www.pegasos.org

MorphOS - Winxp vs Morphos response!

Plexus - Aug 05, 2006 - 17:19
Post subject: Winxp vs Morphos response!
are there any chans too tweak windowsxp
so you can have it too feel faster in response than morphos?

If you can, How do I set it upp or tweak WindowsXP without loose to many features!
/thanks
micken - Aug 05, 2006 - 18:40
Post subject: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
No chance ! Try to play a game in xp and press alt-tab to switch task Smile
gunne - Aug 05, 2006 - 21:27
Post subject: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
Hi,

There isn't any system that I know about that can catch up with MorphOS when it comes to responsiveness and interaction.

Edit,

Typing mistake, seems to have forgotten one 'that'
dholm - Aug 06, 2006 - 10:35
Post subject: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
Run software from win16 on win32 and you will get the same effect that they have on MorphOS. Of course, noone should be running any kind of windows unless they are retarded.
lisardman - Aug 06, 2006 - 10:39
Post subject: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
hello guys Smile

check out what dholm blogged about.. I think Linux wins this battle. such low latency I don't think morphos has..

http://www.dholm.com/2006/06/29/a-look-at-the-latest-in-free-real-time-scheduling-in-the-linux-kernel/
ironfist - Aug 06, 2006 - 10:44
Post subject: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
<b>Lisardman</b>: And with this latency it's still a full-featured OS with memory
protection, multi-user support and virtual memory..
gunne - Aug 06, 2006 - 12:06
Post subject: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
dholm,

dholm wrote:

Run software from win16 on win32 and you will get the same effect that they have on MorphOS.


Are You kidding ?

dholm wrote:

Of course, noone should be running any kind of windows unless they are retarded.


Meant as a friendly statement ?

Hmm, well I leave it as your personal opinion.
gunne - Aug 06, 2006 - 12:39
Post subject: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
lisardman,

lisardman wrote:

check out what dholm blogged about.. I think Linux wins this battle. such low latency I don't think morphos has..

http://www.dholm.com/2006/06/29/a-look-at-the-latest-in-free-real-time-scheduling-in-the-linux-kernel/


Indeed interesting reading through the link, also concerning Linux Realtime Approaches.

I do not fully see the relevance to the original post, where the writer talks about the responsiveness in user interaction he does feel.
lisardman - Aug 06, 2006 - 14:39
Post subject: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
it affects the user interaction to...
Trizt - Aug 06, 2006 - 14:50
Post subject: Re: Winxp vs Morphos response!
Plexus wrote:
are there any chans too tweak windowsxp
so you can have it too feel faster in response than morphos?

If you can, How do I set it upp or tweak WindowsXP without loose to many features!


Microsoft hasn't written their extended version of VMS to be fast, it's eye candy that is the main thing, if it works or not or how fast that completely another matter, but with XPlite you can tweak away some of the crap and use firefox/thunderbird as full replacements for the insecure things that are shipped with the VMS.

If you want to customize the look of the desktop, then replace explorer with LiteStep.
gunne - Aug 06, 2006 - 15:30
Post subject: RE: Re: Winxp vs Morphos response!
liarsman wrote:

it affects the user interaction to...


You mean they are trying catch upon MorphOS ?
ironfist - Aug 06, 2006 - 15:47
Post subject: RE: Re: Winxp vs Morphos response!
<b>Gunne</b>: I'm fairly sure the Linux developers don't even know
what MorphOS is..
dholm - Aug 06, 2006 - 16:03
Post subject: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
gunne wrote:
dholm,

dholm wrote:

Run software from win16 on win32 and you will get the same effect that they have on MorphOS.


Are You kidding ?
No. Fact is that ABox-applications running under MorphOS is like running win16 applications under win32. The operating system supports modern features which adds overhead, but the applications can not use them. Take away the overhead and the system appears faster. I highly question the price though.

gunne wrote:
I do not fully see the relevance to the original post, where the writer talks about the responsiveness in user interaction he does feel.

