Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)  (Read 8989 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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.
 

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 #15 on: February 29, 2004, 10:19:00 AM »
Quote
Apparently efficient enough to run WinUAE...


...barely, and I mean just barely on a 2Ghz processor. Everything else I multitask with WinUAE crawls to a standstill, and in some cases that'll take money off my paycheck.

Really, on 1GHz + processors, any OS should have enough efficiency to run UAE. I'd really worry about the ones that didn't.
I sold my Amiga for a small fortune, but a part of my soul went with it.
 

Offline RobinC

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Join Date: Nov 2003
  • Posts: 17
    • Show only replies by RobinC
    • http://www.rycochet.com/
Re: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« Reply #16 on: February 29, 2004, 02:21:12 PM »
Right this second, after being on for a couple of weeks (and everything I'm normally running is on) - WinXP here is using about 630 megs of ram, and 710 megs of pagefile (with a peak of 900 megs - if I start playing with gfx that goes up another 700 megs ;-)

I'm running 780 threads on 40 processes, and the kernal (ie, core) is using 95 megs of the ram.

I'm also running WinUAE with 256 megs of ram allocated to it (and it actually runs a lot faster than my old 060 amiga - I'm on an athlon xp2600 - sounds like the slow WinUAE isn't using JIT).

On my old Amiga I used to have 128 megs ram (as opposed to the 1024 megs in the pc), which cost about the same in total, though there were a few years between purchases ;-)

Think my amiga tended to sit around the ~40 meg mark too, with web ib, webserver (thttpd), amirc,, rc-ftpd, etc all running... in fact, apart from the web side (which xp now handles) WinUAE still has the same things sitting on it ;-)

So all in all, xp might use more memory, but at the same cost... until you start going on about electric bills and energy usage ;-)

Robin
...
 

Offline ptek

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jul 2002
  • Posts: 328
    • Show only replies by ptek
Re: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« Reply #17 on: February 29, 2004, 03:42:28 PM »
But these drivers shouldn't be already loaded to memory ! They should be loaded when they're needed !

Hmm I think the RAM abuse is due to the "multitasking" implemetation ... and some say to sell some RAM chips ;-)
Onions have layers ...
 

Offline ptek

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jul 2002
  • Posts: 328
    • Show only replies by ptek
Re: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« Reply #18 on: February 29, 2004, 03:46:31 PM »
Wrong ! CPU power instead !

Pause a bit and try to realize the meaning of GigaHertz ;-)
Onions have layers ...
 

Offline Glaucus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2002
  • Posts: 4518
    • Show only replies by Glaucus
    • http://members.shaw.ca/mveroukis/
Re: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« Reply #19 on: February 29, 2004, 04:50:40 PM »
Quote

Waccoon wrote:
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.  ;)
Agreed. This explains why I actually managed to get XP to run on a system with less then 100megs of ram. It's possible, but not an enjoyable experience to say the least. And btw, just for the record, my current XP system with Eudora Running and two browsers is taking up only 170MB (Total commit charge) out of the possible 512MB I have installed. If XP takes up 200MB just after a reboot, then I suspect you're running way more services then you need.

  - Mike
YOU ARE NOT IMMUNE
 

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 #20 on: February 29, 2004, 05:41:40 PM »
I did the same test on xp as os3.9 now, running IE6, outlook express, winamp, divx movie, loaded the same 1600x1200 picture, and a folder full of thumbnails.

Ram usage: 510mb
os 3.9 was 48mb

This is my point  ;-)

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 dammy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 2828
    • Show only replies by dammy
Re: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« Reply #21 on: February 29, 2004, 05:49:29 PM »
by Hammer on 2004/2/29 2:07:30

Quote
5. Transparent CD-Burn and support for DVD-R/RW.


Speaking of DVD burner and XP, what apps are out there that support DVD burning?  Anything Open Source?

Dammy, why does my favorite game run slower on XP then ME...

Dammy

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Arix-OS/414578091930728
Unless otherwise noted, I speak only for myself.
 

Offline Glaucus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2002
  • Posts: 4518
    • Show only replies by Glaucus
    • http://members.shaw.ca/mveroukis/
Re: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« Reply #22 on: February 29, 2004, 06:31:05 PM »
Quote
Dammy, why does my favorite game run slower on XP then ME...
There could be many reasons. For starters, XP will be a tad slower on most things, as it uses extra clock cycles to provide for greater integrity. For example, NTFS is far superior to FAT32 in terms of reliability and integrity, however, FAT32 is a bit faster. Also, XP has real mem protection, while ME doesn't.

