... can be found here:
http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Speedcheck (http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Speedcheck)
Two questions.
Is the time in seconds or milliseconds
and
Is the time the average of ten tests or the total time taken to perform ten tests.
Quote from: steve on 01:44, 04 March 11
Two questions.
Is the time in seconds or milliseconds
and
Is the time the average of ten tests or the total time taken to perform ten tests.
The time is in seconds
And the mean time is given, not the total.
Thanks for the questions, I'm going to update it.
Very interesting article - but please do keep in mind that orphan pages (http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Special:WhatLinksHere/Speedcheck) tend to be burried... where could we insert some links?
Quotefor this tests only real CPCs has been used.
| Format(http://cpcwiki.eu/forum/../skins/common/images/sort_none.gif) | FutureOS(http://cpcwiki.eu/forum/../skins/common/images/sort_none.gif) | XD-DOS(http://cpcwiki.eu/forum/../skins/common/images/sort_none.gif) | Disc'o'Magic(http://cpcwiki.eu/forum/../skins/common/images/sort_none.gif) | CP/M 2.2(http://cpcwiki.eu/forum/../skins/common/images/sort_none.gif) | CP/M 3.1(http://cpcwiki.eu/forum/../skins/common/images/sort_none.gif) | Utopia(http://cpcwiki.eu/forum/../skins/common/images/sort_none.gif) | Windows 2000 (http://cpcwiki.eu/forum/../skins/common/images/sort_none.gif) |
| Data | 16 | 17 | 18 | 33 | 33 | 43 | n.f. |
| Vortex | 64 | 65 | n.f. | 65 | n.f. | n.f. | 104 |
I please want the CPC with Windows 2000!
Also: Where is the test with SymbOS / Symbiface II?
Edit: Also with PARADOS rom?
Quotehow fast Kangaroo can make a song about formatting a disc?
Quote from: Devilmarkus on 12:13, 04 March 11
Also: Where is the test with SymbOS / Symbiface II?
Edit: Also with PARADOS rom?
You miss the point, which is to show how much faster FutureOS is. ;D
Quote from: steve on 16:45, 04 March 11
You miss the point, which is to show how much faster FutureOS is. ;D
Oh... is it? 8)
Well maybe it is...
But when there is a test made, it should be done also with SymbOS ;)
Quote from: Gryzor on 08:01, 04 March 11
Very interesting article - but please do keep in mind that orphan pages (http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Special:WhatLinksHere/Speedcheck) tend to be burried... where could we insert some links?
Good question, I did put it in hardware and software categories, but I'm sure one will have better/additional ideas.
Quote from: Devilmarkus on 12:13, 04 March 11
Also: Where is the test with SymbOS / Symbiface II?
Edit: Also with PARADOS rom?
This has to be done! And I will do it as soon as I can access real hardware again. But feel free to contribute here :) Also it may make sense to check SOS version 1 and 2, there may be differences. Parados was released in one version? (Was it?). Guess yes, have to check...
Quote from: steve on 16:45, 04 March 11
You miss the point, which is to show how much faster FutureOS is. ;D
Well, Windows2000 beats it once a while :o
BTW: Windows2000 benchmarks have been done with a 900 MHz AMD Duron PC. I don't know if it makes sense to keep this part since it's not CPC, but I had the numbers...
In case something is not clear, please ask, then we can improove that widget :)
Quote from: Devilmarkus on 12:10, 04 March 11
| Format(http://cpcwiki.eu/skins/common/images/sort_none.gif) | FutureOS(http://cpcwiki.eu/skins/common/images/sort_none.gif) | XD-DOS(http://cpcwiki.eu/skins/common/images/sort_none.gif) | Disc'o'Magic(http://cpcwiki.eu/skins/common/images/sort_none.gif) | CP/M 2.2(http://cpcwiki.eu/skins/common/images/sort_none.gif) | CP/M 3.1(http://cpcwiki.eu/skins/common/images/sort_none.gif) | Utopia(http://cpcwiki.eu/skins/common/images/sort_none.gif) | Windows 2000 (http://cpcwiki.eu/skins/common/images/sort_none.gif) |
| Data | 16 | 17 | 18 | 33 | 33 | 43 | n.f. |
| Vortex | 64 | 65 | n.f. | 65 | n.f. | n.f. | 104 |
I please want the CPC with Windows 2000!
Hahaha! Take CP/M 2.2 instead, as you can see it's more quick here!
