Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)  (Read 8992 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline restore2003Topic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2003
  • Posts: 786
    • Show only replies by restore2003
    • http://www.contrazt.no/records.html
Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« on: February 29, 2004, 01:10:52 AM »
I was a little shocked when i found out exactly how much ram my windows xp eats up!
When the system is freshly booted, and no programs launched, it consumes 200mb!  :-o

In comparison, my overstuffed and overbloated winuae setup, with countless of patches, hacks, graphical enhancements, a cramped wbstartup drawer, 64x64 png icons, tons of software installed.....

When i tested the ram usage for os3.9, i ran ibrowse, yam, amigaamp, frogger with a divx movie, i loaded a huge 1600x1200 jpg picture with multiview, opened my sys/ drawer with 150 png deficons......

And the ram usage?

40 mb! :-o

Btw. Finally easy access smileys!  :-D  :-)  :-o  :-?  8-)  :lol:  :-x  :-P  :oops:  :cry:  :evil:  :roll:  ;-)
If you need music for games, demos or are in a need of a studio mastering engineer, just contact me :-)
Check out my project homepages: www.galaxee.no   www.restore.no
 

Offline MaDDuck

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Nov 2003
  • Posts: 390
    • Show only replies by MaDDuck
Re: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« Reply #1 on: February 29, 2004, 01:20:07 AM »
Impressive!

I wonder how much RAM my G4 eMac is using right now??

I hope it's not as bloated as XP, but I doubt it runs as effeciently as OS3.9
___________________________________________

"Dance like no ones watching, love like you\'ve never been hurt, work like you dont need the money,and laugh like no ones listening!"
- Unknown
 

Offline Waccoon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2002
  • Posts: 1057
    • Show only replies by Waccoon
Re: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« Reply #2 on: February 29, 2004, 02:36:25 AM »
Windows is no dream, but keep in mind that it IS very cache heavy.  Windows uses up as much RAM as it can for cache, and frees a lot of it when you run lots of apps.  200MB typical operation is nothing unusual for a modern OS.  200MB *required* is a different story, but even XP doesn't need that much.  ;)
 

Offline restore2003Topic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2003
  • Posts: 786
    • Show only replies by restore2003
    • http://www.contrazt.no/records.html
Re: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« Reply #3 on: February 29, 2004, 02:51:44 AM »
@waccoon:

In the ram test in windows xp, no apps were running, just the usual background stuff, drivers etc.
And 40mb of the 200mb ram used is cache, but still...160mb in use???

Correction: The real mem usage on the os3.9 ram test was 48mb.   :-)
If you need music for games, demos or are in a need of a studio mastering engineer, just contact me :-)
Check out my project homepages: www.galaxee.no   www.restore.no
 

Offline itix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2002
  • Posts: 2380
    • Show only replies by itix
Re: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« Reply #4 on: February 29, 2004, 03:00:26 AM »
Yeah, and you just forget XP includes USB stack, DirectX and a decent browser. You also forget XP includes support for nearly all possible printers and Mediaplayer which can do bit more things than Frogger.
My Amigas: A500, Mac Mini and PowerBook
 

Offline itix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2002
  • Posts: 2380
    • Show only replies by itix
Re: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« Reply #5 on: February 29, 2004, 03:03:35 AM »
Quite funny you are running AmigaOS 3.9 in Windows... Why not run AmigaOS without Windows? Now your AmigaOS needs 40MB + 200MB (Windows). How bloated is that :-P
My Amigas: A500, Mac Mini and PowerBook
 

Offline Matt_H

Re: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« Reply #6 on: February 29, 2004, 04:21:09 AM »
Quote

itix wrote:
Yeah, and you just forget XP includes USB stack, DirectX and a decent browser. You also forget XP includes support for nearly all possible printers and Mediaplayer which can do bit more things than Frogger.

Well, that's just the thing: Windows integrates USB, DirectX, Mediaplayer, etc. right into the OS, sucking up resources. The Amiga only loads its equivalents when needed.

