Amiga vs PC

[Thorham]

Yet noone bitches about having to use WHDLoad on newer Amigas

Of course not, why would they :confused: WHDLoad removes the need for floppies, and is a massive improvement over how it used to.

[Arkhan]

Assuming you are right, two wrongs don't make a right.  And actually WHDLoad is trying to make things run off the hard drive rather than the floppy although there are few that misbehave in the way they use the OS calls or memory.  So that's not the same issue as purposely preventing stuff from running-- seems more like someone just boasting his power to drive out old software.  Mac switched processors so that requires emulation but Intel processor are backward compatible.

True, 100% backwards compatibility is a wet-dream noone will ever perfect. Deal with it.

You means the employees using the internet or the ones they use for the fancy stuff.

I mean the ones doing research.  I like how you just spew ignorance about a place you have never been to.

[amigaksi]

True, 100% backwards compatibility is a wet-dream noone will ever perfect. Deal with it.

Hah, you are not dealing with it by dismissing something that can still be avoided.  I'm dealing with it by telling people not to use 64-bit OSes.  It's a waste of time.  By the way, even Photoshop for Windows 3.x runs pretty well on XP and I don't see any reason to buy a 64-bit version or use a 64-bit OS.

I mean the ones doing research.  I like how you just spew ignorance about a place you have never been to.

You're wrong.  They used souped up machines last time I visited.  They even used souped up Amigas at one time at least some of them.  You're the one spewing out ignorance.  You can't dismiss something because NASA or Pixar don't use it.  What kind of argument is that.  You use what gets the job done (period).  For me 64-bit OSes don't get the job done; 32-bit OS and 16-bit OSes do and Amiga is one of them.  Amiga was meant for gaming and multimedia stuff and it still serves that purpose for me.

[Arkhan]

Hah, you are not dealing with it by dismissing something that can still be avoided.  I'm dealing with it by telling people not to use 64-bit OSes.  It's a waste of time.  By the way, even Photoshop for Windows 3.x runs pretty well on XP and I don't see any reason to buy a 64-bit version or use a 64-bit OS.

My games get better benchmark scores with the 64bit OS on my 64 bit processor.  But you dont play games since you don't seem too fun.

You're wrong.  They used souped up machines last time I visited.  They even used souped up Amigas at one time at least some of them.  You're the one spewing out ignorance.  You can't dismiss something because NASA or Pixar don't use it.  What kind of argument is that.  

Oh, really now?  When did you visit last? 1993?  I was there twice in the past two years and one time was for classes.

In the rapidly evolving world of technology, you'll find most big-name places use state of the art, not relics of the past just because they remember how cool it was 20 years ago.

You use what gets the job done (period).  For me 64-bit OSes don't get the job done; 32-bit OS and 16-bit OSes do and Amiga is one of them.  Amiga was meant for gaming and multimedia stuff and it still serves that purpose for me.

Oh I thought NASA used souped up amigas!?  

You use what gets the job done, yes.

I don't know how to you can manage state of the art research on a machine that can barely hit up the googlebox9000, etc.



I'd trust something designed on a s.o.t.a PC over something designed on a rickety Amiga3000 with a buncha addons.

[amigaksi]

My games get better benchmark scores with the 64bit OS on my 64 bit processor.  But you dont play games since you don't seem too fun.

Actually, I play more games than you.  I have 5 different machines from 1980s to present for playing games.  I don't care about benchmarks of the CPU-- I only care about how good the game is, the controls, the collision detection, and the smoothness and wait time.  You're just getting too emotionally involved because of your attachment to PCs and can't see the clear cut argument.

Oh, really now?  When did you visit last? 1993?  I was there twice in the past two years and one time was for classes.

In the rapidly evolving world of technology, you'll find most big-name places use state of the art shit, not relics of the past just because they remember how cool it was 20 years ago.
...

As I said, the argument has no basis to decide the machine for someone.  Most people nowadays are addicted to and involved with internet so that's a reason to use modern PCs.  NASA is using a mix of various PCs-- it's no clear cut that they use a standard PC-- you are going by your limited one-sided experience.  Nor does their research warrant someone else imitating them.  

Oh I thought NASA used souped up amigas!?  

In your emotional irrational frenzy to reply, you misread my statement.  Go back and re-read what I wrote.

