www.pegasos.org :: View topic - Winxp vs Morphos response!
http://www.ggsdata.se
Home   News   Forum   Gallery   
Search 
Login




 


 Log in Problems?
 New User? Sign Up!

Navigation

Online
Currently no members online:)

You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
There are 1 unlogged users online !

Latest Web Links

Latest Downloads

Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Printable version Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
lisardman
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!  PostPosted: Aug 07, 2006 - 07:50
Order of the Butterfly
Order of the Butterfly


Joined: Jan 14, 2004
Posts: 1940
Location: Karlsborg,Sverige
if you run linux-programs from ram it will also go very fast to load them....

_________________
RR!
 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number 
Reply with quote Back to top
gunne
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!  PostPosted: Aug 07, 2006 - 09:28
Order of the Pegasos
Order of the Pegasos


Joined: Aug 16, 2003
Posts: 2538
Location: Göteborg
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 ?

_________________
Mvh Gunne
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
lisardman
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!  PostPosted: Aug 07, 2006 - 09:50
Order of the Butterfly
Order of the Butterfly


Joined: Jan 14, 2004
Posts: 1940
Location: Karlsborg,Sverige
No. are you having problem with people using linux and lowlatency patches having quick and responsive kernel calls?

_________________
RR!
 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number 
Reply with quote Back to top
gunne
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!  PostPosted: Aug 07, 2006 - 12:40
Order of the Pegasos
Order of the Pegasos


Joined: Aug 16, 2003
Posts: 2538
Location: Göteborg
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.

_________________
Mvh Gunne
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
dholm
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!  PostPosted: Aug 07, 2006 - 12:55
Order of the Butterfly
Order of the Butterfly


Joined: Aug 26, 2003
Posts: 1784
Location: Malmö
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.

_________________
I need this baby in a month send me nine women!
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website ICQ Number 
Reply with quote Back to top
lisardman
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!  PostPosted: Aug 07, 2006 - 13:30
Order of the Butterfly
Order of the Butterfly


Joined: Jan 14, 2004
Posts: 1940
Location: Karlsborg,Sverige
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

_________________
RR!
 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number 
Reply with quote Back to top
ironfist
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!  PostPosted: Aug 07, 2006 - 13:35
Order of the Pegasos
Order of the Pegasos


Joined: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 2517
Location: Göteborg
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?

_________________
www.SecureHosting.se | Egen server med 512 MB RAM och 10 Mbit trafik 250 kr/mån | www.SecureNetworks.se
 
 View user's profile Send private message ICQ Number 
Reply with quote Back to top
Plexus
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!  PostPosted: Aug 07, 2006 - 15:18
Journeyman
Journeyman


Joined: Apr 23, 2006
Posts: 57

[quote="ironfist"]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.

My Question is:

ARE YOU BLIND?
 
 View user's profile Send private message  
Reply with quote Back to top
ironfist
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!  PostPosted: Aug 07, 2006 - 16:47
Order of the Pegasos
Order of the Pegasos


Joined: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 2517
Location: Göteborg
Plexus:
No I am not. Why are you typing in CAPS?

_________________
www.SecureHosting.se | Egen server med 512 MB RAM och 10 Mbit trafik 250 kr/mån | www.SecureNetworks.se
 
 View user's profile Send private message ICQ Number 
Reply with quote Back to top
gunne
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!  PostPosted: Aug 07, 2006 - 18:35
Order of the Pegasos
Order of the Pegasos


Joined: Aug 16, 2003
Posts: 2538
Location: Göteborg
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 !

_________________
Mvh Gunne
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
lisardman
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!  PostPosted: Aug 07, 2006 - 18:47
Order of the Butterfly
Order of the Butterfly


Joined: Jan 14, 2004
Posts: 1940
Location: Karlsborg,Sverige
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..

_________________
RR!
 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number 
Reply with quote Back to top
ironfist
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!  PostPosted: Aug 07, 2006 - 18:50
Order of the Pegasos
Order of the Pegasos


Joined: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 2517
Location: Göteborg
Gunne: 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.

_________________
www.SecureHosting.se | Egen server med 512 MB RAM och 10 Mbit trafik 250 kr/mån | www.SecureNetworks.se
 
 View user's profile Send private message ICQ Number 
Reply with quote Back to top
dholm
Post subject: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!  PostPosted: Aug 07, 2006 - 19:16
Order of the Butterfly
Order of the Butterfly


Joined: Aug 26, 2003
Posts: 1784
Location: Malmö
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.

_________________
I need this baby in a month send me nine women!
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website ICQ Number 
Reply with quote Back to top
lisardman
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!  PostPosted: Aug 09, 2006 - 18:52
Order of the Butterfly
Order of the Butterfly


Joined: Jan 14, 2004
Posts: 1940
Location: Karlsborg,Sverige
intresting discussion this..

_________________
RR!
 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website ICQ Number 
Reply with quote Back to top
gunne
Post subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Winxp vs Morphos response!  PostPosted: Aug 09, 2006 - 20:27
Order of the Pegasos
Order of the Pegasos


Joined: Aug 16, 2003
Posts: 2538
Location: Göteborg
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 !

_________________
Mvh Gunne
 
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
Reply with quote Back to top
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Printable version Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Powered by PNphpBB2 © 2003-2004 The PNphpBB Group
Credits
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2004-2012 by pegasos.org

backend|avantgo