Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 06:44 UTC
Amiga & AROS Bill McEwen of Amiga, Inc. writes in a public letter: "Over the last several months and in fact couple of years, Amiga has continued our software and business development and generally kept quiet. This path of quietness was chosen so that we communicated only when there was a development that culminated in a product that could be purchased. In recent weeks, our being quiet has been interpreted as weakness or an open invitation to attempt harming our business relationships and opportunities with partners and customers."
Thread beginning with comment 275892
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Why?
by Redeeman on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 15:05 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why?"
Redeeman
Member since:
2006-03-23

yet the 68020 still boots faster into a usable user interface than what you have on your 140 times higher clocked x86.....

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Why?
by javiercero1 on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 15:36 in reply to "RE[4]: Why?"
javiercero1 Member since:
2005-11-10

"yet the 68020 still boots faster into a usable user interface than what you have on your 140 times higher clocked x86....."

*sigh* So it boots faster, now what?

Your 020 box will take hours to perform some tasks than the Ghz machine can do in minutes/seconds. Under that scheme of things, a few seconds saved in the booting process seem fairly irrelevant really.

But if that floats your boot, by all means enjoy.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Why?
by 74k3n on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 16:26 in reply to "RE[4]: Why?"
74k3n Member since:
2007-06-06

And my phone boots in ~1 second, point? It's easy to boot quickly when you actually _do_ nothing.

Though i have to admit a lot of modern OS's have been pretty fail on even attempting to bring boot times into a more reasonable time frame. Some have made an effort; Upstart for Ubuntu is getting there and XP boots very quickly.

Other linux distros, Vista and Mac OS X are often quite a lot slower though. Arch linux is incredibly fast but then again that's not down to better technology, it just does less on boot and is more optimized for the architecture than most.

Its silly to compare boot times like that. DOS booted quickly on my 286 too but I'm not going to use that am I?

Edited 2007-10-03 16:36

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Why?
by BluenoseJake on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 18:37 in reply to "RE[4]: Why?"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

ooohhhh, so I'll be able to enjoy all those modern apps and hardware. What, no PCI-E bus? No AGP? No built in Ethernet? No USB? Perhaps the more modern system takes longer to boot because it has to power up and configure so many different interfaces and buses. Also, it may take longer to do a quick check of 1G of ram compared to say...16M.

You point is moot

Edited 2007-10-03 18:42

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Why?
by billt on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 19:23 in reply to "RE[4]: Why?"
billt Member since:
2006-01-04

My AmigaOneXE takes quite a long time to boot up. Part of that is scanning for a bootable CD disk, but I'm not going to change that, since I am likely to need to reboot and restore due to driver development test/debugging. This is a fair comparison IMHO as my PCs are set to boot from CD as well if anything is found there. I would not bet on my AmigaOne with OS4 winning the race with my AMD64 and WinXP. It's been ages since I booted my A4000T with 68060 CPU, I don't recall how long that took.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Why?
by null_pointer_us on Thu 4th Oct 2007 02:29 in reply to "RE[4]: Why?"
null_pointer_us Member since:
2005-08-19

The only thing legendary about the Amiga nowadays is the length to which Amiga users will go to try to win an argument about technical merits.

o_0

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Why?
by makfu on Thu 4th Oct 2007 13:47 in reply to "RE[4]: Why?"
makfu Member since:
2005-12-18

"yet the 68020 still boots faster into a usable user interface than what you have on your 140 times higher clocked x86....."

Correction: it will boot faster into an interface that was usable in 1991. You would probably have a hell of a time launching, oh, say BioShock for example.

Here is how I roll nowadays: S3 resume - 10 seconds, launch WinUAE - 2 seconds, boot AmigaOS 3.5 10 seconds. And yes, UAE on a modern x86 is faster than any real 680x0 processor. It's also more backwards and forwards compatible than any real Amiga ever was (no using degraders to get program x to run)

But if you really want to talk boot times, a Vic20 boots to a "usable interface" in about 1 second with just 5k of RAM! WOOT! I win!

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Why?
by viton on Thu 4th Oct 2007 14:53 in reply to "RE[5]: Why?"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

>>Here is how I roll nowadays: S3 resume - 10 seconds
It took ages to boot my vista-book (C2D + 2GB) to the point until it becomes responsible.
And de-hibernation isn't much faster.
On the other hand, my OS3.1 setup can boot in 2 secs under UAE ;)
I can move icons, launch programms in both cases.
What is so special in 2007 vs 1991 desktop?

Reply Parent Score: 1