CompuServe Messages

IT is true, in principal, and in theory. However, the Amiga's DOS throws in a wrinkle that skews the numbers – the dos is so slow, for instance in icon handling and so on, that although the interface itself runs quicker, both are fast enough so that the major amount of time is spent in the DOS routines. FFS corrects one of the bad bottlenecks in the system; programs that utilize the disk for data transfer directly will realize a much larger improvement from a DMA controller. Program loading, file copies, and so forth, are still choked up by various DOS areas; for instance, the requirement that a program be linked at load time causes the FFS program loads to be only slightly faster, even though the disk activity, per se, is greatly reduced. To sum it up, yes, the DMA controllers have an advantadge. In normal Amiga system use, I don't think you'll see it very much. DMA controllers will shine when multitaking is involved WITH the file system – DMA transfers will not, in and of themselves, slow down other tasks, while a programmed I/o controller most certainly will. I think that's the most important factor; You have to consider that we do not generally use the multitasking as it was anticipated that we would; we generally run only one or two main programs, and some backround ones that mostly sleep, like clocks, screenblankers, dirutils, music programs (Excluding DMCS – a cpu hogger) and so on; the reality in these types of situations is that the CPU is really running one task, mostly – the one you're using to access the disk; because of that, again, you won't see a lot of difference. Generally. Now, bear in mind, this is an opinion only, and based on feel more than benchies. Since this is so prone to how YOU use your system, it's almost impossible to be concrete about it. It *is* my opinion, though. –Ben–