You use what gets the job done, yes.

I don't know how to you can manage state of the art research on a machine that can barely hit up the googlebox9000, etc.

Huh, I already agreed internet is better on modern PCs, but I still use 32-bit OS for it.  You have any reason to tell me I should stop using Amigas for gaming and multimedia?

I'd trust something designed on a s.o.t.a PC over something designed on a rickety Amiga3000 with a buncha addons.

Again, since you already agreed that use what gets the job done, it depends on the task.

[Arkhan]

Actually, I play more games than you.  I have 5 different machines from 1980s to present for playing games.  I don't care about benchmarks of the CPU-- I only care about how good the game is, the controls, the collision detection, and the smoothness and wait time.  You're just getting too emotionally involved because of your attachment to PCs and can't see the clear cut argument.

You mayyyy want to rethink that remark there chief.  You are again stepping foot on ignorant soil.

Unless you wanna come over and play:

MSX, CoCo 3, C64, 286, 486, new stuff, or basically any console released between pong and now.  I'm talkin intellivision, coleco, astrocade, and all the other fun stuff.

I'm a gamer.  That's what I do.  I play more than you'll ever know.  Bet me.

Also benchmarks matter if you want optimal performance with your new 3D intense games.  If you don't understand that, you aren't a gamer.

As I said, the argument has no basis to decide the machine for someone.  Most people nowadays are addicted to and involved with internet so that's a reason to use modern PCs.  NASA is using a mix of various PCs-- it's no clear cut that they use a standard PC-- you are going by your limited one-sided experience.  Nor does their research warrant someone else imitating them.  

It's not one sided.  I sure didn't see any Amiga's in action.  Find me a NASA project running on Amiga, and also, you dodged the "when were you there last" question.  Probably because you weren't there recently, or may not have even been to the one where I am from.

In your emotional irrational frenzy to reply, you misread my statement.  Go back and re-read what I wrote.

what statement, I was too busy laughing at you and playing games.

 You have any reason to tell me I should stop using Amigas for gaming and multimedia?

1) You can't play new stuff on the Amiga, and homebrew is lacking
2) If you think an Amiga trumps any modern multimedia experience, you're even stupider than I thought.

You got bluray and surround sound coming out of your Amiga?

[amigaksi]

You mayyyy want to rethink that remark there chief.  You are again stepping foot on ignorant soil.

Name calling won't help you nor your opinions.

It's not one sided.  I sure didn't see any Amiga's in action.  Find me a NASA project running on Amiga shit, and also, you dodged the "when were you there last" question.  Probably because you weren't there recently, or may not have even been to the one where I am from.


what statement, I was too busy laughing at you and playing games.

Exactly.  You have to read before you reply.  I didn't dodge anything-- you misread my statement or never read it.  Once you read my statement properly, we'll continue.  I don't have to go there; I have an easier way to get in touch and find out although I have been there.

1) You can't play new stuff on the Amiga, and homebrew is lacking

Just your speculative, concocted excuse.

2) If you think an Amiga trumps any modern multimedia experience, you're even stupider than I thought.

You are lost.  You agreed that it's to get the job done so it gets my job done and I NEED to go directly to I/O ports to control my devices.  Once again calling names won't help you-- you need to calm down and think things over.  In fact, you may need to learn to read before you reply.  That's the normal procedure in forums and emails.

You got bluray and surround sound coming out of your Amiga?

I threw that away as it didn't fit my needs nor my audiences.  I stick to multimedia CD since they work on majority of machines-- don't need anything more at this time.

I'll tell you whose REALLY stupid-- the person who just goes and gets a 64-bit OS and makes most of his previous software useless.  You are using ancient technology at 32-bits or 16-bits; why not try the truly over-bloated 64-bit OS that's incompatible  with your software.

[Arkhan]

Name calling won't help you nor your opinions.

But it's fun!

Exactly.  You have to read before you reply.  I didn't dodge anything-- you misread my statement or never read it.  Once you read my statement properly, we'll continue.  I don't have to go there; I have an easier way to get in touch and find out although I have been there.

What statement are you talking about.  Show me so I can understand what it is I am missing.

Just your speculative, concocted excuse.