Add the realime-preempt patch to you kernel and set all desktop relevant process to run in the realtime scheduler and I think you'll find the system just as responsive as MorphOS, if not more so.
gunne - Aug 06, 2006 - 21:44
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
dholm,

dolm wrote:

No. Fact is that ABox-applications running under MorphOS is like running win16 applications under win32. The operating system supports modern features which adds overhead, but the applications can not use them. Take away the overhead and the system appears faster. I highly question the price though.


Ok.

I think you actually might missing the point little bit anyway, despite You are right also. Smile

For me it looks as what you are trying to say here is something like:

- Take a very small car and put in an engine from a very big truck, and You will see whats happening. Hmm..., well that sounds not fully correct either ?

I would like to state that running a win16 application under win32 does not make the MorphOS-effect.

Instead I would like to say something like this, take the old Amiga68k application and run it in the Amiga68x-environment and you will see that the same effect applies as when you run in it MorphOS. Of course the application will run a lot of faster in MorphOS, as you have a lot more horsepower, faster buses, faster CPU, faster graphicsboard, and You have also the Abox environment in within which it runs, and which perhaps can be seen as some kind Amithlon-like environment if You wish ? But You can still see the responsiveness and the speed on the Amiga computer, however it runs a lot slower on the Amiga-computer.... /

Take this experiment:

Take an old A500 (68000), put some memory in it, load the the os into RAD, and run the machine from this RAD. You will see the desktop appears just within 1-2 seconds, the responsiveness is also there, as we do not have any slow floppy-drive to load from or such thing that makes it feeling slower. Of course if You add more colors to the display, responsiveness will feel as slowing down, as the machine cant catch up with it any longer, buses cant push the data fast enough, the graphics-chip cant catch up with redrawing the display and so on...

The way the system was designed, made it feeling more responsive, and executables were smaller and did run faster. Right is also that the system initself did lack features, however they were not needed for what it was created for.

dholm wrote:

Add the realime-preempt patch to you kernel and set all desktop relevant process to run in the realtime scheduler and I think you'll find the system just as responsive as MorphOS, if not more so.


This looks interesting, should maybe give it a try, to see it and feel it. However, I doubt I will see the MorphOS-effect. And I also doubt that insulting of your fellow beings is the right way to go to make them more interested if thats what You want ?
gunne - Aug 07, 2006 - 02:17
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
ironfist wrote:

Gunne: I'm fairly sure the Linux developers don't even know what MorphOS is..


Did you direct that at wrong person ?
lisardman - Aug 07, 2006 - 07:50
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
if you run linux-programs from ram it will also go very fast to load them....
gunne - Aug 07, 2006 - 09:28
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
Quote:

if you run linux-programs from ram it will also go very fast to load them....


Do You have a problem with people notice Amiga & MorphOS feeling fast as for responsiveness ?
lisardman - Aug 07, 2006 - 09:50
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
No. are you having problem with people using linux and lowlatency patches having quick and responsive kernel calls?
gunne - Aug 07, 2006 - 12:40
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
lisardman wrote:

No. are you having problem with people using linux and lowlatency patches having quick and responsive kernel calls?


No, definetely not.

Why I asked my question, is that I for a long time have noticed that as soon some person tells he is experience the feeling of the fast responsiveness in the MorphOS-system, some people who pretend to be Linux users always shows up with a lot of various statements around this matter. This seems to be can consisting of everything from MorphOS not being a realtime operating system, or MorphOS-effect will appear if running a win16 application in a win32 environment, or You can patch the linux kernel with RTpatch, or even going so far as claiming their fellows being being retarded. Thats why Im wondering.

