Some time ago, Obligement did a very interesting benchmark comparison between MorphOS and OS4 on the same hardware, the Pegasos 2 (which at the time was the fastest hardware for both OS's).

http://obligement.free.fr/articles/amigaos41_vs_morphos23.php

The test was very extensive!

Am I the only one who thinks it would be interesting to *add* two more systems to the same test, namely the Sam440 (with OS4) and Mac Mini 1.58GHz (with MorphOS)?

The Mac Mini 1.58GHz (a slightly overclocked Mac Mini, which is relatively easy to do and hence quite commonly done AFAIK) because it would be the *fastest* option available, and the Sam 440 because it is what "the Reds" *are pushing* at the moment, and because the price difference between those two is so big?

Then we would see performance results for:

1. The current Hyperion/Acube "main offer" (OS4/Sam440)
2. OS4 running on its fastest hardware (the Pegasos 2)
3. MorphOS running on OS4's fastest hardware (the Pegasos 2)
4. The current MorphOS "best offer" (Mac Mini 1.58GHz)

I think this would be really interesting, and would put some perspective on things...

@tmhg

Whilst I agree that it would be interesting to see benchmarks for the options available, I don't particularly agree with your choice of language:

Quote:

Describing OS4.x users as "the reds" simply raises connotations of the red/blue divide which, by the way, is irrelevant to most users of both systems today and actually drives users (old and new) away from the community.

The only *perspective* that it would put on things (if done this way) is how quickly the *community of communities* (which constitutes the Amiga-originating OS users) would degenerate into the same name-calling and bitterness which has polluted the forums for many years.

If you want to make some benchmarks for Mac-mini-MOS, then do so - upload the results to Aminet or something. Why make a big deal out of it by creating a forum thread?

If MOS or OS4.x are ever going to stand on their own, then they've got to move on from this ongoing "we're two steps ahead of you" approach, act a bit more dignified, and publish benchmarks which stand on their own merit - not as a comparison to some other niche system.

Dude, I like you a lot of the time, but I wish that - for once - you'd take the good news of Mac-mini-MOS without feeling the need to shove it down the throat of the OS4.x users.

[/rant]

I don't see any point of comparing MorphOS on Mac Mini to any AmigaOS capable machine as the results will be just unfair for AmigaOS. I think last comparision was quite good, as the were running on the same machine which is fair enough.

I can't really believe what I'm hearing here. This is how I see it: Ignorance is best fought with education, and propaganda by complete transparency and freedom of speech.

Amigans interested in obtaining the best (for them) Next Generation system, has basically *four* distinctive PPC options to choose from now, the four I listed above. Only one of them involves brand new hardware, the other three involves second hand HW. The four options all offer different levels of performance (and features, and Amiga compatibility), at different price levels. All this can easily be measured and compared, lists can be made with *quantitative facts*, black on white.

Any differences are *certainly not* random and "unfair" in any way, but simply the results of the two teams' persistent work and their respective strategical decisions about what to prioritize, on which HW to focus, etc, etc, etc. This is the result of all that! They are both sold at the same "market", to the same kind of customers. These are the options they have put to market, these are the options we can choose from. Factual, quantitative comparisons can help people make the right purchasing decisions according to their own individual needs, not based on various online propaganda and other people's more or less religious vocal opinions, but on pure, rational *facts*.

When I made my post above, I expected responses like "good idea, reviews and benchmarks is always in the consumers best interest", and "yeah, but how about also including the price in the comparisons", and "yes, but I would also like to see these ... ... ... tests added to the benchmarks", etc. But here you two are, actually *defending* ignorance, and you are *actively against* enlightening consumers of performance differences? Efforts to optimize your OS shouldn't be allowed to pay off? Efforts to port to the most powerful hardware shouldn't be allowed to pay off? "Don't make forum threads about it"?! "If a comparison will be 'unfair' to AmigaOS, don't compare"?! Wow...

(Did AW.net just move in here?)

@tmhg

Hmm, perhaps you missed my first paragraph.

Quote:

My point was partly about making pointless comparisons, but mainly it was about presentation: what one hopes to achieve, the language used in expressing it. Your use of the the phrase "the reds.." suggested that the comparison was more about perpetuating argument rather than being about promoting anything positive.

