 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 25.01.2014 23:02, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>> Apparently the command-line version zips along quite nicely on a Pi, but
>>> the GUI is "a little sluggish - but still faster than the original Mac".
>>
>> Not surprising, given the memory constraints on the pi. Running openELEC
>> on one here, 512 MB of RAM, looks like about half is used in normal
>> circumstances.
>
> Given that Mathematica is presumably all about compute-power, I'd be
> surprised if memory even came into the equation.
Surprise! :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Apparently the command-line version zips along quite nicely on a Pi, but
> the GUI is "a little sluggish - but still faster than the original Mac".
I got fed up with trying to run a music player on my pi (xbmc) under
linux, it was stupidly sluggish just navigating menus or responding to
key presses, searching the library was a total joke. So I spent a few
days writing my own one in interpreted *BASIC* (with just the core
search function implemented in assembler for speed) under RiscOS. Now as
soon as you type the next character in your search term the results are
displayed instantly, or navigating the folder structure is pretty much
instantaneous. I can only conclude that the Linux APIs for doing
graphics and file IO are bloated and slow for whatever reason.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/01/2014 10:51 AM, scott wrote:
>> Apparently the command-line version zips along quite nicely on a Pi, but
>> the GUI is "a little sluggish - but still faster than the original Mac".
>
> I got fed up with trying to run a music player on my pi (xbmc) under
> linux, it was stupidly sluggish just navigating menus or responding to
> key presses, searching the library was a total joke. So I spent a few
> days writing my own one in interpreted *BASIC* (with just the core
> search function implemented in assembler for speed) under RiscOS. Now as
> soon as you type the next character in your search term the results are
> displayed instantly, or navigating the folder structure is pretty much
> instantaneous. I can only conclude that the Linux APIs for doing
> graphics and file IO are bloated and slow for whatever reason.
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...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] dev null> 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.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2014-01-28 15:54, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 28/01/2014 10:51 AM, scott wrote:
>>> Apparently the command-line version zips along quite nicely on a Pi, but
>>> the GUI is "a little sluggish - but still faster than the original Mac".
>>
>> I got fed up with trying to run a music player on my pi (xbmc) under
>> linux, it was stupidly sluggish just navigating menus or responding to
>> key presses, searching the library was a total joke. So I spent a few
>> days writing my own one in interpreted *BASIC* (with just the core
>> search function implemented in assembler for speed) under RiscOS. Now as
>> soon as you type the next character in your search term the results are
>> displayed instantly, or navigating the folder structure is pretty much
>> instantaneous. I can only conclude that the Linux APIs for doing
>> graphics and file IO are bloated and slow for whatever reason.
>
> 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...
We've been through this before. You are comparing the performances of a
go-kart around a tire-track, with that of a tractor-trailer rig around
the same track, and wondering why a lawnmower engine can outrun a 1300HP
supercharged diesel.
--
/*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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 28/01/14 22:24, Francois Labreque wrote:
>
> We've been through this before. You are comparing the performances of a
> go-kart around a tire-track, with that of a tractor-trailer rig around
> the same track, and wondering why a lawnmower engine can outrun a 1300HP
> supercharged diesel.
>
I love that image :-)
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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...
Comparing AmigaOS to Linux running on a PC that's 20 years newer ought
to be an unfair comparison. (Which is why it's surprising that AmigaOS
doesn't look laughably underpowered.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
FWIW my pi music player runs in 1920x1080x32bpp very nicely. I put it
down to Linux trying to do far too much stuff in the background that is
unnecessary for a simple music player on a pi. But still, it's
s..l..o..w which makes the pi look bad, when really it's just that Linux
is far too bloated to run on it. Even the web browser in raspian is
sluggish even on very simple pages, whereas the RiscOS one zips along
very smoothly on exactly the same hardware and screen resolution.
I guess the guys who made raspbmc are attacking the problem by starting
with a complex OS and application designed for a modern desktop PC and
trimming it down, whereas I've started with a much simpler OS and
building up an application from scratch. I think they're doing it the
wrong way.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> 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...
Except that Linux was not designed to run efficiently on an Amiga any
more than AmigaOS was designed to run efficiently on a modern PC.
You mentioned that AmigaOS takes advantage of the Amiga's display hardware
for faster graphical operation. So does Linux on a modern PC.
> Comparing AmigaOS to Linux running on a PC that's 20 years newer ought
> to be an unfair comparison.
It's not a question of age. It's a question of which hardware it was
designed to run on.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