What most people being brought into front of the MorphOS-system will notice is the very fast responsiveness in the system. Most often it is one of the first thing they do notice, so its not so very difficult to understand why its mentioned quite often.
dholm - Aug 07, 2006 - 12:55
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
Don't you think people deserve to know why that is? You act as if you think it would be better to shroud people in darkness rather than being open in the matter.
lisardman - Aug 07, 2006 - 13:30
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
dholm means that running old software on a new computer always runs fast.

btw I don't pretend to be a linux-user, I AM a linux-user
ironfist - Aug 07, 2006 - 13:35
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
<b>Gunne</b>: The standard installation of Windows 98 on my AMD XP 1600+
with 1.5 GB RAM is just as fast and responsive as your standard installation
of MorphOS on a Pegasos 2 G4 1 GHz. MorphOS here takes like 30 MB and
Windows 98 takes maybe 200 MB.

Still they feel the same. Windows opens instantly after I doubleclicked on
icons, programs starting with blasting speed, etc..

<i>Now, how is that?</i>
Plexus - Aug 07, 2006 - 15:18
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
[quote="ironfist"]<b>Gunne</b>: The standard installation of Windows 98 on my AMD XP 1600+
with 1.5 GB RAM is just as fast and responsive as your standard installation
of MorphOS on a Pegasos 2 G4 1 GHz.

My Question is:

ARE YOU BLIND?
ironfist - Aug 07, 2006 - 16:47
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
<b>Plexus</b>:
No I am not. Why are you typing in CAPS?
gunne - Aug 07, 2006 - 18:35
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
Good evening !

dholm wrote:

Don't you think people deserve to know why that is? You act as if you think it would be better to shroud people in darkness rather than being open in the matter.


Yes, I understand that people are curios about why that is, but I do not want to put it like they deserve to know why it is Smile No, I do not want people to be left in the dark, and I hope not it looks like I want to.

However there is never simple answers on technical issues, and each issue have also always its own explanation.

Maybe the simpliest answer would be that the system is designed so that everything always happens at once if possible. It could be that the exec only know about one single instruction - DO. Which would mean the only thing exec can do when a process are sending a request is to answer - DO.

---

Now onto an example for dholm and lisardman, which You maybe can explain then.

Lets run mplayer on the Linux desktop. We do load a movie and let it play. Now grab the upper dragbar with the mousepointer and move the window around on the desktop. Start slowly and then gradually speed up the movement. Whats happening ? Parts of the content in the mplayer window will disappear. If you do have windows or icons behind the mplayer window you will also notice a delay in part of a second before the area will be redrawn onover which You just moved the window.

Now start the same mplayer on the MorphOS desktop, and load the same movie in the mplayer window. Start drag the window around in the same manner. You will notice that You will continue to see the whole content within the mplayer window all the time, independent of how fast you move the window around. Also windows (and its content) or icons that might laying behind the mplayer window will be redrawn immediately at the border around the mplayer window, icons or contents will not be delayed parts of a second before redrawn. It will happens at once.

In this example it doesn't matter how fast the machine or the graphicsboard you do run the Linux on is in comparisition with the machine running MorphOS.

Maybe the reason for this is because that you do run such a very old system (the MorphOS content (eg win16 on win32)) on a more modern hardware that makes this difference to be ?

(Note: Maybe XGL will come to change this behaviour on the Linux desktop. Dont know as Im not using XGL myself.)

ironfist wrote:

Gunne: The standard installation of Windows 98 on my AMD XP 1600+ with 1.5 GB RAM is just as fast and responsive as your standard installation of MorphOS on a Pegasos 2 G4 1 GHz. MorphOS here takes like 30 MB and Windows 98 takes maybe 200 MB.

Still they feel the same. Windows opens instantly after I doubleclicked on icons, programs starting with blasting speed, etc..

Now, how is that?


Good for You Smile

You can also do the same experiment, but perhaps using Windows Media Player then.

As You did run the old Windows 98 on your AMD XP 1600+ my guess would be this one performs this kind of task better then a newer version would do ?

