Symbos values in Speedcheck page...

[TFM]

Since a while I work on this page:

Speedcheck - CPCWiki

The measured values of the speed of Symbos have been edited by Prodatron.
Now some values are 10 times faster or so. And that's totally off reality in some case.

I don't want to start a new flame war in the Wiki pages itself. Therefore I ask here for an independent opinion. It would be great to have one here. A non biased person, who is able to do speed tests with real hardware.

Example:
Erasing 64 files can not be done in Symbos in 1.3 seconds like Prodatron tells. it takes way longer: 32 seconds. I did that test a couple of times. If I missed something tell me what it is. Or tell how to do so quick. I used the Symbos system tools for performing tests.


Other changed time values can also not be reproduced.

We are talking here about a real CPC and real hardware, no emulation and no HxC. 

If proof of the altered values can not be provided then I will return the values which I have carefully measured by myself.

[CraigsBar]

Since a while I work on this page:

Speedcheck - CPCWiki

The measured values of the speed of Symbos have been edited by Prodatron.
Now some values are 10 times faster or so. And that's totally off reality in some case.

I don't want to start a new flame war in the Wiki pages itself. Therefore I ask here for an independent opinion. It would be great to have one here. A non biased person, who is able to do speed tests with real hardware.

Example:
Erasing 64 files can not be done in Symbos in 1.3 seconds like Prodatron tells. it takes way longer: 32 seconds. I did that test a couple of times. If I missed something tell me what it is. Or tell how to do so quick. I used the Symbos system tools for performing tests.


Other changed time values can also not be reproduced.

We are talking here about a real CPC and real hardware, no emulation and no HxC. 

If proof of the altered values can not be provided then I will return the values which I have carefully measured by myself.

OK Some tests, First I used the below basic program to write 64 ASCII files to a DATA format disc


10 cls
20 for f=1 to 64
30 openout str$(f)+".txt"
40 print #9,"File: ",f
50 print "Writing file number",f
60 closeout
70 next


this creates 64 files on a data formatted floppy called '1.txt' to '64.txt' The hardware used was a genuine 3.5 inch DD disk in a Samsung SFD-321B drive.


the process takes about 2 minutes to fill the directory with the files.


First deletion with Symbos was using SymCommander 32 seconds
Second test again with SymCommander 28 seconds
Third test with SymCommander 31 seconds


Average with SymCommander = 30 seconds


First deletion with SymShell (Windowed) 1.7 seconds
Second deletion with SymShell (Windowed) 1.5 seconds
Third deletion with SymShell (Windowed) 1.5 seconds


Fouth deletion with SymShell (Maximised) 1.2 seconds
Fifth deletion with SymShell (Maximised) 1.4 seconds
Sixth deletion with SymShell (Maximised) 1.1 seconds


conclusion... The delays seem to be related purely in SymCommander, but then again GUI apps are always gonna be slower than command line ones. taking my SymShell timings both windowed and maximised seem to average out the figure on the wiki page.


By far the longest time was creating the 64 files in between each test


Regards


Craig

[TFM]

Ok, so the one has to use the Shell to archive decent speed. Thanks for your tests, this explains already some things to me. 


But how was the loading of files done in Symshell? The move command does not support two drives. Something like "move a:Approm.exe b:" does not work. 

[Prodatron]

What's the meaning (or intention ) of this "Speedcheck" page? Comparing the base functions of operating systems, native disc tools or tools running on top of an OS? Does it make sense to compare apples and oranges? No, not really.
Now there are even values for SymShell as well as for SymCommander, that's funny The whole stuff isn't really compareable, but maybe someone feels better again.

[TFM]

The meaning of this page is very easy to explain: It serves to compare basic features which can be found in different DOS and OS. It does not intend to deal with specialties of certain OS or DOS, neither is it intended for complex high-level functions which can hardly be compared.

Everyone is free to create a Comparison page for high-level functions or what ever, IMHO it would make limited sense.

Therefore this page deals with basic functionality which can be found everywhere. And this can very well be compared! The data is IMHO very valuable, since it shows the limits of a particular system.

I wish we would have more data from other computers though. 

[Prodatron]

As I said we have...
- direct usage of operating system functions
- tools accessing the hardware directly without using an OS
- tools sitting on top of an OS and using its functions
...all mixed in these tables. Those results are not usefull (adding both SymShell and SymCommander values shows this in a very good way).

What would be needed is a benchmark tool, which works in the same way on all platforms. Currently it's just playing around to get some funny results.

[Bryce]

The entire page is pointless. The speed is limited to the CPCs FDC, so maybe one program/OS will be slightly faster than the other, yahoo, I saved 0.8 Seconds of my life on a computer that I regularly load games from TAPE on! It's like comparing the fastest Gondola in Venice. We don't use these computers for their speed.

A possible sensible comparison would be CPC vs Atari SIO, C64 IEC or some other system that used a different controller, so that the hardware solutions are compared.

Bryce.

[TFM]

Ah, I see some people trying to wind around... but ok, everybody has a different POV and every POV is equal rightful valid.

It's like everything in life, some like it - and some not.

During the last years I got most often positive feedback for this page because it shows how real working speed on a computer is - and NOT just the theoretical values which *could* be archived.

IMHO it the heck doesn't matter how quick an FDC *could* be, as long as it can't be used that way by the user.

Furthermore the Speedcheck page compares only DOS / Tools / OS in the way they are used by the User!
Yes, in all cases the UI/GUI was used in the way the real User has to use them. So it's real life. 