Aside from that, older games may run better on older OSes simply because they aren't optimized for the newer OS. Also, drivers for XP might not be as optimized as they are for ME. This is mostly true for older hardware where developers/manufacturers don't feel like re-investing in their older, obsolete products (quite often, the "XP" driver for older hardware is just a NT/Win2000 driver clone).

  - Mike
YOU ARE NOT IMMUNE
 

Offline Glaucus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2002
  • Posts: 4518
    • Show only replies by Glaucus
    • http://members.shaw.ca/mveroukis/
Re: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« Reply #23 on: February 29, 2004, 06:44:33 PM »
Quote
I did the same test on xp as os3.9 now, running IE6, outlook express, winamp, divx movie, loaded the same 1600x1200 picture, and a folder full of thumbnails.
Strange. I currently have loaded:  Eudora, IE6 (8 instances), ZoneAlarm Pro, Trend's OfficeScan, Yahoo Messenger, Free Surfer mkII, Windows Explorer, Adobe Premiere 6.5 and WinWord XP, with a total memory footprint of 445MB (65MB kernel). Oh, I just launched 3ds max 5 and my memory footprint went up to 535MB. Launching Roxio's DVD builder shot it up to 559MB. I seem to be able to fit a lot more in my memory then you can fit in yours. Strange indeed!

  - Mike
YOU ARE NOT IMMUNE
 

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 #24 on: February 29, 2004, 07:33:26 PM »
Quote

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?


The point was that Windows offers lot more functionality than AmigaOS 3 (or OS4/MOS for that matter) ever could. You can make comparisons how much less IBrowse needs than IE, but then IE can do CSS and Java and everything else. And compared to mother of bloat, Mozilla, IE is actually very efficient. I also wonder how well laser printers are supported in AmigaOS 3.9 or if it is possible to use network printers. Or use file sharing even. And what else.

Quote

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...)


Point me an AmigaOS version which was bug free.

(No, I don't think Windows is the best OS. I've been told VMS is the best OS ever, but without further clarification I cannot confirm that.)
My Amigas: A500, Mac Mini and PowerBook
 

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 #25 on: February 29, 2004, 07:46:48 PM »
@glaucus:

Argh! I probably need to reinstall Windows XP again  :-(
I refuse to buy extra 512mb ram just to have a smooth running windows!  :-x
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 #26 on: February 29, 2004, 07:47:39 PM »
Quote

...barely, and I mean just barely on a 2Ghz processor. Everything else I multitask with WinUAE crawls to a standstill, and in some cases that'll take money off my paycheck.


Sorry but today so called true Amigans seem to be WinUAE users. Nothing wrong in that, but Windows can't be that bad then.
My Amigas: A500, Mac Mini and PowerBook
 

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 #27 on: February 29, 2004, 07:49:23 PM »
I am testing Mozilla Firefox now, they stated that this browser wouldnt fall into the same trap as the original Mozilla 1.6.

But....firefox consumes 28 mb??? Its hardly any better...  :lol:
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 bloodline

  • Master Sock Abuser
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 12114
    • Show only replies by bloodline
    • http://www.troubled-mind.com
Re: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« Reply #28 on: February 29, 2004, 07:57:53 PM »
On power UP my WinXP system uses 96Megs of RAM.

I do not have any virtual memory (due to my intense dislike of it).

I have 512Megs installed on the machine.

It runs perfectly.


Offline Glaucus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2002
  • Posts: 4518
    • Show only replies by Glaucus
    • http://members.shaw.ca/mveroukis/
Re: Amiga os3.9 vs Windows XP (ram usage)
« Reply #29 from previous page: February 29, 2004, 07:58:30 PM »
@restore2003,

Well, perhaps that's what you need, or perhaps you just need to clean up some of your services. Here's a good start: Windows XP Home and Professional Service Configurations. And be sure to setup a second Hardware Profile to preserve the original services configuration: Windows XP Services Profile Guide. It's not that hard, and once you learn how to use services.msc you'll be able to tweak your system a lot better.

Other tools worth getting is SysInternal's AutoRuns and even HijackThis (the latter is great for tracking down spyware as well). Just be careful how you use these tools, otherwise you may be forced to do a complete re-install!  :-)

  - Mike
YOU ARE NOT IMMUNE