Speculation? Concoction?  Ok then.  Explain how you keep up with the rapidly evolving gaming world on an AMIGA.   Can you play DirectX 10 stuff on that puppy?  Do you have a PS3 emulator on there also?

You are lost.  You agreed that it's to get the job done so it gets my job done and I NEED to go directly to I/O ports to control my devices.  Once again calling names won't help you-- you need to calm down and think things over.  In fact, you may need to learn to read before you reply.  That's the normal procedure in forums and emails.

What is your job?  You just blab about nonsense and make it out like all you need is an Amiga.  

I read before I post.  And I laugh before I do also.

I threw that away as it didn't fit my needs nor my audiences.  I stick to multimedia CD since they work on majority of machines-- don't need anything more at this time.

Oh so your excuse/defense is "Don't need it".  Everyone needs holyshitblurayonhugetvwithsurroundsound.  Anyone who says otherwise is in denial.

I'll tell you whose REALLY stupid-- the person who just goes and gets a 64-bit OS and makes most of his previous software useless.  You are using ancient technology at 32-bits or 16-bits; why not try the truly over-bloated 64-bit OS that's incompatible  with your software.

They make this thing, I am not sure if you have heard of it.  It's called a partition?

Make more than one? DUhHHr?

Or, use more than one computer?

I'd rather keep with the times than convince myself that all I need in life is a computer that can't even play fuckin Diablo 2.

[fishy_fiz]

@Arkhan
Im sure (well hope) you're a decent person in real life, but are you aware how ridiculous and pompous you sound right now ? Make no mistake here, you're embarassing yourself.

[Arkhan]

@Arkhan
are you aware how ridiculous and pompous you sound right now ?

Yes.  :afro:


I am in one of those moods this week.

[Franko]

Yes.  :afro:


I am in one of those moods this week.

See I knew he was a good person really,:)

Just his sense of humor can be a little misunderstood, like mine

[Karlos]

I'll tell you whose REALLY stupid-- the person who just goes and gets a 64-bit OS and makes most of his previous software useless.  You are using ancient technology at 32-bits or 16-bits; why not try the truly over-bloated 64-bit OS that's incompatible  with your software.

No, the person who is really stupid is the one that thinks a 64-bit OS is incapable of running 32-bit applications and offers no benefit over a 32-bit OS.

You obviously know very little about how x86_64 is implemented. My system runs both 64-bit linux and 64-bit windows, both of which have ran every 32-bit application I've tested without complaint (although the only 32-bit applications I  run under linux just now are actually windows ones in WINE). The machine has 4GB of RAM and 896MB of video RAM, which just isn't possible in a 32-bit OS 4GB address space (unless the OS supports PAE). Plenty of the applications (read games) I run in Windows are 32-bit, though drivers and codecs are 64-bit.

Generally, the benefits are that 64-bit optimised code runs faster on the CPU than legacy x86 code does (there are a few rare exceptions, even in some of my own code), since 64-bit code can make use of 16 64-bit general purpose registers for integer code and at least SSE2 for floating point/vector ops.
Furthermore, 32-bit applications in the 64-bit environment can allocate more physical RAM than they could in a 32-bit one, since on 32-bit, only around 2GB was addressable in total (1GB of address space reserved for OS/hardware space, another 1GB used to map in the video memory. Again, PAE can mitigate this slightly). Now in a 64-bit OS, the 1GB address space used for hardware doesn't get in the way and if the process doesn't need direct access to the video memory, it doesn't have to be mapped into it's address space either. You might think that no 32-bit application should ever need 3GB of RAM, but then you probably haven't played Fallout 3 (after patching for large address awareness on 64-bit) with half a dozen resource hungry add-ons and HD texture packs. It certainly helped in this instance.

In short, if you have 64-bit hardware, which let's face it, every new desktop/server PC in the last 5 years (at least) has, using a 32-bit OS is pretty pointless. Even without more than 4GB total memory installed, 64-bit optimised code is usually a better fit for the hardware.

[runequester]

If they (M$) blow so bad explain why any computer you buy has the latest Windows on it.  Explain why most corporations use Windows and other M$ stuff.  I think the majority of the haters had a PEBKAC issue they were too dense to solve, and decided the entire thing was worthless.

Right. Just like the black eyed peas are a better band than the beatles because they sell more CD's.

