English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Support > New to Emulation or Amiga scene

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 11 July 2019, 19:00   #1
steve_mynott
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: london
Posts: 41
AmigaOS 3.1.x v 3.9

What are the main pros and cons of 3.1.x (the new ones) and 3.9 on an A1200 and running emulation?
steve_mynott is offline  
Old 11 July 2019, 23:08   #2
Daedalus
Registered User

Daedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dublin, then Glasgow
Posts: 4,213
3.9 completely updated many parts of the OS, including adding large hard drive support, greatly improved Workbench, updated printing subsystem, new GUI engine and prefs to go with it, new icon system, improved datatypes system, new Shell and plenty of other under-the-hood things. It also added a lot of extra features through additional tools, e.g. Amidock, various media players, PPC plugins, TCP stack etc. It was software-only however, so the new ROM modules needed to be loaded from hard drive and the machine rebooted to actually run them.

3.1.4 is an update of 3.1, but many of the core components are actually based on the 3.9 improved parts, with some less significant fixes and improvements on the 3.9 versions. Crucially, 3.1.4 bakes some key new parts into a ROM, so the load-and-reboot step of 3.9 can be avoided in most cases. This is especially useful for large hard drive support as it allows access to the entire drive from cold. It doesn't, however, include many of the extras that 3.9 had - the dock, the extra utilities, the ReAction GUI engine, the TCP stack, the asynchronous Workbench, the hotkey editor...

So both have a lot in common, but come from different standpoints. 3.1.4 is closer in feel to 3.1, but carries over many of the internal features that made 3.9 such an improvement.
Daedalus is offline  
Old 12 July 2019, 21:35   #3
steve_mynott
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: london
Posts: 41
Thanks for the great explanation! Is it still possible to buy AmigaOS 3.9? Sadly it's out of stock on the links I found.
steve_mynott is offline  
Old 12 July 2019, 21:51   #4
cloverskull
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: California
Posts: 64
Unfortunately not, sorry man.
cloverskull is offline  
Old 12 July 2019, 22:41   #5
Thomas Richter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 256
Calm down, and take a step back, please. This has nothing to do with "modern" or "not". It has something to do with "available resources". CBM was not a mega-corp, but it had at least a development department, and a hand full of full-time software developers in house.

All that was available for 3.9 and 3.1.4 as well is a small set of hobby enthusiasts that can work at best a one-digit number of hours per week on such a project.
Thomas Richter is offline  
Old 12 July 2019, 22:45   #6
malko
Ex nihilo nihil

malko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: CH
Posts: 2,109
Even if you wrote you plan to use it under emulation, AOS 3.9 will lead the speed of your Amiga in the abyssal depths of slowness.
Go better the 3.1.4.1 road
malko is offline  
Old 12 July 2019, 23:03   #7
AMIGASYSTEM
Registered User
AMIGASYSTEM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Brindisi (Italy)
Posts: 5,180
It is malko but the slowness is only in the system start-up, for the reasons we know. Once the OS 3.9 system is loaded on an Emulator it becomes very fast, structurally much more advanced and functional than OS 3.1.4.
AMIGASYSTEM is offline  
Old 13 July 2019, 20:07   #8
Korodny
Zone Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 697
Most of 3.9's noticable improvements are in the GUI/Workbench area. If you plan to use the system mostly for gaming, forget about 3.9 and get a decent game launcher and filemanager instead - the main drawback will be lack of support for bigger drives, but you will not need more than 2 GB of space anyway.

If you do have a slightly better CPU and want to have a pretty Workbench, use 3.9 or 3.1.4. The more colorful icons eat up more CPU ressources, and once you start prettyfying the whole thing, you'll want to add more patches and stuff which eats up even more CPU cycles.
Korodny is offline  
Old 13 July 2019, 20:15   #9
Retro1234
Boo

Retro1234's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 5150
Posts: 4,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMIGASYSTEM View Post
It is malko but the slowness is only in the system start-up, for the reasons we know. Once the OS 3.9 system is loaded on an Emulator it becomes very fast, structurally much more advanced and functional than OS 3.1.4.
I think some people are getting Aros and OS3.9 mixed up, I ran 3.9 for years and it was faster than other Distros with loads of patches etc.
Retro1234 is offline  
Old 13 July 2019, 22:01   #10
AMIGASYSTEM
Registered User
AMIGASYSTEM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Brindisi (Italy)
Posts: 5,180
Yes, I had OS 3.9 on my AMiGA 4000/060 and it was very fast, no problem to start any Application or Game in both PAL and RTG. Attached is a video showing my authentic OS 3.9 of my A4000 from many years ago.

OS 3.9 my A4000 (year 2001)

[ Show youtube player ]


OS 3.9 my CD32-SX32 (year 2001)

[ Show youtube player ]

Last edited by AMIGASYSTEM; 13 July 2019 at 22:17.
AMIGASYSTEM is offline  
Old 15 July 2019, 19:33   #11
ma693541
Computer Wizard

ma693541's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Ramberg/Norway
Posts: 663
I was running AOS3.9 on my A1200 with Apollo 040/040, 32MB RAM and a small HD.
ma693541 is offline  
Old 16 July 2019, 01:10   #12
MartinW
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Minehead / UK
Posts: 527
I'm still happily running 3.9 on my 060 based machine. I'd dearly love to get rid of the double-boot as it takes ages and am very tempted by 3.1.4, especially since i have it on my other machine (A1200) but I really can't be arsed with the ball-ache of upgrading the system or even starting again. Especially since the machine has an Okatagon IDE controller which was a pain to get running in the first place with setpatch and probably raises more questions than it's worth in itself
MartinW is offline  
Old 25 July 2019, 12:07   #13
Hewitson
Registered User
Hewitson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 37
Posts: 3,335
3.9 (and 3.5) are slow and bloated, require a 68020+, and basically go against the AmigaOS principles of being fast, efficient, small, and able to run on any machine.