The Pegasos2 MOS/OS4 comparison was a fair one based on utilisation of the same hardware. What (aside from stirring up bad feeling) would be achieved by comparison of MOS on Mac-mini with OS4.x on SAM? Aside from dragging on (and on, and on, and on, and on, and on) with the same arguments and the same disputed polarised views of history, what would such a comparison actually achieve?
OSA on a 667MHZ 440EP SOC is slower than OSB on a 1500MHz G4 with Altivec and 512kb L2 cache. This statement is no surprise to anyone.

I believe each OS should stand on it's own merits, attracting new users based on standalone merit rather than comparing nicheOS1 against nicheOS2.
MorphOS stands alone. Development of the two OSes have followed divergent paths. Why should MOS achievements still be measured by their performance against OS4.x? Is this how you define it's success?

Apples and Orange.

Quote:
No, and I resent the implication. I am a longstanding member of AW.net, A.org, EAB, MZ (and possibly Amigans, can't remember). I use MorphOS and OS3.9. I don't have a working installation of OS4.x, but am not philosophically opposed to it. I'm pro- all flavours of Amiga-derived OSes, and anti- none.
I think that such a comparison (or rather the inevitable fallout from it) would be pointless, and would be a form of negative advertising - especially to potential new users.

Which is the more positive statement:
"MorphOS is a great product for xyz reasons."
"MorphOS is a great product compared to OS4.x."

Perhaps people being less willing to jump on the "reds vs blues" bandwagon on MZ.org, AW.net and the other forums may make it easier for the community of communities to get along, let alone the off chance that someone new may choose to join..

But we know results already. There are no secrets to find.

@takemehomegrandma

I don't have a Mac mini, so I can't do comparison with it.

I good idea will be to compare MorphOS 2.4 and Mac OS X on this same hardware : boot time, copy from/to HD, CD and USB2, 3D games, DnetC, MP3 encoder, MPlayer and few others.

This can be a great advert for MorphOS on the Mac website on over the world (specially if MorphOS is faster).

I can't do this comparison but I can help for this, translate it in several languages, publish it and make a "buzz" in the Mac world. So, if someone is interested, feel free to contact me : obligement AT free.fr

"good idea will be to compare MorphOS 2.4 and Mac OS X on this same hardware" - very good idea indeed! i'd love to see that. both os has mplayer, webkit-based browsers ?(owb beats the shoe out of safari:), anr against itunes - it would make sense. i'd love to see if morphos wipes the floor with os suxx in its own realm:)

takemehomegrandma: I think you are getting that too emotional. Kicking a beated person which already lying down doesn't make me.

Daff: comparing MacOSX and MOS 2.4 with similar software that would be great idea!

[ Edited by pampers on 2009/10/13 20:54 ]

@boot_wb,

Very well said! Objective and non-inflamatory comparisons of OSes on the same hardware are useful and can bring us new MorphOS users and developers. Continuing to flame, or trying to embarrass one side or the other serves no useful purpose and makes all of us look bad.

I have not even read the rest of this thread yet, so my comments are not aimed at any one person, or group.

Live and let live. Work together and more progress will be made faster.

Edit: @takemehomegrandma,

After reading your last response, I have to agree that a comprehensive comparison of ALL next generation Amiga-Like systems could be a good idea and a useful tool for those in the market thinking of making a purchase in the near future. A limited comparison of MOS on the MacMini and AOS on the SAM is of much less value.

It might be a good community effort to compile data for such a comprehensive comparison of ALL Amiga and Amiga-Like systems, with performance, software compatibility and availability, price, future expandibility, etc., etc. Like you suggested, a black and white side by side comparison of all features, pros and cons, but it would need to be as objective as possible, not propaganda for one side or the other. All of us here on MZ know the outcome and logical winner of any objective comparison already, but by putting it all in one place, it could be useful for those who are not as educated about all the choices as ourselves. For some people, such a comparison will confirm their choice to pursue AROS, and/or ICAROS, as it clearly has the hardware advantage. For many others, MOS will be a clear winner, now that version 2.4 has been released for the 1.5GHz G4 MacMini.

