English Amiga Board

English Amiga Board (http://eab.abime.net/index.php)
-   Amiga scene (http://eab.abime.net/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   OS4 Speed Performance ? (http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=32461)

blade002 04 October 2007 13:58

OS4 Speed Performance ?
 
I posted this on a Linux forum, because i was a little confused as to why Linux takes so long to boot and even load in an application compared to the Amiga over the many years. Here is what i wrote -:

Why does Linux takes so long to boot, yet OS4.0 boots in something like 8 seconds & applications load in an instant? When i first started using Linux, i expected it to boot faster than Windows, but it boots far slower !?. Methinks that Linux is not very optimized ?.. Although i now use Linux 99% of the time anyway. Would never go back to Windows unless i am playing the odd game every now and again. But i was very disappointed with Linux initially.


I got the following for an answer -:

By OS4.0 you're talking about AmigaOS.
I've answered this for you before, but lets do it again.

The main grunt of the AmigaOS backend runs from ROM - booting from chips is a lot quicker than booting from a hard disk.
Add to that the default amiga boot is miniscule (because it doesn't actually load any programs - just the screen driver and file browser (Desktop) parts).
Compare that to what your linux system is doing - typically setting up many many applications and services - it'll likely take longer for a linux system resolve to a DHCP server than AmigaOS to boot - why?, because AmigaOS as a rule doesn't do that - if it did, it would take as long to perform that task.

To compare apples with apples, get a ROM based linux distro (there are a few around) and then get your amiga to run as many tasks and services (a tricky thing to do since the amiga was pretty much abandoned except for a hard core of enthusiasts years ago, so decent software is hard to come by) and see how well your amiga compares then.


So is he right?, is this the reason why our Amiga's have booted so quickly over the years, and why our applications almost load in an instant ?

Ive always been curious about this.

Doc Mindie 04 October 2007 14:09

I as far as I'm concerned, the Amiga has "always" booted alot quicker than other platforms.

Back in 1994, when I got my first HD for my A500, my brother had a 386 with 8(!)MB RAM, whereas I had 3 in the A500 (512k expansion, plus 2MB in the A590) And I had WB2.1 in there asa well.

For comparance sake, my brother booted to DOS, and I booted Workbench. The A500 was ALOT quicker. And my brother didn't even have sound or network to deal with....... so not alot that went on in the PC's bootprocess. It was mainly the RAM test of the EMM386.exe that slowed him down.

But mine was alot more pretty and alot more useful than his was ;)

Thorham 04 October 2007 15:36

AmigaOs boots so fast, because it's small, and relatively fast.
Linux distros such as kubuntu really do more during boot time. However, this is no excuse what so ever for taking so long to boot. Even winxp boots faster!

Ultimately a lot of pc software is just not very efficient, and this is caused by the 'if it doesn't run fast enough, use a faster computer' mentality, while on the amiga it's usually the opposite. Truth is, in todays world the power of pcs (and they ARE fast) is just wasted by running slow software (witch sometimes really sucks, as some of this slow software has great functionality).

A good example is adobe's pdf viewer. On my 550mhz p3 (winxp/linux) this program is so slow, it's almost unusable (both loading AND scrolling through the doc). The foxit pdf viewer (for winxp) on the other hand, loads in a second and scrolls very fast, allowing me to comfortably use pdf files. And I'm betting even foxit is not as fast as it could be.

The reason is thus: A lot of programmers today are screw-ups, or they just don't care...

AMIGAZ 04 October 2007 15:38

Hey, even my Mac Pro boots in 7-8 secs and it's a UNIX based OS (OSX Tiger)

OSX Leopard boots 1-2 secs faster :spin

killergorilla 04 October 2007 17:23

My xbox boots in seconds.

I play games on it and stuff.

P-J 04 October 2007 17:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by killergorilla (Post 362426)
My xbox boots in seconds.

I play games on it and stuff.

My pocket calculator boots in under a second. According to these guys, that makes it better than your X-Box.

killergorilla 04 October 2007 17:41

Damn you!

I had an actual notepad here, it would be faster than your calculator but I don't know where I put it...

