Emulator Speed with Netbooks?

[oky2000]

I kicked off the trashy Windows XP Home installation from my NetBook .. this was the very very first thing I did.

 

I installed Linux and atari800 (and other Linux and PC specific stuff ofc) ...

 

The Emulator is running very well, as long as old Computers (Pentium-166 class) executed it in around 100% speed.

 

More fool you then, as XP is fine, probably the best OS Microcock ever produced and far more efficient than Linux if you can give it atleast 256mb of RAM If you have speed issues then stick to SP1 for XP Pro. Yes by all means remove ALL manufacturer added rubbish clogging up the registry and do a clean install of XP Pro yourself with Windows drivers at the ready on a USB flash drive.

 

I have a 266mhz Celeron Sony Picturebook (same size as today's netbooks) and it plays 700mb AVI DIVX/XVID rips full speed and even plays games on VICE full speed and full screen/windowed. And that's just a Celeron @ 266mhz. I have seen full sized laptops with a Pentium II 366mhz that can't play back these AVIs at 24fps.

 

Of course I am a laptop genius but nevertheless.......

[dwhyte]

More fool you then, as XP is fine, probably the best OS Microcock ever produced and far more efficient than Linux...

 

Eh? What the hell are you smokin'?

Edited July 23, 2010 by dwhyte

[+LS650]

Windows more efficient than Linux?? At what? Maybe from the point of view of running a particular app or something, but from any technical perspective that's sheer nonsense.

[S1500]

I remember I couldn't go past 1985 or so in MAME on my EEE PC 701. And that was on a Linux MAME build.

 

On my Acer Aspire One, I can run almost anything for MAME & MESS, provided it isn't a 2000ish arcade cab.

[akator]

I remember I couldn't go past 1985 or so in MAME on my EEE PC 701. And that was on a Linux MAME build.

 

On my Acer Aspire One, I can run almost anything for MAME & MESS, provided it isn't a 2000ish arcade cab.

 

The Eee PC 701 was "underclocked" to 630/675 MHz for battery longevity. 900MHz performance had to be activated manually. Many of the Eee PCs also use ACPI for power management and processor speed. Asus' ACPI software isn't very reliable in Windows, and the Linux equivalent is often even flakier, all of which can lead to sluggish performance because the OS, hardware, and BIOS are not communicating together properly.

 

Our Eee PC 901 running Ubuntu 10.04 performs very nicely. We have smooth full-screen Hulu playback, whereas before it was choppy at best. MAME and MESS on the 901 have always performed better than I expected, able to handle arcade games with large scaling sprites like Outrun and Street Fighter. Because of the Intel video, I never expected MAME to handle Ridge Racer, House of the Dead, or other 3D arcade titles

Edited July 23, 2010 by akator

[oky2000]

Windows more efficient than Linux?? At what? Maybe from the point of view of running a particular app or something, but from any technical perspective that's sheer nonsense.

 

Well after installing various different operating systems from 98 to Vista from 2002 to 2008 as part of my business selling over 1000 laptops of just about every make and model I can tell you that XP and 98 have virtually no difference in speed unlike XP to Vista/Win 7. Memory is the only issue XP had and 128-192mb is the breakpoint...64mb is unusable...but then Ubuntu runs like shit on 64mb too. Below 128mb yes it IS a dog but CPU usage is no worse than 98 so even a 266mhz Celeron netbook can play high quality DVD rips of 700mb using DIVX. I doubt Linux does this any faster given the same 266mhz Celeron mobile CPU AND there isn't a single version of Linux that can run a GUI on an 8mb 100mhz 486 based Toshiba Libretto 30CT/30CTK as well as Windows 95 runs. Sorry if these technical facts upset Linux fan boys but I've been there, done that, and paid my taxes for half a decade doing all this 'fun' stuff.

 

Yes Windows XP has many problems, and Linux is more stable and less prone to Virus's but unlike Vista/Windows 7 which do actually require more CPU power than a Celeron 266mhz CPU to play back a 700mb DVDrip AVI in 480p....at least 200-300% more CPU speed, XP is not a CPU hog and 256mb is not even an option on anything other than 10 year old laptops/ultra portable machines AKA netbooks.

 

My point was removing a bogged down bloated copy of XP for something like Ubuntu wasn't necessary, XP SP1 boots in 25 seconds on my little 266mhz Sony VAIO picture book...and does everything that your average laptop user wants it to do (browse/mail/music/video)

 

Now if someone wants to post up a youtube video of a 166mhz Pentium 1 PC with 64mb RAM playing back a 700mb AVI file of 720x480 resolution in 24bit colour and 24 frames per second via Linux I will happily retract my statement, but as I know it is impossible then really it just shows ignorance amongst people about exactly what the problems are with Windows and it's many different versions running on 'old' 'useless' hardware and exchanged it for non standard software.

 

I know Windows is pretty bad, but at least I know when and why...rather than a blanket 'windows is bollox, wipe it and install Linux' comments of inexperienced fanboys