One of the main things that can't be compared objectively is the user experience of each respective system, and I would not try to evaluate one as being better than the other. Rather, I think that it is much more constructive to point out the good points and not so good points of each and let the reader of any such comparison make up their own mind about which OS suits their subjective preferences and objective needs.

[ Edited by amigadave on 2009/10/13 13:22 ]

[ Edited by amigadave on 2009/10/13 13:32 ]

[ Edited by amigadave on 2009/10/13 19:24 ]

I thought this was AW.net when I saw the same old Red vs Blue language.
I was told this went on here also but was hoping it wasn't true.

Anyway back on topic.

Don't really see much point in comparing performance stats for OSes on different hardware.
PegII was a good comparison as it was a level playing field.

Nothing to be gained by comparing stats of faster hardware in comparison to slower.
Price comparison is also nonsense as you are comparing used hardware against new.

Much better to compare features or useability as these are factors that matter in everyday use.

Not really interested in how quick the various hardware can draw 1000000 eclipses.

So having said that, a comparsion with OSX on the mini may be of interest.

I have had a mini for a few months now and haven't been overwhelmed.
Got the 1.5ghz model and Tiger.
Seems quite sluggish to me.
The fan seems to kick in quite alot also,when doing what I would consider minor operations.

OS4.1 and Sam667 is a lot more responsive.

Havent done much with MOS yet but the few basic things I have done were much more comfortable to use than OSX.
Launching similar apps takes an eternity on OSX compared to MOS.

Quote:

Indeed, performance should of course be in that ascending order as I listed them, I thought that would be so darn obvious that everyone would understand that achieving such a list was *not* my point (is everyone *purposely* misinterpreting what I say here?).

There are several different brands of cars, and most brands have several different models. Some models are designed to be fast, some to be cheap, some to have other features. Different design decisions, different results. Not "unfair", but simply different.

Comparisons between different brands and models are done on a regular basis in the automotive press, *especially* when new versions are released. All potential car consumers can easily educate themselves of the features of various car models, and compare the specifications between models, and find out exactly how crash safe each car is, how powerful the engine is, how fast it goes, about their fuel economy, about their price, about their effect on the environment, etc, etc. Factual numbers, black on white, information to help a potential consumer make the right decision according to what they need and want.

This is true for the computer industry as well. There are many sites like tomshardware.com and alike, that as soon as nVidia releases a new graphics card tests it thoroughly against other options, as soon as Microsoft releases a new version of Windows someone puts it on the test bench to squeeze numbers from it, as soon as Intel releases a new quad core processor, someone compares it to everything that's already out there.

I know that a Porsche 911 Turbo is faster than a BMW 750, and I know that a Core2 Quad is faster than a Atom processor, but unlike MorphOS on a Mac Mini compared to a OS4 on a Sam440 (which are two equally viable options for the potential Amiga NG consumer), I can easily find out *exactly* how much the difference is. But if a potential new customer of "NG Amiga" wants to find out the difference in RC5 key decryption, FPS in games, what the difference in applying filters in FxPaint is, what the difference is in compressing huge files in LHA, MPlayer performance, MAME performance, etc, etc, then suddenly it's a big *NO-NO*, "whe should only compare Porsche with Porsche, because otherwise it would be unfair to the BMW owners", and "we should only compare cars that are exactly equally crash safe, otherwise people may not buy the less crash safe cars", and people starts talking about "Red vs. Blue" crap, and suddenly someone comes here saying pathetic, melodramatic bullshit like "I thought this was AW.net when I saw the same old Red vs Blue language. I was told this went on here also but was hoping it wasn't true". I'm sorry, but I think this is pathetic beyond belief. Why strive for perfection if you can't show it in a documented manner? But OK then, let's *not* compare. Let's all take a bunch of chill pills. All four options are *equally good*. OK? *EQUALLY* good. Who needs facts, who cares about numbers? Playing DVD's without frame skipping? The exact bang for the buck ratio? WHO CARES? They are all equally good, so let's *not* disturb the nice peace and happy MorphOS 2.4 atmosphere here by boring and evil things like technical facts and comparisons against the other available options. Ignorance is a bliss in Amiga World. OK, I digress...

