WB 3.1, 3.5 or 3.9?

Muzer · 20 January 2010, 18:19

I'm going to update CWB on my Amiga. Since I'll be updating CWB Lite (older version) to CWB Full (newer version), for which there obviously isn't an upgrade pack, I thought I may as well change a few other things too - like revise my decision on which OS to use. I am currently using WB3.1.

So, I'm basically asking: what would you guys recommend for an Amiga 1200 with 6MB RAM, the standard processor and a hardware clock, Kickstart 3.0 ROMs but other than that just a stock Amiga? I'll be playing lots o' WHDLoad games as well as non-WHDLoad games on it - which one would be best? Will 3.5/3.9 even work with 3.0 kickstart?

fitzsteve · 20 January 2010, 18:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muzer

I'm going to update CWB on my Amiga. Since I'll be updating CWB Lite (older version) to CWB Full (newer version), for which there obviously isn't an upgrade pack, I thought I may as well change a few other things too - like revise my decision on which OS to use. I am currently using WB3.1.

So, I'm basically asking: what would you guys recommend for an Amiga 1200 with 6MB RAM, the standard processor and a hardware clock, Kickstart 3.0 ROMs but other than that just a stock Amiga? I'll be playing lots o' WHDLoad games as well as non-WHDLoad games on it - which one would be best? Will 3.5/3.9 even work with 3.0 kickstart?

I dont think you can use 3.5 with 3.0 roms and certainly not OS3.9

Try the Classic WB ADV (not SP as that runs a little slow on a stock 1200) The ADV has a superb colour Icon pack, I am using it on my stock 1200 with 3.0 roms and 8mb Ram upgrade (or 4mb if I am using the PCMCIA port) Works great for WHDLoad, looks amazing on RGB Scart and runs nice and quick.

Give it a try

Steve.

musojon74 · 20 January 2010, 18:50

Yo! Without some fiddling you can't use wb3.9 on your machine due to 3.0 roms. I don't think you can use 3.5 either. So without upgrading time / softkicking a higher Rom you are stuck with 3.1. Also you would need a beefier CPU for os3.9. Cheers Muso

Bloodwych · 20 January 2010, 19:05

Agree with the above. I run the ADV version on my A1200 - stock 68020 and 10MB RAM. I run it on a multisync monitor.

Many people seem to ignore or overlook the ADV version (except Steve - nice to know), but it's my favourite pack. The icons have a superb 16 colour optimized palette which is locked in place using Scalos and performs really well on slower machines.

Of course a major decision is your display - can you put up with interlaced screenmodes? The ADV pack is compatible with MagicTV which works only with 16 colour screenmodes to reduce flicker.

I'd rather use the FULL pack than put up with flicker. Full pack looks really good on low res displays, similar to the LITE.

fitzsteve · 20 January 2010, 20:40

I overlooked the advanced pack at first too but trying it recently and I am actually starting to prefer it over SP! There are so many nice icons.

I dont know what all the fuss is about screen modes I only get a bit of flicker on the icons on advanced SP other then that its a nice sharp picture.

Bloodwych · 20 January 2010, 20:44

Depends on your display though Steve - some people have displays that flicker quite badly in interlaced.

You have one that works well with it. LCDTV's are certainly better than old CRT's where flicker was aweful. Many LCDTV's fix flicker.

fitzsteve · 20 January 2010, 21:00

I guess I will find out when I setup the spare miggy upstairs it the spare room. I'll be using the 1084 I have in the loft.

gulliver · 20 January 2010, 21:32

As mentioned before i suggest you use WB3.1 on your setup. If you need some specific AmigaOS 3.5/3.9 feature, dont worry as there is nearly allways a 3.1 equivalent!
Furthermore, with your setup, wb3.1 will help you not to eat all your ram!

Of course, if you really want wb3.5/3.9, and you are really motivated to do some advanced tweaking, you will, at some point achieve a functional 3.5/3.9 installation.

Good Luck!

prowler · 20 January 2010, 23:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by fitzsteve

I dont think you can use 3.5 with 3.0 roms and certainly not OS3.9

Quote:

Originally Posted by musojon74

Yo! Without some fiddling you can't use wb3.9 on your machine due to 3.0 roms. I don't think you can use 3.5 either.

I too thought that you couldn't run Amiga OS 3.5 with 3.0 ROMs, but I'm sure that I've read here somewhere that Boo Boo has managed to do just that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gulliver

Of course, if you really want wb3.5/3.9, and you are really motivated to do some advanced tweaking, you will, at some point achieve a functional 3.5/3.9 installation.

If Boo Boo can do it...

Retro1234 · 21 January 2010, 11:28

With 3.0 Roms you can use SKick or Blitzkick or some other Kick tool to Load 3.1 Roms into memory this requires a reboot and will allow you to use OS3.5/3.9

Im running a bit of a mix of 3.0/3.5/3.9 on my A1200/030 dirrect on 3.0 Roms using a tool called setversion that just fools WB into your using 40. instead of 39.