[TFM]

@Prodatron : How did you actually measure the values for copy a file of 40 KB or 176 KB on floppy disc. See here:


Speedcheck - CPCWiki


I used your SymComander and got significant bigger values. Can you please explain how did you load the file?

[Trebmint]

I think all this page probably really proves that FutureOs is quick... its without doubt that fastest disk copying tool on the CPC

[CraigsBar]

But does anyone care? I don't think anyone uses a CPC for speed. FutureOS and SymbOS serve different purposes and both have a place in the new CPC world. FutureOS stands to be an awesome gaming os. SymbOS stands as a desktop is for general computing. I am waiting for Ethernet, or proper network through the minibooster so the symbos web browser can be completed, and a graphical ftp client written. I want to be able to browse  nvg on a CPC. And write the dsk files with dedumper. Off topic but *that* would be awesome.

[Trebmint]

I agree nobody really cares about speed but I think it proves Symbos must be badly coded

[Prodatron]

@TFM: With SymShell. Btw I wonder what's your problem here?

@CraigsBar: It seems, that Ethernet becomes reality for the CPC soon! There are currently two very interesting projects going on (W5100 like on the MSX and ESP8266 which is planned for the Enterprise, too) Can't wait to reactivate Dr.Zeds SymFTP client as well as all the other web stuff 2015 will be the network year for sure!

CU,
Prodatron

[TFM]

@TFM: With SymShell. Btw I wonder what's your problem here?

Well, how did you do it? Which commands did you use?

About speed: Of course a lot of people care about it! And on CPC as much as on PC. Examples needed?
- If a game is to slow the scrolling is jerky and it looks bad.
- If the loading of something take more then two cups of coffee I will run out of coffee too quick
- I really like to be able to work from disc and have things up in seconds than in minutes from tape
- If there is anything you can NOT buy then it's TIME - it does not matter which computer you use
- For your PC you (or most of you) waste a high amount of money to make it more quick, so why not on CPC

I see no reason to smite the CPC instead of taking it serious for what ever you like to do with it. And yes, for a serous system speed is important. It's the basement of everything IMHO. 

[Prodatron]

I used the COPY command, what else?

- hardware scrolling in games isn't a feature of an OS
- we are not talking about loading from tape
- 6 or 10 seconds - not enough time for a coffee at all
- instead of including a very fast but "static" disc copy tool (which is rather the job of native tools at least for 8bit machines) an OS should be able to provide flexible functions for random file access (having a file pointer, seeking to any position, reading and writing any amount of data), especially when you are handling larger files; this even allows streaming huge amounts of data on the CPC; CP/M already supported this in the 70ies; the reason that AMSDOS doesn't provide it (or only in a very poor way using IN/OUT CHAR) isn't a reason why an OS shouldn't have it
- compared to IDE it's all the same with the speed of discs it makes much more sense to support such modern expansions for the CPC instead of nitpicking with a few seconds regarding the speed of a floppy disc

[CraigsBar]

@TFM: With SymShell. Btw I wonder what's your problem here?

@CraigsBar: It seems, that Ethernet becomes reality for the CPC soon! There are currently two very interesting projects going on (W5100 like on the MSX and ESP8266 which is planned for the Enterprise, too) Can't wait to reactivate Dr.Zeds SymFTP client as well as all the other web stuff 2015 will be the network year for sure!

CU,
Prodatron

for that I really cannot wait. So excited about it.

[andycadley]

I see no reason to smite the CPC instead of taking it serious for what ever you like to do with it. And yes, for a serous system speed is important. It's the basement of everything IMHO. 

For an interactive, multitasking system, speed is probably a lot less important than overall responsiveness. It doesn't really matter if a PC with Windows 2000 takes a tad longer to format a disk overall if you can get on with other things in the mean time. Testing raw speed alone is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

To be honest, the whole page reads a bit like a slightly embarrassing attempt to "prove" FutureOS is the "best", bit cringeworthy tbh.

[TFM]

Well, we obviously have all different POV's - that's human. But a little bit of respect for everybody's work should be there. IMHO some post lack that, but I may misunderstand that. 


Actually, Symbos does pretty well. As you told it's a multitasking OS. So yes, the SpeedCheck page actually really proves how quick the CPC can be even in multitasking - using SymbOS. 


Please feel free to add other categories which can be tested for different computers / DOS / OS / whatever. New ideas are always welcome and helpful. 

[TFM]

I used the COPY command, what else?

Well, which syntax did you use? That's all I ask. Because common syntax doesn't work (common to other CPC OS / DOS like CP/M or X-DDOS). I don't want to bother you, but it would be nice to know. 

[TFM]

Ok, here what I did:

- Start SymbOS 2.1
- Click at SymShell, error message tells me to change disc
- Change Disc to Symbos CPC Applications
- Click at SymShell, window opens
- enter command full to have full screen
- Enter command HELP to show HELP screen, there is no COPY command shown!
- Enter command COPY, get error message "Syntax error"

Obviously I'm not an Symbos expert, so how does it work?


EDIT: I researched the Symbos homepage and took a look in the Manual, it does not talk about that COPY command. So can somebody please tell how this copy command was used?


@Prodatron : Can you eventually tell how you used that COPY command?

[Munchausen]

Is it not the same as MS-DOS?

i.e.

copy source destination

Possibly with wildcard and recursion options. Does it not have a /h, /help, -h or --help option to list the options?