English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Main > Retrogaming General Discussion

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 12 November 2003, 04:47   #1
Unknown_K
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ohio/USA
Age: 49
Posts: 1,379
Send a message via ICQ to Unknown_K
Differences in 3.0 and 3.1 Kickstart rom

What are the major differences between Kickstart 3.0 and 3.1 roms on an A1200, also Differences between 3.0 and 3.1 workbench.

My A1200 has a Blizzard IV 1230 with FPU and 16mb extra ram (might get more later) ,so I was wondering if I should upgrade the kickstart rom and workbench version.


If there is a thread for this I missed let me know
Unknown_K is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
Old 12 November 2003, 05:36   #2
Codetapper
2 contact me: email only!

Codetapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Auckland / New Zealand
Posts: 3,135
Thumbs up Blizkick

You could also use Blizkick to put the 3.1 Roms into your 1230's memory (uses 512k of it) which makes your Amiga think it has 3.1 Roms. That way you can install Workbench 3.1/3.5/3.9 etc.

I use this myself to run Workbench 3.1 on my A1200. Blizkick can be found on Aminet.
Codetapper is offline  
Old 12 November 2003, 06:00   #3
staticgerbil
Registered User
staticgerbil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: a / b
Age: 35
Posts: 87
Is there any advantage to using real roms over blizkick? Other than having an extra 512k ram.

I have an accelerator but im not sure which one maybe i'll give blizkick a crack if it is a blizzard.
staticgerbil is offline  
Old 12 November 2003, 11:30   #4
fiath
Moderator
fiath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: South East / UK
Age: 40
Posts: 1,926
Almost absolutely nothing.

For a start you Amiga will be faster since access to RAM is faster then ROM.

The only slight minus point is that it will take a few more seconds to boot your miggy from cold since it loads the new KS and resets. But this only happens once anyway.

I don't know what support is like for other cards than the Blizzard, but I suppose i ntheory they should be okay as long as they have an MMU...
fiath is offline  
Old 12 November 2003, 14:24   #5
Bloodwych
Moderator

Bloodwych's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'm behind you!
Posts: 3,763
Guess you didn't bother trying the ClassicWB then. It really will do everything you need unless your planning on using your Amiga as a PC replacement.

To answer your question, the 3.1 ROM and workbench offers very little over the 3.0 - it provides very basic CD-ROM support (because it was designed for the CD32, where the ROM first appeared) and adds an Animation class to the datatypes system. All of this can be added to 3.0 with ease.

There really isn't much benifit to switching to 3.1 ROMS and higher workbench versions with an A1200, unless your going to start using it as a PC replacement. Workbench 3.0 + 3.0 ROMS + Scalos + Aminet addons really is a fantastic solution for how the majority of people will use there A1200's. I personally have no reason to upgrade, with the following being my usual tasks:

WHDload Games
Creating cool Icons for WHDload games
Playing Amiga MODS/music formats
Creating ADF Files
Archiving Amiga files
Transfering files to and from a PC
Dpaint animations for nostalgia reasons
Viewing the occasional picture, text and HTML files
Editing Scripts
Reading CDROMS
Formating/bootable disks

If you see yourself using the Amiga for more than this, then jump straight for OS3.9 using the methods outlined above. Even then, you'll have to start building it up in order to add all the features of a well configured WB3.0. You'll endup with a better product in the end of course, but only if you use the extra features OS3.9 offers (I personally don't) over a well configured 3.0. The file system size limit can be a genuine excuse, but remember workbench 3.0 users still have the option of SFS ,which is better than FFS in many regards.

Going from WB 3.0 to 3.1 really won't benefit you at all in general Amiga use - Scalos is by far the biggest and most useful workbench upgrade in comparison.

So my advice is, considering you'll probably be using your A1200 like I do, is build a decent WB3.0 setup. For the average user where the Amiga is not the primary computer, the higher ROMS and OS versions don't offer much at all.

Last edited by Bloodwych; 12 November 2003 at 14:34.
Bloodwych is offline  
Old 12 November 2003, 14:27   #6
staticgerbil
Registered User
staticgerbil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: a / b
Age: 35
Posts: 87
Ok. I'll get the obvious question out of the way

I presume that you HAVE to boot your amiga up with a blizkick floppy to get the 3.1 rom into ram?