Quote from: TFM/FS on 18:18, 04 March 11
Parados was released in one version? (Was it?). Guess yes, have to check...
Two versions (1.0 and 1.5), but the formatting is the same. btw, you can't physically format a 40 track , 360 rpm disc any faster than 60/360 * 2 * 40 = 13.33 seconds, and that's assuming the stepping happens fast enough to hit the index hole next time around.
Quote from: Executioner on 01:39, 09 March 11
Two versions (1.0 and 1.5), but the formatting is the same. btw, you can't physically format a 40 track , 360 rpm disc any faster than 60/360 * 2 * 40 = 13.33 seconds, and that's assuming the stepping happens fast enough to hit the index hole next time around.
Is this theory? Or did you do a real test on a real CPC?
Are 360 rpm drives existing for CPC? Like I remember they are HD format on 5.25" and will not run without deeper hardware modifications.
Added some values for SymbOS:
Speedcheck - CPCWiki (http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Speedcheck#Missing_data)
Well thats the final nail in symbos
Quote from: Trebmint on 13:13, 10 July 14
Well thats the final nail in symbos
Because we mainly use the CPC due to it's disk access times?? :D
Bryce.
So futureos is faster. That was never a question. But symbos looks like a better technical feat. IMHO f-os is an unfriendly place when compared to symbos. Symbos won't die all the time I use it. And the sna launcher is awesome.
Of course FutureOS is faster : it doesn't have to support the heaviness of SymbOS display/desktop.
FuturOS is an icon based mouse-GUI, SymbOS is a multitask oriented Windows interface.
And futurOS was developped with efficiency in mind... hence no fancy nor easily customisable desktop... no redimensionable windows either or no/limited interactive screen setting/display.
FuturOS should really invest in another pair of 16k ROMbanks and bootdisk option (for other settings) so you don't have always the default display with shittons of actually unused features... 8 disk drives icons on screen ? and I don't have any realtime clock as well (sadly) lol... could easily save one line of icons... and get one HUD line of character to display "help and hint" when mouse is pointing at an icon...
Also I did some nice icons sets with lots of variants. Please TFM when will you modify FutureOS's website so we can see them ? :(
But SymbOS is a great visual demo to impress AmigaOS users : look I have "win95" on my CPC. :D
had quite a success with it at a Demoscene big party full of AmigaOS users...
and I can only run the desktop background with my 128k... :laugh:
anyway both are great technical achievments.
Whoa CP/M sucks!
The tape benchmarks are missing too... 8)
Quote from: ralferoo on 20:17, 10 July 14
The tape benchmarks are missing too... 8)
I've heard that your tape-loaders beats FuturOS in loading time...
Quote from: Gryzor on 19:21, 10 July 14
Whoa CP/M sucks!
I didn't think it was any worse or better than AMSDOS.
But it's possible to speed up drive access in CP/M which I guess makes those Benchmarks meaningless.
CP/M was mostly legacy system because muh Z80/8080 clone.
Quote from: TFM on 22:18, 03 March 11
... can be found here:
Speedcheck - CPCWiki (http://cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Speedcheck)
Wow! Finally! Those long awaited benchmarks everyone was waiting for since Roland went to Space!
Roland went to Space. Why, he never told me! :'(
Quote from: Trebmint on 13:13, 10 July 14
Well thats the final nail in symbos
?? ?? ?? No the results are well. (Added one more value).
Quote from: CraigsBar on 14:53, 10 July 14
So futureos is faster. That was never a question. But symbos looks like a better technical feat. IMHO f-os is an unfriendly place when compared to symbos. Symbos won't die all the time I use it. And the sna launcher is awesome.
If you encounter a crash with FutureOS please let me know the details.
Quote from: mr_lou on 20:22, 10 July 14
I've heard that your tape-loaders beats FuturOS in loading time...
That's right, no tape loading under FutureOS.
@MacDeath (http://www.cpcwiki.eu/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=221): Yes, that's very high up on the TO DO list! :)
Quote from: TFM on 15:52, 11 July 14
If you encounter a crash with FutureOS please let me know the details.
I can not agree more, the feedback is very important; because despite of our own tests, it's always possible that something can fail and i can promise is much more helpful receive an email about a bug that need to be fixed, that reading in the forum how our "program" is bugged and better stay away of it.
Because in the first case we can do something to fix it and we discover about somebody using it and the problems he has using it, too.
Yes, that's 100000% right :) The smallest help is always appreciated, nobody can simulate any kind of situation. :)