View Single Post
Old 06 March 2016, 00:25   #14
Registered User

Dunny's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Scunthorpe/United Kingdom
Posts: 1,001
Originally Posted by wawa View Post
there is. aros runs on my a1200 and a4000 machines.
i have here few videos that werent meant for public, but well
That's... disappointingly slow. What CPU are you running with your 137MB of RAM?

The point of all this is that for AROS to become a viable kickstart/workbench replacement then it needs to be able to run on original hardware.

That means that it must perform as fast as an original A1200 (68EC020, 2MB Chipram) running WB3.1. I think we can safely discount the 68k/1.3 comparison.

If it runs at the same speed as the original A1200, but with a Vampire attached then what's the point of having the Vampire? Might as well run vanilla 3.1.

I suspect that AROS is trying to do things that the original hardware couldn't do without assistance - 256 colour screens (or higher bitdepths), complex icons etc, etc. That's fine, but when given the same resources and assets as an original 3.1 install, it should perform at the same speed or better. Anything less and it's going to get laughed at.

Like I said previously, when I ran AROS on my 486 DX-2/50MHz, it should have flown in comparison to an A1200. It did not; it was so slow that you could count the lines being drawn as it refreshed a window.

I suspect that there are fundamental flaws in the implementation - heavy reliance on oop, poor compiler performance, who knows?

But it needs to get fixed if it's going to deserve the title of "fastest OS in the west", to paraphrase the hype on the AROS website.

First get the compatibility up, then make the ROM fit in 512KB and the OS install in <10MB, then get it running at speed. Only after all that can anyone start to think about improving it.

Dunny is offline  
Page generated in 0.03934 seconds with 10 queries