No way to put it in a startup-sequence and check if 3.1 is already in the ram, if so then don't load it again?
staticgerbil is offline  
Old 12 November 2003, 14:50   #7
yadster
Junior Member
yadster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire UK
Age: 48
Posts: 160
I have to agree with Bloodwych as his ClassicWB setup is much more useable than 3.5 or 3.9, in my opinion anyway I too have a Blizzard 030 and used a utility called Blizzmagic from Aminet which loads a 3.1 rom into memory. I put it into C: directory along with the 3.1 rom and added a line in startup something like C:blizzmagic kick.rom (the name I gave the 3.1 rom) and it worked everytime. Then using my WB3.5 CD I installed WB 3.1 then upped it to 3.5 then 3.9 (had to edit startup a few times to put the C:blizzmagic line back in). But I went back to the ClassicWB setup because it does everything I need then more. As they say oop North "if it ain't broke why fix it" I would probably only upgrade to WB4.0 (when it comes out) if I had the machine to go with it.

Probably not the answer you are looking for but if you want to spend some more cash on your Miggy get a decent monitor, more ram, bigger hard drive or something. It'll love you for it
yadster is offline  
Old 12 November 2003, 15:36   #8
ptrchiappe
Registered User
ptrchiappe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Cagliari / Italy
Age: 54
Posts: 186
Send a message via AIM to ptrchiappe
To staticgerbil:

You can easily get the version number with the "Version" command, but anyway the blitzkick program automatically does this (i.e. checks the actual ROM's version number and doesn't relocate it if it's not needed).
ptrchiappe is offline  
Old 12 November 2003, 15:45   #9
Unknown_K
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ohio/USA
Age: 49
Posts: 1,379
Send a message via ICQ to Unknown_K
I havnt loaded Bloodwyche's classic workbench yet because I havnt finished setting up the PC used with amiga explorer thats close enough for serial transfer to the A1200.

I was wondering about WB/KS 3.1 because it had built in cdrom support , just a faster method to transfer files untill either I get my pcmcia network card running or parralel port transfer going.

I have no intention of making my a1200 into a main work PC, its just for gaming and transfering images even though its been upgraded a bit for convenience.

Probably will just use classic workbench and maybe up the memory to 64mb
Unknown_K is offline  
Old 12 November 2003, 16:04   #10
Bloodwych
Moderator

Bloodwych's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'm behind you!
Posts: 3,763
CDROMs work fine with WB3.0 and an aminet download or two.

If you're really enjoying your Amiga, you might want to build up a workbench yourself and use mine purely as a guide of what's useful to download.

Yadster, I thought you'd started building your own kick-ass setup using fblit? Anyway, thanks for the backup as always.
Bloodwych is offline  
Old 12 November 2003, 16:48   #11
yadster
Junior Member
yadster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire UK
Age: 48
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally posted by Bloodwych
Yadster, I thought you'd started building your own kick-ass setup using fblit? Anyway, thanks for the backup as always.
I did - sort of My setup is ClassicWB with Scalos removed (compatability probs with FBlit). I've since added a few bits and pieces, edited the startup sequence and it all works luvverly and just how I want it - the ability to play some great games but also very productive for my college work. On a spare Amiga 1200 I installed your new ClasicWBADVSP and that looks well nice. I've just bought a tower case off Ebay and a Mediator off Amibench and am going to buy a Voodoo3DFX card to put in it as well. Hopefully with the extra graphics ram I'll be able to use the ADVSP version you have made without having to worry about running out of chipram. To think about 6 months ago I picked an A1200 for 2 just to play a few games.
yadster is offline  
Old 12 November 2003, 16:53   #12
yadster
Junior Member
yadster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Yorkshire UK
Age: 48
Posts: 160
Quote:
Originally posted by Unknown_K
I havnt loaded Bloodwyche's classic workbench yet because I havnt finished setting up the PC used with amiga explorer thats close enough for serial transfer to the A1200.
That's how I originally got the ClassicWB onto my Amiga but invested in a miggy CDROM which is more convenient - especially if you have access to a CD burner and the internet. If you have a CD drive for your miggy I'll gladly but Bloodwych's ClassicWB on a CD rom for you. Best of luck.
yadster is offline  
Old 13 November 2003, 04:09   #13
adolescent
Powered by Motorola

 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Age: 46
Posts: 1,064
You don't need KS3.1 to run WB3.1 (kicked or otherwise). It runs just fine on 3.0 roms. I ran my A4000 like that until just recently when I upgraded to 3.9 which requires 3.1 roms.
adolescent is offline  
Old 13 November 2003, 05:58   #14
Codetapper
2 contact me: email only!

Codetapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Auckland / New Zealand
Posts: 3,135
The main reason to upgrade to WB3.1 is so you can use large hard drives (larger than 4 gig). Without scsi.device v44 you can't use large hard drives and you can't load that device without the 3.1 ROM!

So if you don't have a HD larger than 4 gig then there is probably no need to upgrade!
Codetapper is offline  
Old 13 November 2003, 12:35   #15
Bloodwych
Moderator

Bloodwych's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'm behind you!
Posts: 3,763
Quote:
Originally posted by Codetapper
The main reason to upgrade to WB3.1 is so you can use large hard drives (larger than 4 gig). Without scsi.device v44 you can't use large hard drives and you can't load that device without the 3.1 ROM!