Absolute garbage in my personal opinion. Even on an 060/66 I found 3.9 to be noticeably slower and less responsive than 3.1.
Hewitson is offline  
Old 25 July 2019, 12:26   #14
Thomas Richter
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hewitson View Post
3.9 (and 3.5) are slow and bloated, require a 68020+, and basically go against the AmigaOS principles of being fast, efficient, small, and able to run on any machine.

Absolute garbage in my personal opinion. Even on an 060/66 I found 3.9 to be noticeably slower and less responsive than 3.1.
Ah, garbadge... So 3.1.4 is garbadge, 3.9 is garbadge? I afraid at some point, you need to make up your mind what you want. You cannot get fancy interfaces like those from 3.9 without CPU power. It's either simple and fast, or fancy and slow.
Thomas Richter is offline  
Old 25 July 2019, 12:39   #15
Hewitson
Registered User
Hewitson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 37
Posts: 3,335
Thomas, I don't recall saying 3.1.4 was garbage. I thought it was insufficiently tested (due to the shell bug) and the licensing arrangement (having to buy a KS for each model). Overall, it would still be my OS version of choice.

Last edited by Hewitson; 25 July 2019 at 12:46.
Hewitson is offline  
Old 25 July 2019, 21:39   #16
AMIGASYSTEM
Registered User
AMIGASYSTEM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Brindisi (Italy)
Posts: 5,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hewitson View Post
3.9 (and 3.5) are slow and bloated, require a 68020+, and basically go against the AmigaOS principles of being fast, efficient, small, and able to run on any machine.

Absolute garbage in my personal opinion. Even on an 060/66 I found 3.9 to be noticeably slower and less responsive than 3.1.
I think this is normal, even Win95 pear lighter and faster than Win98, same thing Win2000 Vs WinXP, or WinXP vs Win7.
All systems as they add upgrades and more advanced system files, more demanding and therefore more resource-intensive, but in return they are more efficient and more functional.
AMIGASYSTEM is offline  
Old 25 July 2019, 22:45   #17
Daedalus
Registered User

Daedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dublin, then Glasgow
Posts: 4,213
I wonder if that noticeable difference in speed on an 060/66 is still noticeable when 3.9 is set to the same settings as a 3.1 setup, including icon colours and screen format. Because I don't find that to be the case on an 030.
Daedalus is offline  
Old 25 July 2019, 22:45   #18
crazyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Gravesend - UK
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartinW View Post
I'm still happily running 3.9 on my 060 based machine. I'd dearly love to get rid of the double-boot as it takes ages and am very tempted by 3.1.4, especially since i have it on my other machine (A1200) but I really can't be arsed with the ball-ache of upgrading the system or even starting again. Especially since the machine has an Okatagon IDE controller which was a pain to get running in the first place with setpatch and probably raises more questions than it's worth in itself
I agree completely although am not really tempted by 3.1.4
I need to update my custom rom files that get blizzard kicked and could be tempted to get a set burned after doing that....or whatever the term is.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk
crazyc is offline  
Old 26 July 2019, 02:02   #19
tom256
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Poland
Posts: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyc View Post
I agree completely although am not really tempted by 3.1.4
I need to update my custom rom files that get blizzard kicked and could be tempted to get a set burned after doing that....or whatever the term is.
Take a look that purpose of 3.1.4 is cleaning up code and fixing errors to get stable and bug free system for future development, so there are lot of changes we are not see. Anyway with new OS we have official large HDD, and MC68060 support in kickstart implemented what is big advantage.
I think this is best possible aproach for start. Maybe Thomas and team should not add new features, to have direct replacement to 3.0/3.1 only and avoid criticism and comparing to 3.9. Anyway I think if we will wait a bit we will have much more advanced OS than 3.9. Just guys need time .
tom256 is offline  
Old 26 July 2019, 02:22   #20
crazyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Gravesend - UK
Posts: 477
Oh I am not criticising 3.1.4, and if I was starting out with a lower spec main machine I would base off that.
Currently I am happy with the performance of 3.9 on my particular system though.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk
crazyc is offline  
 


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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Available now: AmigaOS 3.1.4 bubbob42 Amiga scene 956 09 September 2019 01:34
AmigaOS on TV fryguy Amiga scene 0 12 December 2013 16:54
Would AmigaOS 3.9 be ok for me? stu232 support.Hardware 12 02 October 2013 18:20
AmigaOS 3.5 or 3.9 maddoc666 support.Apps 12 22 February 2010 08:02
AmigaOS XL sturme New to Emulation or Amiga scene 4 15 January 2002 02:13

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 19:00.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Page generated in 0.09382 seconds with 15 queries