Mac enthusiasts wow'd by Amiga native Mac performance

Mac enthusiasts wow'd by Amiga native Mac performance

Post by SG » Tue, 16 Jul 2002 00:34:02






> > >   [I added AOS3.9 numbers to macsonly.com's chart below]

> > >   "www.macsonly.com looks at XP vs. Mac OS X by comparing
> > >   startup, shutdown, file-opening, application loading and
> > >   document scrolling performance of a 533 MHz G4 dual-processor
> > >   PowerMac with 512MB of RAM and a US$399 Celeron-based PC, with
> > >   a mere 128MB of memory. XP smoked Mac OS X in almost every
> > >   category."

> > >   Time in seconds for         MacOSX  WindowsXP   AOS3.9
> > >   Startup, power on to login     102      41        12
> > >                                                     +6 (to MacOS)
> > >   Startup, login to desktop       19       6         0
> > >   login to desktop w/Classic      62       -         -
> > >   Launch Internet Explorer        10       3       0.3 (IB2)
> > >                                                      3 (Mac IE)
> > >   Scroll Macs Only!                2       3         ?
> > >   Scroll VPC 4 Manual PDF         50      33        *
> > >   Shutdown                        36      19         0

> > > *Commercial, though Amiga APDF-PPC should be much faster.
> > > MacOSX running on 2 x G4-533MHz w/512MB
> > > WinXP running on Cel 633MHz w/128MB
> > > AOS3.9 running on 060/66MHz w/10MB

> > I should point out that OSX is being continually optimised and tweaked, OSX
> > 10.2 "Jaguar" is supposedly a good 35% faster than 10.1.5 before you take into
> > account that they've shuffled the window compositing into the opengl subsystem
> > (which is both faster than having the cpu do it, and also frees up the cpu
> > from doing it)

> It should further be noted that the www.macsonly.com test was not done
> with 10.1.5.  It was done with 10.0.x (I forget which one exactly, but I
> researched this back when Steve posted these numbers the first time).  
> There is already a big difference just between 10.0 and 10.1.

Read the site, they tested both.  10.1.2 was much slower in the
scroll test than the above, scoring 87 seconds.  It was a
somewhat faster booter at a pathetic 72 secs.  Keep in mind, a
stock A500 finishes booting to a WB desktop from the stock OS3.1
floppy in 37 secs.

Quote:> As an example, I have here a dual 500 MHz G4 with 512MB of RAM running
> 10.1.5.  Power on to desktop takes 80 seconds, 22 seconds faster than it
> took 10.0.x just to get to the login screen, and a full 41 seconds
> faster to the desktop.

> BTW, classic Steve material: the "+6 (to MacOS)" figure.  Not unless
> it's a seriously old version of MacOS; it couldn't boot anywhere near
> that fast unless you go WAAAY back to System 6.  MAYBE early versions of
> 7.

You've gotta use a fast Macintosh someday.  Here, let me show you one
for the first time...

http://amigapro.com/Support/MOV00286.MPG
--

-Steve

 
 
 

Mac enthusiasts wow'd by Amiga native Mac performance

Post by SG » Tue, 16 Jul 2002 06:11:35




> > BTW, classic Steve material: the "+6 (to MacOS)" figure.  Not unless
> > it's a seriously old version of MacOS; it couldn't boot anywhere near
> > that fast

Not using your incredibly weak Mac hardware.

Quote:> > unless you go WAAAY back to System 6.  MAYBE early versions of
> > 7.

> You've gotta use a fast Macintosh someday.  Here, let me show you one
> for the first time...

> http://amigapro.com/Support/MOV00286.MPG

I am so cool, sometimes I amaze even myself.
--

-Steve

 
 
 

Mac enthusiasts wow'd by Amiga native Mac performance

Post by Pete » Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:26:29



> You've gotta use a fast Macintosh someday.  Here, let me show you one
> for the first time...

> http://amigapro.com/Support/MOV00286.MPG

Wow... can you show us a Vic20 boot tomorrow? Or maybe
a Spectrum... or C64?

Seriously, how much do you think you are going to impress
anyone by loading an OS that is, what, 5 years old? Maybe
if I dig around the throw-out bin at my local Mac store I
might even find something that runs on that version.

 
 
 

Mac enthusiasts wow'd by Amiga native Mac performance

Post by SG » Tue, 16 Jul 2002 22:03:35







> > > > >   [I added AOS3.9 numbers to macsonly.com's chart below]

> > > > >   "www.macsonly.com looks at XP vs. Mac OS X by comparing
> > > > >   startup, shutdown, file-opening, application loading and
> > > > >   document scrolling performance of a 533 MHz G4 dual-processor
> > > > >   PowerMac with 512MB of RAM and a US$399 Celeron-based PC, with
> > > > >   a mere 128MB of memory. XP smoked Mac OS X in almost every
> > > > >   category."