So if you don't have a HD larger than 4 gig then there is probably no need to upgrade!
Yes I agree - people who need more than 4GB are probably using their Amiga for a much more serious role, even as a PC replacement. As I mentioned earlier, these are the ones that need OS3.9/3.1 ROMS HOWEVER..............

Can't you use ide-fix and SFS in order to achieve this with Workbench/ROM 3.0?

I find it difficult getting anywhere near using up a 1.28GB drive so I can't imagine many people wanting more than 4GB, even if they fit a larger drive and can only partition up to this amount.

Last edited by Bloodwych; 13 November 2003 at 15:44.
Bloodwych is offline  
Old 13 November 2003, 15:58   #16
DrBong
HOL / AMR Team Member

DrBong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,210
Re: Differences in 3.0 and 3.1 Kickstart rom

Quote:
Originally posted by Unknown_K
What are the major differences between Kickstart 3.0 and 3.1 roms on an A1200, also Differences between 3.0 and 3.1 workbench.
Some of the differences you're asking about are detailed below:

http://www.gregdonner.org/workbench/wb_31.html

http://www.gregdonner.org/workbench/wb_31rev.txt


Personally, I wouldn't upgrade beyond Workbench 3.1 with just an 030/50 and 16Mb. Workbench 3.5/3.9 is quite sluggish for anything under 040. You would be better off just building on Workbench 3.0/3.1 using Aminet system patches/applications or similar.

Also, contrary to what some people might say, there's no guarantee that Workbench 3.1 will run stable under Kickstart 3.0, especially on an A1200. At the very least, some library functions won't be properly utilised. Moreover, your machine may not even boot, or alternatively you will get random gurus.......things I've experienced on both the A500/600 and A1200 in such circumstances.
DrBong is offline  
Old 13 November 2003, 16:27   #17
Bloodwych
Moderator

Bloodwych's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'm behind you!
Posts: 3,763
Re: Re: Differences in 3.0 and 3.1 Kickstart rom

Quote:
Originally posted by DrBong

Also, contrary to what some people might say, there's no guarantee that Workbench 3.1 will run stable under Kickstart 3.0, especially on an A1200. At the very least, some library functions won't be properly utilised. Moreover, your machine may not even boot, or alternatively you will get random gurus.......things I've experienced on both the A500/600 and A1200 in such circumstances.
I mentioned this in my last ClassicWB thread when someone asked why I was using wb3.0 instead of 3.1. Glad you've noticed it too.

3.1 gurued at random intervals on my A1200, so I decided to use 3.0 and no problems.

Like I pointed out earlier though, most of the very few noticeable differences when going from 3.0->3.1 are available and indeed improved upon with a few aminet/scalos addons.
Bloodwych is offline  
Old 13 November 2003, 18:31   #18
SilentBob
Junior Member

SilentBob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Norway
Age: 42
Posts: 241
A question about KS 3.1

I have a Blizzard 1230-IV card in my A1200, and I am softkicking to Kickstart 3.1. The sub-version is 40.63, which I understand is the 16-bit compatible version of KS3.1 (Am I right?).

Does this in any way compromise compatibility or performance compared to the 32-bit version? I haven't noticed anything in the years I've used it, but I'm not sure though.

Last edited by SilentBob; 13 November 2003 at 18:42.
SilentBob is offline  
Old 15 November 2003, 14:59   #19
DrBong
HOL / AMR Team Member

DrBong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,210
Re: Re: Re: Differences in 3.0 and 3.1 Kickstart rom

Quote:
Originally posted by Bloodwych
I mentioned this in my last ClassicWB thread when someone asked why I was using wb3.0 instead of 3.1. Glad you've noticed it too.

3.1 gurued at random intervals on my A1200, so I decided to use 3.0 and no problems.
Never could work out why people wanted to run WB 3.1 with Kickstart 3.0.......the benefits are not large enough to risk having an unstable system. Trouble is that people who are lucky enough not to run into instabilities commonly swear that it will run stable on any Amiga. Always nice to know that others have had the same experiences and that you're not totally from the Twilight Zone
DrBong is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
 


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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
kickstart 1.3 rom Paul_s MarketPlace 0 08 April 2007 23:51
CD32 kickstart rom & extended rom ben111g Amiga scene 1 24 February 2007 14:56
Kickstart 2.04 ROM crs MarketPlace 19 19 December 2006 13:44
KickStart Rom Hammie New to Emulation or Amiga scene 1 29 June 2003 09:04
Kickstart ROM Toxic support.WinUAE 7 08 November 2001 22:53

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 11:29.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Page generated in 0.30302 seconds with 11 queries