Quote:

btw I don't pretend to be a linux-user, I AM a linux-user


Sounds like You just pretended to be a Linux-user. Smile

All the best !
lisardman - Aug 07, 2006 - 18:47
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
what you are talking about now is a limitation in X.org. I think that will change in the future. I am having no problems moving my mplayer window. and play a video in the same time. but who really need to drag around a window the fast as you can.. you can't watch that video anyway.. so..
ironfist - Aug 07, 2006 - 18:50
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
<b>Gunne</b>: Well, I upgraded to Windows 2000 pretty quick since I noticed that Win 98
didn't support more than 512 MB RAM without graphic bugs and no more than
768 MB (but with some graphic bugs..)

This was 4.5 years ago anyway.. Now I'm into Pegasos. And Linux.
dholm - Aug 07, 2006 - 19:16
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
gunne wrote:
For me it looks as what you are trying to say here is something like:

- Take a very small car and put in an engine from a very big truck, and You will see whats happening. Hmm..., well that sounds not fully correct either ?

No. What I'm saying is that if you take a modern system, any modern system, and strip away all the features that make it modern you will find it to be very fast and responsive. It's the things happening under the hood that are making it appear sluggish, but they aren't there to do that they are there to provide you with more features.

gunne wrote:
You will see the desktop appears just within 1-2 seconds, the responsiveness is also there, as we do not have any slow floppy-drive to load from or such thing that makes it feeling slower.

Which also kind of proves my point. What was considered a desktop then is probably not considered a desktop by todays standards.

gunne wrote:
However there is never simple answers on technical issues, and each issue have also always its own explanation.

Of course there are. It's not magic. All technology can be broken down into small understandable pieces which can then be used to grasp the inner workings of it. Technology is just science applied to real world problems.

gunne wrote:
The way the system was designed, made it feeling more responsive, and executables were smaller and did run faster. Right is also that the system initself did lack features, however they were not needed for what it was created for.

What was it created for then? Most features in modern systems that run in the background are there to improve the user experience. IMHO that is the most important feature in any desktop system.

gunne wrote:
Maybe the simpliest answer would be that the system is designed so that everything always happens at once if possible. It could be that the exec only know about one single instruction - DO. Which would mean the only thing exec can do when a process are sending a request is to answer - DO.

That doesn't really make sense to me. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. If the current thread is to appear responsive you would have to preempt every other thread. If you run all at once I think you'll find your system is anything but responsive.

gunne wrote:
Now onto an example for dholm and lisardman, which You maybe can explain then.

Lets run mplayer on the Linux desktop. We do load a movie and let it play. Now grab the upper dragbar with the mousepointer and move the window around on the desktop. Start slowly and then gradually speed up the movement. Whats happening ? Parts of the content in the mplayer window will disappear. If you do have windows or icons behind the mplayer window you will also notice a delay in part of a second before the area will be redrawn onover which You just moved the window.

The X system is based on the X11 protocol. It is a client/server architecture where the client generates calls which the server then renders. The reason for this design is very simple. Back in the old days computers were so expensive you couldn't put one at every workstation so instead you had one very powerful system, the server, and several not so powerful systems, the clients. I'm not going to go deeper into this since most people know this design by now. This is still used in powerful systems of today such as Suns high-end machines. This adds quite a bit of overhead in rendering applications based on the X11 protocol but in return you are not required to have the heads located next to the noisy number cruncher, unless you want to.
It is not always appropriate to render the graphics on the server and send it to the client. In the case of video it is definately not appropriate since
1. You have to keep audio and video in sync and you do not want to depend on network latencies for this
2. Video can be quite demanding in bandwidth, you want to avoid pushing it back and forth on the network unless you want to
For this purpose the XVideo extension was developed. It allows you to have a local framebuffer rendered inside a normal X window. This is a brilliant solution because it solves problem 1 and 2 but without breaking the X11 protocol.
When you are moving your window around quickly you are generating calls to the X client to change the geometry of your window it then updates the affected data and in turn sends an event to the server to update the modified regions. The server detects that an XVideo framebuffer is present in the given region and logs an event to move that to the new location. When you are moving the window around rapidly you are going to flood the server with events and quite naturally it will drop "old" events in favour of new ones assuming the old ones are superceeded by the new ones. The effect of this is that it appears as if the XVideo region is not following your movements.

gunne wrote:
(Note: Maybe XGL will come to change this behaviour on the Linux desktop. Dont know as Im not using XGL myself.)

