are lucky.

There might be, somewhere.  But I doubt it.  Windows is programmed by large committees.  Big apps are probably the same.  Anything done by committee processes is guaranteed to be inefficient.

No becacuse you're the only person thats ever opened more than on layer in photoshop. Layers, are one of the least efficeint ways to image process, but its The Industry Standard, so it must be good, right?

If you can provide a more "resource efficient" way of doing non-destructive image editing that is at least as quick as the current method, be my guest. Right now whilst it is the industry standard, it doesn't make it a bad thing either.  

Professional magazine photographers have been opening up images in photoshop for more than 10 years with a fraction of the RAM.

And having to go slow whenever they hit a very large scale image and/or falling back to analogue methods for truly huge images.

I'm convinced that most shots are taken at higher resolutions than needed, just beascsue they can.

Yeah because hazy out of focus looking billboards look fantastic when you've paid tens of millions of dollars in advertising.

I have a digital publishing and design graphics magazine from 2000.  3 Megapixels cameras were the next big thing.  Now they'll shoot the same photo at 12 megapixels, and complain they don't have enough ram in Photoshop to open it .

Well not updating your computer for 10 years will bring up these sorts of issues. Then again I'd expect that from someone determined to harangue anyone daring to step outside of their 80's timewarp.

In 1998, my school was using G3 imac with firewire to do all that shit-with about a tenth of the hardware specs.

ITT: stefcep2 pulls more numbers out of his backside.

You only think we've come a long way..

And patronises anyone who dares to disagree with him.

Also LOL@ your single semester of programming experience.

[Arkhan]

Well not updating your computer for 10 years will bring up these sorts of issues. Then again I'd expect that from someone determined to harangue anyone daring to step outside of their 80's timewarp.

It's just a jump to the left!

AND THEN A STEP TO THE RIGHT!

Also LOL@ your single semester of programming experience.

His textbook of choice:

[the_leander]

It's just a jump to the left!

AND THEN A STEP TO THE RIGHT!

Damn you sir, damn you straight to hell - I can't get that damn song out of my head now! :lol:

His textbook of choice:

:laughing: