> On 28/01/2014 09:52 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>> I know I ran Linux (Debian Potato) on my Amiga 1200, and it was slow to
>>> the point of being laughable. Meanwhile, the native OS was trippy fast -
>>> faster than some of today's modern PCs, 20 years later. Then again, I
>>> suspect that X11 doesn't know how to do custom trickery with the Blitter
>>> chip...
>>
>> Perhaps we could compare Linux to AmigaOS running on a PC at
>> 1920x1080 32bpp.
>
> I think comparing Linux to AmigaOS running on the exact same device is a
> reasonable comparison. They both have the same hardware to play with,
> after all...

But they don't have the same capabilities and features.  X11 is built 
around networking and serving multiple users.  So it's a flawed 
comparison to compare a GUI that is built around doing direct hardware 
calls to a specific chip set versus an application that is built around 
filing forms in triplicate (with the yellow going to finance and the 
pink to HR) asking for permission to invalidate a rectangle, and then 
upon receiving confirmation that it was cleared to do so, send further 
documents proposing what it intends to do with that section on the 
screen, requesting the hiring of draftsmen to draw lines, painters to 
paint sections of the rectangle, etc...

AmigaOS = breaking into an abandoned house and squatting it.
X11 = Andy dealing with the bank to buy a house.

That's why the comparison is unfair, regardless of the hardware you run 
it on.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message