Nothing melodramtic was said by me.
Just stated that I was tired of the in your face attitude that is prevails on AW.net at the moment and was hoping for better elsewhere.
Dissapointment that does not seem to be possible, but not the end of the world.
I just thought you could have made your point in a less inflamtory way.

Your response on the other hand seems to be the product of somebody who has become a bit worked up.

It's quite simple some people dont see much merit in the comparsions you have mentioned.
I'm sure others will for the some of the reasons you stated and for whatever other reasons.

Go ahead and do it.
Not everything on this site has to be of interest to every single person here.
One mans meat is another mans poision as they say.

I like benchmarks because they are fun. Even if these benchmarks are not 100% fair takemehomegrandma has a point because you are using the available options.

When nextgen machines were released there were comparisons with 68060 and G3/600 even thought it's obvious that G3 emulation with JIT would be many times faster...

I'd like to see comparisons with OSX and Linux on Mac Mini even if it's unfair because their drivers are written by big corporations and ours are written by two genius

IIRC Fab published some tests about MPlayer running on Linux on an amigaworld thread and Linux ran quite slower.

That doesnt surprise me.
Installed Debian Lenny on a Sam and wasn't that impressed with the performance at all.
Wasn't that enamoured of download manager either.

Did originally plan to try another version on the Mac Mini to test alongside Tiger and MorphOS but the last experience has put me off somewhat.

Seen a few threads saying the Amigaworld needs to catch up with Mac/Windows.

In my experience we give Mac/Windows far too much credit.
I know they have more software available but taking into account the user friendlyness and responsivness of Amiga OSes, Mac/Windows are some ways far behind.

Quote:

I wouldn't say the same Snow Leopard that thing boots fast, open applications pretty quickly ofcourse depending on application. It switches betwen users really fast and comes out of sleep before your monitor can catch up with the signal. Installing applications is very fast as you just copy them to apps folder quite an Amigish way of doing things if I may say. Only thing that I hate about it is the standard 1 button mouse and the mouse acceleratioin curve all which I got fixed by installing USB Overdrive.

Windows ofcourse... Oh well don't even need to bother.

[ Edited by Painkiller on 2009/10/14 10:16 ]

I haven't seen Snow Leopard in action yet, so can't comment too much on that.

I'm told the bloat in the OS had been reduced from Tiger to Leopard when support of older software was removed.
I'm told the bloat is reduced further from Leopard to Snow Leopard.

But what I would say is, look at the hardware needed to run it.
Comparing MOS and Tiger on the mini, MOS is streets ahead in performance.

I do agree Mac OS does feel more user friendly than Windows/Linux and does things in an Amigaish way.

Quote:

Just picked this for a number: Playing a DVD on my Mini 1.5GHz requires only about 35% cpu load.
Loading an 8 MP pic with Showgirls - a fraction of a second.

This Mini with MorphOS is so blazing fast, I almost can't believe it.

@ Zylesea

Quote:

I bet!

Have you overclocked it in any way? Are you going to?

There are some interesting links about it in this old amiga.org thread:

http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=34069

I am not going to overclock this maschine. My main goal is stability and sustainability. Overclocking may work out fine, but it also will produce a little more heat which I don't want to have on the cpu. Look, I don't know how long this Mini has to last - but I hope it will run another 5 years from now. And for this goal i won't do anything which may be contra productive to this goal. And it is fast enough as it is now. 720 vids work nicely, too. For 1080 (have't testet yet) I would need another monitor anyway.
The only modification I consider to apply is a hdd replacement.

btw, 1,5gh macminis can be overclocked to 1,8Ghz....

@TMHG
3. MorphOS running on OS4's fastest hardware (the Pegasos 2)
What are you saying? How about MorphOS2.3 on the A1-XE/G4. That would be a nice test! =:o
I would pay $200 USD in a 'NY minute' for a nice port of MorphOS 2.0 for my A1. I was told this would never happen.

Quote:

Here is a prime example of why a new and expanded benchmark/comparison is needed (click on the link, follow the thread, and read what "DAX" et al is saying):

LINK

This is why facts, black on white, is needed.

@t

The facts are there. When one has made his mind you can not change it with facts.

@THMG

What's the point in comparing the SAM to an overclocked (WTF?) MacMini?
There is nothing new to find out. I agree with itix on this one.