Plus, efficiency is something lacking in Microsoft products.
 

Offline Hammer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1996
  • Country: 00
    • Show only replies by Hammer
Re: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« Reply #7 on: February 29, 2004, 06:44:19 AM »
Quote
When the system is freshly booted, and no programs launched, it consumes 200mb!

Refer to WinXP’s "task manager" for loaded processes...
Amiga 1200 PiStorm32-Emu68-RPI 4B 4GB.
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB, RTX 4080 16 GB PC.
 

Offline Hammer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1996
  • Country: 00
    • Show only replies by Hammer
Re: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« Reply #8 on: February 29, 2004, 06:47:50 AM »
Quote
Plus, efficiency is something lacking in Microsoft products.

Note that 3D layers would require optimization.  
Amiga 1200 PiStorm32-Emu68-RPI 4B 4GB.
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB, RTX 4080 16 GB PC.
 

Offline Hammer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1996
  • Country: 00
    • Show only replies by Hammer
Re: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« Reply #9 on: February 29, 2004, 07:07:30 AM »
Quote
The Amiga only loads its equivalents when needed.

Please tally Amiga's available services to Windows XP. Note that WInXP explorer(with browser engine) is it’s the main shell.

I don't recall AmigaOS 3.9 has the following
1. DirectX8/DirectX9 class APIs.
2. OBDC infrastructure(for basic application infrastructure).
3. OLE infrastructure.
4. Computer Browser//Keeps track of PCs in the LAN network.
5. Transparent CD-Burn and support for DVD-R/RW.
6. Local multi-user infrastructure.
7. Local Server services e.g. print and share.
8. MS/Roland GS Soft_syn (Midi).
9. 16/24/32bit Audio support (DirectX). Support HDCD (via MP9; included in WinXP MCE(2003) and 2003 Server).
10. HAL, "CPU driver", ACPI, Monitor profiles, Firewire, UDMA Mode 5 (133), Microcode Update,
11. Basic Terminal Service (expanded in SP2).
12. 'etc'.
Amiga 1200 PiStorm32-Emu68-RPI 4B 4GB.
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB, RTX 4080 16 GB PC.
 

Offline Roj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jun 2002
  • Posts: 361
    • Show only replies by Roj
    • http://amiga.org/modules/mylinks/visit.php?lid=247
Re: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« Reply #10 on: February 29, 2004, 07:31:02 AM »
To be fair. WindowsXP has more than a few people doing the programming while the Amiga has just a tad bit less.

I would hope that with all the people programming for it that it would have an extremely long list of features that the more neglected systems lack. Is it enough to make me feel like I need all of it (or any of it)?

Nuh uh. Somehow I manage to get my work done without it. :juggler:
I sold my Amiga for a small fortune, but a part of my soul went with it.
 

Offline itix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2002
  • Posts: 2380
    • Show only replies by itix
Re: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« Reply #11 on: February 29, 2004, 07:37:28 AM »
Quote

Plus, efficiency is something lacking in Microsoft products.


Apparently efficient enough to run WinUAE...
My Amigas: A500, Mac Mini and PowerBook
 

Offline Hammer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1996
  • Country: 00
    • Show only replies by Hammer
Re: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« Reply #12 on: February 29, 2004, 08:35:01 AM »
Quote
Nuh uh. Somehow I manage to get my work done without it

Note that Windows XP Home/Pro/MCE targets most needs and wants for the ~90 percent of the desktop PC market.

Secondly, comparable features set to Windows XP Home/Pro is MacOS X (non-XServe Edition), Lindows 4.5, Mandrake 9.2 and ‘etc’.

Quote
Nuh uh. Somehow I manage to get my work done without it.

Why not try doing your work on the cut down Windows XP Embedded Edition or Windows XP Pre-install Edition or Windows CE 4.x** (X86). Note that no one forced you to upgrade to Windows XP i.e. Windows NT 4.0(SP6a) may be sufficient for your work.