We have discussed the purpose of Xgl with you in the past. Please refer to that thread instead. You can find it here.
Xgl is irrelevant. The term you are looking for is composition.


Update:
If you use the gl output device instea of xv in mplayer I think you'll find that you can move the window around quickly without the video surface lagging behind. This assuming you have a decent driver for your GPU.
lisardman - Aug 09, 2006 - 18:52
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
intresting discussion this..
gunne - Aug 09, 2006 - 20:27
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
dholm,

Thank You for your very long and interesting post, and for taking the time writing it !

Sorry for my delay in answering. I feel right now, Im wasting to much time in writing in forums. But here is some answers from me anyway.

dholm wrote:

No. What I'm saying is that if you take a modern system, any modern system, and strip away all the features that make it modern you will find it to be very fast and responsive. It's the things happening under the hood that are making it appear sluggish, but they aren't there to do that they are there to provide you with more features.


Now, we are talking and coming to some results I think. Especially if we focus on the stripped down thing.

dholm wrote:

What was it created for then? Most features in modern systems that run in the background are there to improve the user experience. IMHO that is the most important feature in any desktop system.


The Amiga ?

I would like to say it as it was designed for motion pictures. Using of motion pictures in high quality color together with excellent audio features, like what is known as multimedia technology, possibility to run several processes simultaneously (at least look/feel they were running at the same time) using the small and efficient multitasking kernel.

The stripped down system made this together with the special features of the hardware it did run on. This concept made You did get a lot of 'power' (as not seen before) out of the system.

The desktop made it you could run all this in the multitasking environment on the desktop if you wanted too, but it wasn't necessary to use the desktop. You could also very easely start up the system running only the application of your choice itself without loading the desktop.

This is past time. Still something to remember though.

I see it as *nix have it roots in networking & communication. Thats also why You comes to the server/client perspective. Today the Linux desktop with Gnome or KDE have become so good, structured and well organized and have organized software packagesystem and everything, that it is a very good desktop-system to use on a daily base. The software base is also very good.

However, when using it You will not get the taste of the very fast responsiveness as You do in MorphOS. Thats why people talk about MorphOS as the lightning OS and do like it because of what it is. It comes down to a matter of taste, and that different systems are different and do feel different to use. Also the structure of the MorphOS-system make people like it in the way it is structured.

dholm wrote:

Update:
If you use the gl output device instea of xv in mplayer I think you'll find that you can move the window around quickly without the video surface lagging behind. This assuming you have a decent driver for your GPU.


Yep, I know this, gl output makes difference for the window content, still the background will not be redrawn likely quick as it will on the MorphOS desktop. Also the sound will stop playing if you move the window around quickly, while MorphOS will continue to play the sound (and the video) at full speed independent of how fast You do move the mplayer window around. This was also why I come to think about XGL and did mention that.

Anyway, this was only an example I made for trying illustrate this with the feeling/taste of responsiveness in the MorphOS-system. The stripped lightning operating system if You prefer it that way ! Smile

Have a good evening !
lisardman - Aug 09, 2006 - 21:58
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
what has this to to with XGL? Gunne do you know what XGL is?
dholm - Aug 10, 2006 - 07:29
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!
gunne wrote:
I see it as *nix have it roots in networking & communication. Thats also why You comes to the server/client perspective. Today the Linux desktop with Gnome or KDE have become so good, structured and well organized and have organized software packagesystem and everything, that it is a very good desktop-system to use on a daily base. The software base is also very good.

However, when using it You will not get the taste of the very fast responsiveness as You do in MorphOS. Thats why people talk about MorphOS as the lightning OS and do like it because of what it is. It comes down to a matter of taste, and that different systems are different and do feel different to use. Also the structure of the MorphOS-system make people like it in the way it is structured.