Thorham 04 October 2007 17:46

And I take about half an hour to boot (with lots of coffee) :D

Charlie 04 October 2007 20:29

@blade002:
I see where your quoted Linux_Guru is comming from: Linux boots so much slower because it's doing all this clever stuff AOS4 doesn't address.
True, but I would suggest missing the point...

The real question to ask is why/if all this activity is necessary when AOS doesn't bother and yet still comes up with a functional desktop..?

I'd say it's a matter of architecture:
Linux, Windows, & OSX to an extent share one way of doing things.
( Every function must be explicitly setup prior to becomming available to the system )

AmigaOS, BeOS, & QNX share a very different ( more efficient ) model.
( Functions start/stop on-the-fly as 'requested' by either hardware or user )

Another interesting question is why the three 'patently better' os's are far less sucessful? - It's certainly not a result of their shared architecture causing any fundermental limitations.

P-J 04 October 2007 21:09

In answer to you quesion, yes he is right.

Linux and similar operating systems have significantly more functionality and a lot of it is started at boot time since memory is hardly 'scarce'.

Also 'your applications' as you call them do a lot less so that is why they start up quicker.

If you could give us an example of an Amiga application and a PC (Linux/Windows etc...) application that have the same functionality yet different startup times we could make a decent discussion of this.

I'd appreciate it if you could provide a link to the forum where you posted it, would be interesting to see.

//edit : I found it anyway : http://forums.suselinuxsupport.de/in...howtopic=60981

Charlie 04 October 2007 21:40

Tiz true: more function=slower boot time, but I'd suggest it is more fundamental than that...
To illustrate:

Getting up in the morning the 'Amiga way':
Booting up...
Who am I? Where am I? - All good - Eyes open.
To do list...
Get up, brush teeth, have shower.
On way to bathroom...
Bladder to brain: Need a pee! - do pee. Bladder sleeps.
Bum to brain: Heavy load alert! - take dump. Rectum sleeps.
Back to to do list...
Teeth brushed, body showered.

All done!
All my brain has had to cope with is booting up & dealing with my to do list.
I've been briefly interupted by 'other functions' but all has been safely & efficiently negotiated...
...shame I'm about to get arrested for not having dressing on my to do list.

Getting up in the morning the 'Linux way':
Booting up...
Who am I? Where am I?
Set up bladder awareness system.
Audit state of bladder - to pee or not to pee...
Set up lower bowel awareness system.
Audit state of bowel - to poo or not to poo...
- All good - Eyes open.
To do list...
Get up, Audit state of bladder, Audit state of bowel, brush teeth, Audit state of bladder, Audit state of bowel, have shower, Audit state of bladder, Audit state of bowel.
Have got up:
Call bladder awareness system.
Audit state of bladder - to pee or not to pee...
Need pee - have pee
Call lower bowel awareness system.
Audit state of bowel - to poo or not to poo...
Need poo - have poo
Have brushed teeth:
Call bladder awareness system.
Audit state of bladder - to pee or not to pee...
No pee
Call lower bowel awareness system.
Audit state of bowel - to poo or not to poo...
No poo
Had shower:
Call bladder awareness system.
Audit state of bladder - to pee or not to pee...
No pee
Call lower bowel awareness system.
Audit state of bowel - to poo or not to poo...
No poo

Phew! All done too.
But damn! That was so much more effort! Not only did I need a much bigger brain to keep track of everything I needed to do, I also needed to think much faster to be able to juggle the 'demands' in real time without slowing or having any accidents...
...and I still didn't get round to putting any clothes on!

P-J 04 October 2007 21:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie (Post 362500)
Tiz true: more function=slower boot time, but I'd suggest it is more fundamental than that...
To illustrate:

<snip>

I like the idea but I don't think that's a decent analogy.

However I can't think of one right now :)

blade002 05 October 2007 07:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie (Post 362472)
@blade002:

The real question to ask is why/if all this activity is necessary when AOS doesn't bother and yet still comes up with a functional desktop..?