> > > > >   Time in seconds for         MacOSX  WindowsXP   AOS3.9
> > > > >   Startup, power on to login     102      41        12
> > > > >                                                     +6 (to MacOS)
> > > > >   Startup, login to desktop       19       6         0
> > > > >   login to desktop w/Classic      62       -         -
> > > > >   Launch Internet Explorer        10       3       0.3 (IB2)
> > > > >                                                      3 (Mac IE)
> > > > >   Scroll Macs Only!                2       3         ?
> > > > >   Scroll VPC 4 Manual PDF         50      33        *
> > > > >   Shutdown                        36      19         0

> > > > > *Commercial, though Amiga APDF-PPC should be much faster.
> > > > > MacOSX running on 2 x G4-533MHz w/512MB
> > > > > WinXP running on Cel 633MHz w/128MB
> > > > > AOS3.9 running on 060/66MHz w/10MB

> > > > I should point out that OSX is being continually optimised and tweaked,
> > > > OSX
> > > > 10.2 "Jaguar" is supposedly a good 35% faster than 10.1.5 before you take
> > > > into
> > > > account that they've shuffled the window compositing into the opengl
> > > > subsystem
> > > > (which is both faster than having the cpu do it, and also frees up the
> > > > cpu
> > > > from doing it)

> > > It should further be noted that the www.macsonly.com test was not done
> > > with 10.1.5.  It was done with 10.0.x (I forget which one exactly, but I
> > > researched this back when Steve posted these numbers the first time).  
> > > There is already a big difference just between 10.0 and 10.1.

> > Read the site, they tested both.

> Then why did you not quote their 10.1.2 numbers,

Because they only had the 10.0 numbers when I posted.

Quote:> choosing instead to
> show only the old 10.0.x results?  Your fundamental dishonesty is
> showing again...

> > 10.1.2 was much slower in the
> > scroll test than the above, scoring 87 seconds.

> It's not clear to me that their scroll test was controlled all that
> well.  I believe that the version of Acrobat Reader bundled with OS X
> changed between 10.0 and 10.1, so they may not be comparing the same
> program.

Its the same.

Quote:> > It was a
> > somewhat faster booter at a pathetic 72 secs.  Keep in mind, a
> > stock A500 finishes booting to a WB desktop from the stock OS3.1
> > floppy in 37 secs.

> Did you really think you were going to score points on me with that one?  
> I don't care if my computer 1 to 2 minutes to boot, so long as the
> system is stable.  Ultra-fast reboots are only a feature if your
> operating system is unstable.

Amigans do care about wasting time.  Boot time is a good is a
good indication of how well the system is going to run. If a
machine takes minutes just to figure out its alive, its obviously
not designed from the ground up with the user in mind.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:> > > As an example, I have here a dual 500 MHz G4 with 512MB of RAM running
> > > 10.1.5.  Power on to desktop takes 80 seconds, 22 seconds faster than it
> > > took 10.0.x just to get to the login screen, and a full 41 seconds
> > > faster to the desktop.

> > > BTW, classic Steve material: the "+6 (to MacOS)" figure.  Not unless
> > > it's a seriously old version of MacOS; it couldn't boot anywhere near
> > > that fast unless you go WAAAY back to System 6.  MAYBE early versions of
> > > 7.

> > You've gotta use a fast Macintosh someday.  Here, let me show you one
> > for the first time...

> > http://amigapro.com/Support/MOV00286.MPG

> Congratulations, Steve, you fell for the bait.  You have just confirmed
> what I wanted you to confirm -- that you used the cheap trick of
> disabling most everything,

All of these are OS boot time benchmarks, obviously everything
has to be stock or its all pointless.
--

-Steve

 
 
 

Mac enthusiasts wow'd by Amiga native Mac performance

Post by Pete » Tue, 16 Jul 2002 23:08:02



> Boot time is a good is a good indication of how well the
> system is going to run.

ROTFL....hahahahahaaaa.....

You are a comedian Steve! The sad fact is that you
probably believe this!

Quote:

> -Steve

 
 
 

Mac enthusiasts wow'd by Amiga native Mac performance

Post by SG » Wed, 17 Jul 2002 01:42:19




> > You've gotta use a fast Macintosh someday.  Here, let me show you one
> > for the first time...

> > http://amigapro.com/Support/MOV00286.MPG

> Wow...

--

-Steve

 
 
 

Mac enthusiasts wow'd by Amiga native Mac performance

Post by Thomas Tavo » Wed, 17 Jul 2002 12:38:15





> > > You've gotta use a fast Macintosh someday.  Here, let me show you one
> > > for the first time...

