Kickstart 3.1.4 (46.143) ROM image for Amiga 500 wanted
 

Anyone? I need it to test some stuff. I already found the A1200 ROM, but I need the A500 one for comparison

You can buy it here: http://www.hyperion-entertainment.co...88-amigaos-314

Yup. I know. Thanks. I know my question is slightly against the rules, but I merely want to try it briefly against the A1200 ROM, which causes slow performance in the dirt old E-UAE 0.8.29-WIP4. I normally run Kickstart 2.04/Workbench 2.1.

Those ROMs are hopefully not *found*, but *bought*. And if you "found" it, I would be interested where so we can dry out pirate sources.

There you don't go:

For the record, I'm not pro this piracy whatsoever, but I've had some email correspondence with Ignacio Gully who you might know, and who had some issues with a program crashing with their 3.1.4.x branch. I got the 3.1.4 stuff only to see whether it worked properly in that one, and it did, although running pretty slow in my dirt old E-UAE 0.8.29-WIP4 for some reason. The emulator is probably to blame here. Anyway, I'm hardly going to use it on a daily basis.

In case you're remotely interested, Thomas, the program that caused 3.1.4.x to crash is 'View' from my BulletExamples package at Aminet, that demonstrates the use of outline fonts and the separate Bullet engine in WB 2.1 and up. Most of the code is from a 1992 Amiga Mail article by Commodore themselves, for that matter.

Well, let's not create a problem where no problem exists, but I would prefer if this would work on a more formal basis, e.g. as in "joining the beta tester group". It's not much of a hurdle, really.

The reason why I'm worried is that I want to avoid giving any party reasons to shut down ongoing development.

I'm not sure whether you reported back to Ignatio. If that crash is fixed, all is fine. We haven't touched bullet since 3.1.4.

I haven't heard anything about their fixing it. I thought I should mention it to you as well. I'm not really interested in 3.1.x as such, apart from wishing that it stays backwards compatible as much as possible, since I suppose that's the whole idea behind the 3.1.x versioning scheme.

I really don't see a reason to join a beta tester group just because there is one program (that isn't even a proper application, merely some example code) that crashes in your current development branch while it works perfectly in both 2.1, 3.1 and 3.1.4. I have reported which program it concerns, the rest is really up to you guys to fix.

A PM would have been better I guess.

No matter the reason (noble or not), EAB rules clearly state that such links should not be posted:
http://eab.abime.net/faq.php?faq=eab..._ks_wb_faqitem

It doesn't crash here, but you have a bug in the program. The UCS command line parameter needs a /A modifier as it is required by the program, and if not supplied, BulletExample creates a MuForce hit in StrToLong() because it receives a NULL pointer as argument. Also, I would suggest to include a /A in the filename as the program is pretty pointless without one.

As a matter of courtesy, I would suggest to include a makefile along with the sources so it is less searching.

Regardless of your intention, you either bought it, or it's piracy. For a similar example, if I wanted to make sure my OpenOffice document opens correctly in MS Office, it's still piracy if I download a dodgy copy of Office "just to check", even if I never intend to use it later.

Aside from anything else, if you're getting ROMs from a dodgy source, how can you be sure they haven't been modified? People can and do modify ROM images for their own purposes (for example, swapping out intuition.library), and there's always a chance any perceived issues you're having are caused by such modifications. Have you checked their checksums against the originals?

But it seems Thomas is probably pointing you in the right direction. As was pointed out to you in the Facebook group, changes in the OS that cause code to fall over aren't necessarily the fault of the update. If the code was doing something wrong and just happened to work under previous versions, it's still buggy code, not a buggy OS.

Everyone is a policeman now. Wow.

No, it's about keeping a fragile small scene alive for as long as possible. If you're gonna be a parasite of the few people that are still driving this community in terms of development, you're murdering the Amiga scene.

And you may say, oh they didn't even get money for it. I am pretty sure, that piracy will still demotivate them nonetheless.

Every time I have met people that use software I write (or worked on), it makes me happy.

I even help obvious pirates from time to time. One had a messy and strange linking problem with C++. So I told him that since he did not have a license I could only give him very limited help (which we did if we could spare some minutes). I gave him just a short advice on what to do. The next day he came back with: "The hugest to you thanks. It would be improbable that I with it have consulted independently. You the present guru, and about such technical support I could not dream at all."

It made my day. I do not know if he still use a pirate copy or whether this eventually either directly or indirectly resulted in some sale at some later point. In most cases probably not, but we tried to help people when we could, just as what Thomas does above.

Yeah, ******** pathetic. All these hypocrites pirated back in the Amiga days.

back in the days most of us were kids with very little money or young adult without income, , we bought some games but wanted them all, now well I hope that it has changed.