![]() |
![]() |
#321 |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 4,357
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#322 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: france
Posts: 197
|
Quote:
They fade out because marketing for many of them . Your arguments mean,windows is great because is still here . |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#323 | |
son of 68k
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 51
Posts: 5,355
|
Yes, seriously. Why not ?
Quote:
(et encore un qui a essayé de me faire dire ce que je n'ai pas dit !) Something might still be here even if not great. But something really great doesn't completely fade out like this. It leaves nostalgy behind. Exactly like Amiga. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#324 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 2,917
|
I’m not really sure multitasking is relevant here. Unless you want to compare context switch time multitasking is an OS implementation detail.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#325 |
son of 68k
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 51
Posts: 5,355
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#326 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 2,917
|
68k details
Ok. Correct me where I go wrong. You can write a multitasking OS in C or Assembler. Pre-emptive or cooperative. What does CPU X vs CPU Y change aside from how performant the switch from process A to process B is? (lets ignore security for the moment). EDIT: another way to put it would be to ask what the quantitative measurement would be for a multitasking OS on CPU X vs CPU Y? Last edited by plasmab; 04 September 2018 at 10:15. |
![]() |
![]() |
#327 | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: france
Posts: 197
|
Quote:
Sorry if i misinterpreted,but it's because you wasn't clear ![]() Quote:
![]() Last edited by touko; 04 September 2018 at 11:31. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#328 | |||||
son of 68k
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 51
Posts: 5,355
|
Quote:
![]() You can't write a multitasking OS in 100% C. There has to be some asm inside. Not much nowadays, but still some, and at the very core. Quote:
If you don't believe me, peek at the linux core sources, for how much workaround work they had to do for x86. I haven't had a look myself but i'm nearly ready to bet there's quite some of it. This may make the task too complex and the OS writer wannabe bails out. Why do you think all OSes that are out today are evolutions of much older things and nothing mainstream is written from scratch in spite the financial means todays actors have ? Quote:
But here's how i see things. On CPU X you can do the core OS in assembler. On CPU Y you can't really because asm is PITA. Therefore you used a compiler for most of the stuff, and ended up with largely suboptimal code (because compilers are not as good as most people pretend). Quote:
F.e. The Amiga OS was good in the 90's and it's kinda still alive nowadays... But what i'm NOT saying is that if an OS is alive nowadays it's necessarily good. Got it this time ? Quote:
![]() |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
#329 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 2,917
|
68k details
You can make the OS a high percentage in C. But ok. So your argument is simply that one assembly language is easier than another. That can be managed in other ways.
I think your argument is all about you are cool because you do everything in assembly language and everyone else isn’t. You haven’t given an objective quantifiable measurement. You make it all subjective. One mans difficult is another mans trivial. EDIT: the vast majority of BSD and Linux is C and they run on multiple CPUs Last edited by plasmab; 04 September 2018 at 12:30. |
![]() |
![]() |
#330 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 2,917
|
68k details
For the record I don’t think any of your arguments are wrong ... even the being cool bit... doing an OS in assembly language is cool.. but i just don’t think it’s really relevant in the sense these are not scientific methods of comparing CPUs
|
![]() |
![]() |
#331 | ||||
son of 68k
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 51
Posts: 5,355
|
Quote:
Quote:
Who has ? Quote:
Quote:
There are no really scientific methods of comparing CPUs. Whatever comparison is done, is always biased in some way. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#332 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 2,917
|
Oh come on you can do better than this. You can! I’ll even argue your side because your failing completely.
1. You could time how long it takes to get a basic OS developed in each assembly language. 2. You can measure the the average time it takes to fix a bug in one vs the other. 3. You can measure the key code metrics on these operating systems (cyclomatic complexity, average subroutine length etc) 4. You can measure context switching time, time to service an interrupt etc. There loads more. The subjective arguments are pointless. |
![]() |
![]() |
#333 | |||||
son of 68k
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 51
Posts: 5,355
|
Quote:
And perhaps i could do better, but it's not worth the effort. As for CPU comparisons, always remember this : I keep asking for code comparisons, but, how odd, nobody feels like writing x86, arm, or whatever code. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(Actually i have measured context switching time long ago in the past and all tested OSes performed very poor, even though AOS won by far.) If there's loads more, then please write more. Because for now... |
|||||
![]() |
![]() |
#334 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 2,917
|
Ok. So just keep asserting your opinion then but don’t expect anyone to listen.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#335 |
son of 68k
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 51
Posts: 5,355
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#336 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 2,917
|
I am surprised 68000 beat ARM on fast interrupt latency though. I will measure this at some point.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#337 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 2,917
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#338 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,437
|
Quote:
On the 68000, a simple interrupt that merely pushes/pops all registers will already take on the order of 300 cycles (this is including the 44 cycles the 68000 takes to serve an interrupt and the 20 cycles for the RTE, but does not include the variable latency caused by prefetch and all that jazz). I can't imagine an ARMv2/v3 being slower, given it reads/writes 32 bytes from memory per cycle. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#339 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 2,917
|
Fast interrupt on ARM v2/v3 doesn’t push anything. Bank switched a stack pointer. That’s why I’m surprised.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#340 | ||
son of 68k
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 51
Posts: 5,355
|
Quote:
Quote:
But maybe YOU want to write ARM or x86 version of that Bresenham algorithm i told about ? |
||
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Any software to see technical OS details? | necronom | support.Other | 3 | 02 April 2016 12:05 |
2-star rarity details? | stet | HOL suggestions and feedback | 0 | 14 December 2015 05:24 |
EAB's FTP details... | Basquemactee1 | project.Amiga File Server | 2 | 30 October 2013 22:54 |
req details for sdl | turrican3 | request.Other | 0 | 20 April 2008 22:06 |
Forum Details | BippyM | request.Other | 0 | 15 May 2006 00:56 |
|
|