> > > http://amigapro.com/Support/MOV00286.MPG

> > Wow...

The way this was quoted says all anyone lurking/new needs to know about SG.

      ...
      _ . Thomas Tavoly

 . \X/    I'm on holiday, replies may be intermittent/delayed.
 ...  5.4

 
 
 

Mac enthusiasts wow'd by Amiga native Mac performance

Post by Kevin Ragsdal » Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:25:07



Quote:> You've gotta use a fast Macintosh someday.  Here, let me show you one
> for the first time...

> http://amigapro.com/Support/MOV00286.MPG

I've got a question.  How exactly did you capture this movie?  From the
filename, I'd wager that you have a camcorder with flash memory and MPEG
capability, like Sony's DV or Digital-8 camcorders, so you saved the MPEG
to flash and copied it to your computer with your film reader.

If it's a newer Sony, it has USB streaming, which means you could've just
plugged it into your computer and captured direct, if only you had USB and
the necessary driver support.  You've stated in this ng that MPEG is an
inferior protocol, so I'm suprised to see you using it.  But I guess you
really have no other choice.

Of course, it's really a shame that you can't use the Firewire interface or  
formats like Divx.

Quote:> --

> -Steve

Kevin
 
 
 

Mac enthusiasts wow'd by Amiga native Mac performance

Post by Troy Parke » Wed, 17 Jul 2002 10:37:56





> > You've gotta use a fast Macintosh someday.  Here, let me show you one
> > for the first time...

> > http://amigapro.com/Support/MOV00286.MPG

> I've got a question.  How exactly did you capture this movie?  From the
> filename, I'd wager that you have a camcorder with flash memory and MPEG
> capability, like Sony's DV or Digital-8 camcorders, so you saved the MPEG
> to flash and copied it to your computer with your film reader.

> If it's a newer Sony, it has USB streaming, which means you could've just
> plugged it into your computer and captured direct, if only you had USB and
> the necessary driver support.  You've stated in this ng that MPEG is an
> inferior protocol, so I'm suprised to see you using it.  But I guess you
> really have no other choice.

> Of course, it's really a shame that you can't use the Firewire interface or  
> formats like Divx.

Actually the Mpeg is identifying itself here as DivXG400 codec.

--
Doughnuts are my downfall

 
 
 

Mac enthusiasts wow'd by Amiga native Mac performance

Post by Tom and Lisa » Wed, 17 Jul 2002 11:04:06


(.misc deleted)


> You've gotta use a fast Macintosh someday.  Here, let me show you one
> for the first time...

> http://amigapro.com/Support/MOV00286.MPG

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Fast ?  All I saw was someone clicking a menu.

Wow.  I am so impressed. (not) I have several macs sitting around in a room
unused that would eat your emulated mac for breakfast.

Quote:> -Steve

Mad Dog
 
 
 

Mac enthusiasts wow'd by Amiga native Mac performance

Post by Kevin Ragsdal » Wed, 17 Jul 2002 11:31:52







>> > You've gotta use a fast Macintosh someday.  Here, let me show you
>> > one for the first time...

>> > http://amigapro.com/Support/MOV00286.MPG

>> I've got a question.  How exactly did you capture this movie?  From
>> the filename, I'd wager that you have a camcorder with flash memory
>> and MPEG capability, like Sony's DV or Digital-8 camcorders, so you
>> saved the MPEG to flash and copied it to your computer with your film
>> reader.

>> If it's a newer Sony, it has USB streaming, which means you could've
>> just plugged it into your computer and captured direct, if only you
>> had USB and the necessary driver support.  You've stated in this ng
>> that MPEG is an inferior protocol, so I'm suprised to see you using
>> it.  But I guess you really have no other choice.

>> Of course, it's really a shame that you can't use the Firewire
>> interface or  formats like Divx.

> Actually the Mpeg is identifying itself here as DivXG400 codec.

Troy,

Are you looking at that with Media Player?  DivXG400 is a DirectShow filter
for Matrox G400/450 video cards that corrects problems with video files
that have a width that's not a multiple of 32.  Steve's file is an MPEG-1.

Kevin

 
 
 

Mac enthusiasts wow'd by Amiga native Mac performance

Post by Troy Parke » Wed, 17 Jul 2002 12:02:15




> Troy,

> Are you looking at that with Media Player?  DivXG400 is a DirectShow filter
> for Matrox G400/450 video cards that corrects problems with video files
> that have a width that's not a multiple of 32.  Steve's file is an MPEG-1.

Yep, don't know where I picked it up from, having no matrox hardware,
but then again, I've got tons of rogue codecs floating around on this
box.

--
Doughnuts are my downfall