I find this setup alot more responsive than when I had Workbench 3.0 or 3.1 with lots of different plugins to produce the same affect.

Things I like about 3.5/3.9 are the look, Progess bar when copying stuff ,Dock bar,UnArc, Editpad apart from that you might as well use 3.0 or ClassicWb

AmigaFriend · 21 January 2010, 11:54

As BooBoo said there is no problem using a kick tool for installing and using 3.5/3.9.

I used BlizKick in my A4000 with 3.0 roms to run OS 3.9 and worked really well. Using the MAPROM feature of the processor card your 3.1 rom will stay resident on RAM till a cold reboot is made. In my case i went from 3.0 to blizkicked 3.1 then BB2 3.9 rom without problems.

But Muzer, unless you upgrade to a 030 acellerator, i much say you should stick with 3.0/3.1 and using a Classic WB pack as stated by others, because a stock 020/14 has not enough mustard to deal with 3.5 or the even more demanding 3.9. Besides the processor, 2+4Mb ram is a bit short for those OS'es.

All the best with your config!

Retro1234 · 21 January 2010, 12:06

I will just add I dont have a blizzard card so tried Skick and for what ever reason maybe because the rom is loaded in Chip memory it slowed down Workbench quite alot for me.-Thats why that was not a option for me.

EmuChicken · 21 January 2010, 15:05

you forgot to add "wb3.0" to your list ^-^
... IMO I dont think theres much difference between 3.0 + 3.1 though...
- especially if you just wanna play the classics!

Jonathan Drain · 21 January 2010, 17:02

Related, I got a stock A1200 but no workbench disks. Is it worth looking for WB3.1 over WB3.0?

prowler · 21 January 2010, 17:09

Definitely. Workbench 3.1 fixes many bugs in 3.0. Besides, if you have Kickstart 3.1 ROMs, you really shouldn't be looking for an earlier Workbench version.

Jonathan Drain · 21 January 2010, 17:36

I only have 3.0 ROMs (v39.106).

Bloodwych · 21 January 2010, 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmuChicken

you forgot to add "wb3.0" to your list ^-^
... IMO I dont think theres much difference between 3.0 + 3.1 though...
- especially if you just wanna play the classics!

I agree. Been using 3.0 for years with 3.0 ROMS and never had a single problem. I do run Scalos on top of it however.

Some people run Workbench 3.1 with 3.0 ROMS but for general use, there isn't much difference so why not run the right version with the right ROM set to avoid potential issues.

prowler · 21 January 2010, 17:44

One major difference between the 3.0 and 3.1 ROMs is that a delay was introduced in the boot process to let older hard disks initialize properly. 3.0 ROMs don't detect some older hard disks properly for this reason.

However, it's still worth looking for Workbench 3.1 disks IMO, if you can find them.

Bloodwych · 21 January 2010, 17:51

I heard that prowler - my A1200 used to need booting twice in order for enough spinup time. Didn't bother me too much. Now I have a drive which spins up first time.

The extra delay is sometimes a bit of a pain, especially for people without hard drives. As you said though, if you can get 3.1 ROMS then you do have more options and Workbench 3.1+ bugfixes.

20 January 2010, 18:19	#1
Muzer Registered User Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: UK Posts: 146	WB 3.1, 3.5 or 3.9? I'm going to update CWB on my Amiga. Since I'll be updating CWB Lite (older version) to CWB Full (newer version), for which there obviously isn't an upgrade pack, I thought I may as well change a few other things too - like revise my decision on which OS to use. I am currently using WB3.1. So, I'm basically asking: what would you guys recommend for an Amiga 1200 with 6MB RAM, the standard processor and a hardware clock, Kickstart 3.0 ROMs but other than that just a stock Amiga? I'll be playing lots o' WHDLoad games as well as non-WHDLoad games on it - which one would be best? Will 3.5/3.9 even work with 3.0 kickstart?

20 January 2010, 20:44	#6
Bloodwych Moderator Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: I'm behind you! Posts: 3,763	Depends on your display though Steve - some people have displays that flicker quite badly in interlaced. You have one that works well with it. LCDTV's are certainly better than old CRT's where flicker was aweful. Many LCDTV's fix flicker. Last edited by Bloodwych; 20 January 2010 at 20:49.

21 January 2010, 11:28	#10
Retro1234 Phone Homer Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: 5150 Posts: 5,775	With 3.0 Roms you can use SKick or Blitzkick or some other Kick tool to Load 3.1 Roms into memory this requires a reboot and will allow you to use OS3.5/3.9 Im running a bit of a mix of 3.0/3.5/3.9 on my A1200/030 dirrect on 3.0 Roms using a tool called setversion that just fools WB into your using 40. instead of 39. I find this setup alot more responsive than when I had Workbench 3.0 or 3.1 with lots of different plugins to produce the same affect. Things I like about 3.5/3.9 are the look, Progess bar when copying stuff ,Dock bar,UnArc, Editpad apart from that you might as well use 3.0 or ClassicWb Last edited by Retro1234; 21 January 2010 at 11:34.