I'd say it's a matter of architecture:
Linux, Windows, & OSX to an extent share one way of doing things.
( Every function must be explicitly setup prior to becomming available to the system )

AmigaOS, BeOS, & QNX share a very different ( more efficient ) model.
( Functions start/stop on-the-fly as 'requested' by either hardware or user )

I like what you have said here :) .. Do you mind if i quote it back to the other guy on the other forum? :D

Charlie 05 October 2007 19:35

@blade002:
Be my guest :)

Oh, I'd suggest be specific with any questions...
Why?
1) It's too easy to assume all the differences are down to Linux being better developed & therefore 'more functional' than the likes of AOS4 - true, but not the point & does not explain the whole story.
Consider QNX which has had 20 years of continuous professional development & will match Linux feature-for-feature while booting even faster than OS4!
2) Your Linux_guru may not be aware that these Os's go about providing their functions in fundamentally different ways... This may lead to an explanation based on incorrect assumptions. Get then to stick to what they know ( Linux ) possibly followed by questions like: 'If it did it so-and-so wouldn't that be more efficient so cutting boot times..?'

A good Amiga example of these differences is the TCP stack. AFAIA all AOS TCP stacks are based on a 'monolithic' model rather than 'interrupt-driven' as is the OS itself.
The OS starts quickly & responds quickly to 'events' but starting the TCP stack is anything but... This is not as one would expect a result of time taken to do the connection housekeeping but simply because these stacks are based off models more akin to Linux/Windows...

Um, rambling now.

Fred the Fop 06 October 2007 10:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMIGAZ (Post 362406)
Hey, even my Mac Pro boots in 7-8 secs and it's a UNIX based OS (OSX Tiger)

OSX Leopard boots 1-2 secs faster :spin

I am holding off on the new iMac until Leopard comes out. Have you heard Leopard boots faster?
My stepdad got the new iMac 2.8 dual core and it boots in about 5 seconds.
Of course, that is with Tiger.

P-J 06 October 2007 12:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fred the Duck (Post 362907)
I am holding off on the new iMac until Leopard comes out. Have you heard Leopard boots faster?
My stepdad got the new iMac 2.8 dual core and it boots in about 5 seconds.
Of course, that is with Tiger.

A quick boot time is a pointless thing to strive for.

AMIGAZ 06 October 2007 18:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fred the Duck (Post 362907)
I am holding off on the new iMac until Leopard comes out. Have you heard Leopard boots faster?
My stepdad got the new iMac 2.8 dual core and it boots in about 5 seconds.
Of course, that is with Tiger.

That's wise

Haven't "heard", I'm using the latest Leopard beta together with Tiger + Win Vista om my 2x Quadcore Mac Pro ;)

Unknown_K 06 October 2007 18:30

Boot times hardly matter when most people just turn the machine on in the morning and then shut it down at night. Shaving off a few seconds means nothing. The only time they did matter was when your system crashed because of the lack of memory protection and you had to reboot to get back to work (and do it often).

Doc Mindie 07 October 2007 00:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown_K (Post 363000)
Boot times hardly matter when most people just turn the machine on in the morning and then shut it down at night. Shaving off a few seconds means nothing. The only time they did matter was when your system crashed because of the lack of memory protection and you had to reboot to get back to work (and do it often).

Therefore, short boot times means ALOT to any windowsuser ut there. Every now and then, I still get the lovely BSOD on WinXP..... utterly annoying, especially if I'm in he middle of Gruul's Lair or somesuch.... (WoW speak, but you get the idea.. you're doing SOMETHING and should be online at all costs ;) )

P-J 07 October 2007 01:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Mindie (Post 363093)
Therefore, short boot times means ALOT to any windowsuser ut there. Every now and then, I still get the lovely BSOD on WinXP.....

Sounds like you need to sort your hardware out. Most people don't experience BSODs with Windows XP. Don't take offense, but your PC has problems.

My machine has been up for 6 days without a reboot. The last one was to install Daemon Tools.

No BSOD here for, well, years!

Also, if it's 'every now and then', it's hardly often, right? :)


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 05:37.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Page generated in 0.04582 seconds with 11 queries