That is because GNOME and KDE weren't designed to be like this. They were designed to be user friendly systems or at least GNOME was, I'm not sure what KDE was designed to be. To make this comparison fair you can't compare GNOME with MorphOS. You should be comparing for instance fluxbox with MorphOS and run a system with maybe realtime-preempt and set processes which should offer maximum responsiveness in the realtime scheduler. I think you'll find your system to be just as responsive and offer the same (if not more) features than MorphOS currently does. MorphOS and GNOME/KDE simply do not have the same goals and cannot be used in a comparison where the conclusion is that Linux is less responsive than MorphOS, period.

gunne wrote:
Yep, I know this, gl output makes difference for the window content, still the background will not be redrawn likely quick as it will on the MorphOS desktop. Also the sound will stop playing if you move the window around quickly, while MorphOS will continue to play the sound (and the video) at full speed independent of how fast You do move the mplayer window around. This was also why I come to think about XGL and did mention that.

I did not experience slow redraws of desktop or any audio stuttering. My guess is that you are simply using a driver for your GPU which doesn't make full use of it.

gunne wrote:
Anyway, this was only an example I made for trying illustrate this with the feeling/taste of responsiveness in the MorphOS-system. The stripped lightning operating system if You prefer it that way ! Smile

Like I said above. If you want this comparison to bear any weight at all you should compare it with a similarly stripped Linux system. Otherwise you are simply comparing apples with oranges.
gunne - Aug 11, 2006 - 19:27
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos respons
lisardman,

GL: - A program designed to aid in rendering computer graphics to a monitor.

Referens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_library

OpenGL: - OpenGL (Open Graphics Library) is a standard specification defining a cross-language cross-platform API for writing applications that produce 3D computer graphics (and 2D computer graphics as well)

Referens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL

XGL: - an X server architecture, started by David Reveman, layered on top of OpenGL via glitz. It takes advantage of modern graphics cards via their OpenGL drivers, supporting hardware acceleration of all X, OpenGL and XVideo applications and graphical effects by a compositing window manager such as Compiz.

Referens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XGL

If You dont get, please forget about it Smile
gunne - Aug 11, 2006 - 19:47
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos respons
dholm,

Finally !

It could be interesting to do experiment with Linux, and 'strip' it down like You suggest.

But for being little kind of rude then, it wont become MorphOS Smile

What I really would like is MorphOS to become developed to further levels. and not that I saying Linux shouldn't. Personally I like them both, and as I tried to bring forward, taste is little different, and thats what nice.

In reply to this also...
dholm wrote:

I did not experience slow redraws of desktop or any audio stuttering. My guess is that you are simply using a driver for your GPU which doesn't make full use of it.

No, is using a good driver for the GPU.

Sound does lagging, You will probably also notice it more if You use the gl output instead of xv. If you do not notice, please load a movie in bigger resolution. Then load the same movie in MorphOS and compare. Thats all what this was about.

The Pegasos II also cant keep up with playing of the latest high definition movies in 1280x720, but 1024x576 works very fine.

dholm wrote:

Like I said above. If you want this comparison to bear any weight at all you should compare it with a similarly stripped Linux system. Otherwise you are simply comparing apples with oranges.


Sure. It could be interesting to do. Maybe something for next PUSH ? Smile
ironfist - Aug 11, 2006 - 20:32
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos res
<b>Gunne</b>:
<i>"No, is using a good driver for the GPU.
Sound does lagging, You will probably also notice it more if You use the gl output instead of xv."</i>

There is a big difference between using non-Altivec compiled Mplayer and
drivers like you do in Ubuntu with our Altivec-everywhere in Gentoo. The G4
has Altivec - it's stupid not to use it. Oh, sorry, MorphOS doesn't have it
either.. Oh, wait.. You have that 1.5 kernel with Altivec..
gunne - Aug 11, 2006 - 20:38
Post subject: Winxp vs Morphos
ironfist,

I used mplayer without AltiVec in MorphOS.
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Powered by PNphpBB2 © 2003-2004 The PNphpBB Group
Credits