20 January 2010, 18:50	#3
musojon74 Registered User Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: The World Age: 50 Posts: 476	Yo! Without some fiddling you can't use wb3.9 on your machine due to 3.0 roms. I don't think you can use 3.5 either. So without upgrading time / softkicking a higher Rom you are stuck with 3.1. Also you would need a beefier CPU for os3.9. Cheers Muso

20 January 2010, 19:05	#4
Bloodwych Moderator Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: I'm behind you! Posts: 3,763	Agree with the above. I run the ADV version on my A1200 - stock 68020 and 10MB RAM. I run it on a multisync monitor. Many people seem to ignore or overlook the ADV version (except Steve - nice to know), but it's my favourite pack. The icons have a superb 16 colour optimized palette which is locked in place using Scalos and performs really well on slower machines. Of course a major decision is your display - can you put up with interlaced screenmodes? The ADV pack is compatible with MagicTV which works only with 16 colour screenmodes to reduce flicker. I'd rather use the FULL pack than put up with flicker. Full pack looks really good on low res displays, similar to the LITE.

20 January 2010, 20:40	#5
fitzsteve Professional slacker! Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Kent, UK Age: 44 Posts: 6,683	I overlooked the advanced pack at first too but trying it recently and I am actually starting to prefer it over SP! There are so many nice icons. I dont know what all the fuss is about screen modes I only get a bit of flicker on the icons on advanced SP other then that its a nice sharp picture.

20 January 2010, 21:00	#7
fitzsteve Professional slacker! Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Kent, UK Age: 44 Posts: 6,683	I guess I will find out when I setup the spare miggy upstairs it the spare room. I'll be using the 1084 I have in the loft.

20 January 2010, 21:32	#8
gulliver BoingBagged Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The South of nowhere Age: 46 Posts: 2,358	As mentioned before i suggest you use WB3.1 on your setup. If you need some specific AmigaOS 3.5/3.9 feature, dont worry as there is nearly allways a 3.1 equivalent! Furthermore, with your setup, wb3.1 will help you not to eat all your ram! Of course, if you really want wb3.5/3.9, and you are really motivated to do some advanced tweaking, you will, at some point achieve a functional 3.5/3.9 installation. Good Luck!

21 January 2010, 11:54	#11
AmigaFriend Registered User Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: CLI Posts: 1,462	As BooBoo said there is no problem using a kick tool for installing and using 3.5/3.9. I used BlizKick in my A4000 with 3.0 roms to run OS 3.9 and worked really well. Using the MAPROM feature of the processor card your 3.1 rom will stay resident on RAM till a cold reboot is made. In my case i went from 3.0 to blizkicked 3.1 then BB2 3.9 rom without problems. But Muzer, unless you upgrade to a 030 acellerator, i much say you should stick with 3.0/3.1 and using a Classic WB pack as stated by others, because a stock 020/14 has not enough mustard to deal with 3.5 or the even more demanding 3.9. Besides the processor, 2+4Mb ram is a bit short for those OS'es. All the best with your config!

21 January 2010, 12:06	#12
Retro1234 Phone Homer Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: 5150 Posts: 5,775	I will just add I dont have a blizzard card so tried Skick and for what ever reason maybe because the rom is loaded in Chip memory it slowed down Workbench quite alot for me.-Thats why that was not a option for me.

21 January 2010, 15:05	#13
EmuChicken Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nagoya, Japan (moved!) Age: 41 Posts: 746	you forgot to add "wb3.0" to your list ^-^ ... IMO I dont think theres much difference between 3.0 + 3.1 though... - especially if you just wanna play the classics!

21 January 2010, 17:02	#14
Jonathan Drain Registered User Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Sector K240 Posts: 338	Related, I got a stock A1200 but no workbench disks. Is it worth looking for WB3.1 over WB3.0?

21 January 2010, 17:09	#15
prowler Global Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Sidcup, England Posts: 10,300	Definitely. Workbench 3.1 fixes many bugs in 3.0. Besides, if you have Kickstart 3.1 ROMs, you really shouldn't be looking for an earlier Workbench version.

21 January 2010, 17:36	#16
Jonathan Drain Registered User Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Sector K240 Posts: 338	I only have 3.0 ROMs (v39.106).

21 January 2010, 17:44	#18
prowler Global Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Sidcup, England Posts: 10,300	One major difference between the 3.0 and 3.1 ROMs is that a delay was introduced in the boot process to let older hard disks initialize properly. 3.0 ROMs don't detect some older hard disks properly for this reason. However, it's still worth looking for Workbench 3.1 disks IMO, if you can find them.

21 January 2010, 17:51	#19
Bloodwych Moderator Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: I'm behind you! Posts: 3,763	I heard that prowler - my A1200 used to need booting twice in order for enough spinup time. Didn't bother me too much. Now I have a drive which spins up first time. The extra delay is sometimes a bit of a pain, especially for people without hard drives. As you said though, if you can get 3.1 ROMS then you do have more options and Workbench 3.1+ bugfixes.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)