Marketing my friend. Nothing else matters.
You know this. Everybody know this.

As far as "most corporations" it depends. The computer the secretary is sitting at probably runs XP and office. The server, probably not. Mission critical computers, likely not.
Heck, Google has officially tossed MS products out for their machines.
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/05/31/google-to-employees-mac-or-linux-but-no-more-windows/

Most IT managers don't want to explain to their GM why the server just happens to break once a month.

If omgLINUX was packaged on every PC at BestBuy, IT would be what is most targeted for bullshit spyware/nonsense.  Why would spyware people want to target the minority.  That's why your Amigas don't get viruses when you go on the googlemachine.  The world at large doesn't give a damn about them anymore.

If virus and malware writers wanted to do real damage, why aren't they infecting the linux/unix/BSD machines that actually run just about any server of importance.

Heck, imagine the geek cred you would get if you actually brought down a linux server cluster.

And yet, it doesn't happen.

Do you think Pixar is using Amiga's? No.  

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/Pixar_An_Intel_Shop_Say_It_Aint_So_Steve/

Looks like Pixar and ILM use linux, and were swapping from unix.

If windows is so great, why don't million and billion dollar corporations like ILM, Pixar and Google use it ?

Why does virtually no US Government website run on windows ?

[B00tDisk]

No, the person who is really stupid is the one that thinks a 64-bit OS is incapable of running 32-bit applications and offers no benefit over a 32-bit OS.

You obviously know very little about how x86_64 is implemented. My system runs both 64-bit linux and 64-bit windows, both of which have ran every 32-bit application I've tested without complaint (although the only 32-bit applications I  run under linux just now are actually windows ones in WINE). The machine has 4GB of RAM and 896MB of video RAM, which just isn't possible in a 32-bit OS 4GB address space (unless the OS supports PAE). Plenty of the applications (read games) I run in Windows are 32-bit, though drivers and codecs are 64-bit.

Generally, the benefits are that 64-bit optimised code runs faster on the CPU than legacy x86 code does (there are a few rare exceptions, even in some of my own code), since 64-bit code can make use of 16 64-bit general purpose registers for integer code and at least SSE2 for floating point/vector ops.
Furthermore, 32-bit applications in the 64-bit environment can allocate more physical RAM than they could in a 32-bit one, since on 32-bit, only around 2GB was addressable in total (1GB of address space reserved for OS/hardware space, another 1GB used to map in the video memory. Again, PAE can mitigate this slightly). Now in a 64-bit OS, the 1GB address space used for hardware doesn't get in the way and if the process doesn't need direct access to the video memory, it doesn't have to be mapped into it's address space either. You might think that no 32-bit application should ever need 3GB of RAM, but then you probably haven't played Fallout 3 (after patching for large address awareness on 64-bit) with half a dozen resource hungry add-ons and HD texture packs. It certainly helped in this instance.

In short, if you have 64-bit hardware, which let's face it, every new desktop/server PC in the last 5 years (at least) has, using a 32-bit OS is pretty pointless. Even without more than 4GB total memory installed, 64-bit optimised code is usually a better fit for the hardware.

(psst, Karlos, all my 32 bit games work under Win7 x64, please don't tell amigaski that his head will explode)

[the_leander]

Looks like Pixar and ILM use linux, and were swapping from unix.

No doubt, not only is the software then free of gargantuan licence fees, but you can install it and tweek it on whatever this months top of the line CPU/GPU combo is the fastest/cheapest/most readily available.

If windows is so great, why don't million and billion dollar corporations like ILM, Pixar and Google use it ?

They probably do in the office. But server side? Linux is pretty much the dominant force these days.

Want a basic webserver running off of a recycled dell desktop? Linux will more than likely run on it...
Want a mainframe with 24 cores?  Yeah linux will run on that...
Want a beowolf cluster with 1000+ nodes, linux'll do that too....

Why does virtually no US Government website run on windows ?

Because Windows makes for a piss poor web facing server.

But as a desktop OS, especially in business, it rules supreme.

[fishy_fiz]

Actually Pixar use a combination of Windows, Mac, and Linux. A quick glance around thier website shows that. The link provided is more than 7 years old. Linux is probably the least prominent of the OSes they use if thier website is any indication.