|
20 April 2009, 18:59
|
#1 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Exeter
Age: 38
Posts: 970
|
how compatible is the 040 with whdload/in general?
hi
i currently have blizzard 1230 but was wondering if i upgraded to 1240 would i encounter compatibility problems like the 1260 (mainly concerning whdload). regards |
|
|
20 April 2009, 19:28
|
#2 |
|
hastala vista winny vista
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: mt fuji
Age: 46
Posts: 1,335
  |
yes, 040 is generally more problematic than 060.
|
|
|
|
20 April 2009, 20:14
|
#3 |
|
Targ Explorer
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 5,431
 |
I ran one for a couple of years. I reckon it is about 96.1264% ok
 if you tweak tooltypes occasionally.
|
|
|
|
20 April 2009, 22:30
|
#4 | |
|
-
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Helsinki / Finland
Age: 43
Posts: 9,861
|
Quote:
When I had my CSMK1 040, it seems much more stuff ran than on the 060 boards I have now. |
|
|
|
|
20 April 2009, 22:36
|
#5 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Age: 44
Posts: 637
|
Having just "Upgraded" to a 1260 .... what should I be changing/watching out for ?
Something also tells me not to be in too much of a hurry to flog my 030  ... ah well it can go in my "spare" miggy as I planned....
|
|
|
|
21 April 2009, 13:52
|
#6 | |
|
Amiga Games Database
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: South West England
Posts: 1,240
|
Quote:
Based on posts I've seen on c.s.a.games there are (or were) some problems for the 040 with some WHDLoad slaves that didn't affect the 060 or 030. The 030 should have very few problems in this regard, and as an 060 user myself and a WHDLoad diehard, I can't say I often have any trouble. Ive an idea there were some bugs in the 040 (that were later corrected) that caused problems with some WHDLoad slaves - Bert (Wepl) is obviously the guy to give you the skinny on this stuff though. |
|
|
|
|
22 April 2009, 16:00
|
#7 |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 41
Posts: 3,773
|
The 040 may be technically more problematic but I have to agree with Jope the 040 seems more compatible than the 060 for WHDLoad.
I think its probably due to much more 040's are available for testing? |
|
|
|
22 April 2009, 18:06
|
#8 |
|
Zone Friend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Warsaw/Poland
Age: 45
Posts: 2,427
|
Years ago I was also wondering if the upgrade from Blizzard 1230 to BPPC 68040 don't affect WHDLoad compatibility. At the beginning it did but only with the really old slaves. With the recent ones or updated there is no huge problems. Maybe there are some slowdowns but in most cases everything works. I don't complain.
|
|
|
|
22 April 2009, 18:13
|
#9 |
|
Amibay Senior Staff
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cardiff / Wales
Posts: 1,302
|
The "NoCache" option set in the slaves tooltypes tends to eliminate the problem most of the time.
TC 
|
|
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Making Cannon Fodder Save Floppy disk, WHDLoad compatible? | Kenan | support.Games | 3 | 17 June 2013 10:16 |
| Optimizing WHDLoad config for 040/060 | 8bitbubsy | project.WHDLoad | 1 | 03 November 2011 22:37 |
| WHDLoad problem on 3000T(040) | Chain | project.WHDLoad | 29 | 29 January 2010 11:47 |
| General A1200 040 question | JonSick | support.Hardware | 1 | 14 October 2006 20:54 |
| General WHDLOAD error... | keropi | project.WHDLoad | 18 | 31 October 2004 17:40 |
|
|