Most’s windows application infrastructure is hidden from normal users.  

** For Windows CE 4.x's desktop screenshot http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/images/web/desktop_startmenu.gif
Amiga 1200 PiStorm32-Emu68-RPI 4B 4GB.
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB, RTX 4080 16 GB PC.
 

Offline mgerics

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jun 2002
  • Posts: 294
    • Show only replies by mgerics
Re: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« Reply #13 on: February 29, 2004, 08:53:08 AM »
itix wrote:
Yeah, and you just forget XP includes USB stack, DirectX and a decent browser. You also forget XP includes support for nearly all possible printers and Mediaplayer which can do bit more things than Frogger.

Well, yeah, MS has a programming staff to be jealous of (in size, if not quality of output), so all these things should be available if needed or desired.
But I'm not sure why having support for nearly all printers is usable in defense of requiring so many resources just to boot the OS. Why would any efficient OS, by default, load drivers for printers at startup?

All these can and arguably should be created as standard features, and of course, any system that will run this monstosity would need to have more resources available. But where in all this does it say that it's okay to be inefficient or buggy?
And don't defend it by saying 'it's an OS, it's very complex'. Bull. MS has a staff of a least, what ,say 100 people? Get rid of the bugs! Make it less prone to crashes! (BEFORE you release another version...)

At that point, even I would defend it, and IMO anyone who still bashes it is just being silly.
 

Offline Roj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jun 2002
  • Posts: 361
    • Show only replies by Roj
    • http://amiga.org/modules/mylinks/visit.php?lid=247
Re: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« Reply #14 on: February 29, 2004, 09:45:02 AM »
Essentially what you're saying is I should toss the systems that work very well for the work I do simply because everyone else uses Windows.

The first big game for the Amiga was Lemmings, wasn't it? I learned everything I need to know by playing Lemmings. :lol:

I do have a PC, I do run WindowsXP on it when I need to, and WindowsXP does have quite a list of features that my other OSs don't. However, I don't use Windows for my work unless I'm absolutely pushed into a corner to do so. I have other systems that allow the work to flow much more smoothly. For example, very frequently I need to access a window that's behind another window without moving it forward. I'm sure Windows has a way to turn off "always move my window to the front when I do anything more than look at it" somewhere, but even with that off, Windows has a climsiness to it that I just can't get all cozy with. Frequently, programs I run like to rearrange my windows without my input. I have a specific order I like to keep my work windows in, and Windows takes it upon itself to move and resize them at its whim. I can probably dig around and find the "don't rearrange my windows" setting, but I just can't be bothered to. After that, we have the "let's select the entire line and put the cursor at the end on single-click" feature. That one's fun too. The "whoops, you clicked close when you meant to click minimize" attraction has caught me a few times when I catch late-night, dreary-eye syndrome. The "resize the window at any edge" feature just about drives me nuts, and there are several more little things that just remind me that windows isn't there yet. It might be in a few more releases, but from what I'm hearing I'll be steering clear of those as well. Meanwhile, I'll be digging even deeper into the systems that do work well for me.

Oh yeah, my favorite one: I was working on a resume for a friend a few years back, and I used the word "focussed". Silly me, I used MerriamWebster.com to spell-check. Now you'd think that would be perfectly acceptable and everything would turn out fine. Well, unfortunately, the rest of the office world uses Microsoft Word now as the official English spell-checking reference, and since Microsoft Word rejected the properly spelled "focussed", the interviewer noted the "misspelling," the job was given to someone else (for whatever reason) and I got a face full of what-for until I proved that the dictionary, the real dictionary, says I really do know how to spell.

So, what do I use Windows for? As time permits, MajorMud, GTA Vice City and Warcraft III, along with a few other games that also won't let me choose what OS to run them on, and that's about as far as I'm willing to go with it.
I sold my Amiga for a small fortune, but a part of my soul went with it.