OS3.2 installed using 3.1 roms but failing now that I have 3.2 roms

[thomas]

Originally Posted by toples50

Do I need 3.2 roms to run the Amiga OS 3.2?

No.

A friend of mine told me that with current roms(3.1) I will not have the full potentials of 3.2.Is it true?

You cannot make a boot partition outside the first 4GB of the harddrive, your Amiga will reboot once after power-on and you loose a bit of RAM for the ROM modules which are loaded from disk rather than ROM (just like OS 3.5 and 3.9). Other than that it is fully operational.

[guybrush]

Originally Posted by thomas

AFAIK BetterWB is problematic with 3.1.4 and above. You should rather use BestWB with these OS versions.

I don't know if it can cause your issues, though.

3.2.1 ROM images are included in the update archive. If you are able to burn your own ROMs, you should use these.

I was not aware of that; I thought that the betterWB build posted here was made for 3.2 (I can post the link to the thread where the betterWB LHA package is linked). I should clarify that this is not the official betterWB release, but a package that one of the users here made (sorry, I can't remember his name, I need to go check it). But you have a point about installing something like that may cause issues.

Sadly I do not have a burner device for ROMS; I had to jump 200 hoops just to get a set burned; because most store sell those with the copy of 3.2; and not by themselves. I just got the 3.2 ROMS and the idea to burn the 3.2.1 would work; but in the readme for 3.2.1 there is an explicit paragraph that say "do not burn the roms, we may change them again with the next update"... Which is why I am using loadmodule with the new 3.2.1 roms.


At this point I can just go back to 3.1 roms and load the roms when I boot the Amiga; I thought that having the roms would simplify things but instead it is causing more headache

[guybrush]

Originally Posted by QuillOmega0

I've been having this exact same issue on WinUAE

After some tracing I found that an installer (rather it the 3.2, 3.2.1, or some other package that updates startup-sequence. It truncates this line:

LoadModule DOWNGRADE L:Ram-Handler L:Shell-Seg L:System-Startup Libs:dos.library Libs:gadtools.library Libs:graphi

After I changed it to

LoadModule DOWNGRADE L:Ram-Handler L:Shell-Seg L:System-Startup Libs:dos.library Libs:gadtools.library Libs:graphics.library

Error disappeared and it booted fine.

Dear god; I saw that and thought it was totally normal. Good eye!


Although that line must be modified by some of the installers in 3.2/3.2.1; because this is what I see by just doing a fresh install of the OS on top of an existing OS. I will run an install from scratch and see if that happens with a fresh install too

[guybrush]

Originally Posted by toples50

Guys I have a question.I have an Escom A1200 with 3.1 roms.Do I need 3.2 roms to run the Amiga OS 3.2? A friend of mine told me that with current roms(3.1) I will not have the full potentials of 3.2.Is it true?

Technically 3.2 won't run on 3.1 ROMS; this is why the os install the "modules" disk; which modify your startup-sequence to check for one of the libraries (forgot which one), and if the version is below 47 it will call "loadmodule" to put the 3.2 ROMS in the top part of your memory stack.


So if you have 3.1 ROMS you are just fine with 3.2; the CD contains the appropriate disk for your system (A1200) and you should be good to go.


As far as "full potential"; it won't even boot with 3.1 ROMS I was able to get to the CLI at best, before I realized that I missed the modules disk so the system was counting on some updated libraries that were not on my system, and the ROMS do not have the relevant code and libraries either.

[Malakie]

Originally Posted by indigolemon

@Malakie

Yep - you're right, it was a low blow and added nothing to help you with your issue in any way. For that I apologise.

For the record I am not, nor have ever claimed to be, an expert on the Amiga. I definitely fall into the enthusiastic hobbyist category. This does mean however, that when I post asking for help, and people ask me to run tools to produce output that might help them resolve my problem, I will do it - even if I'm not convinced it's 100% relevant.

This is especially true when the people offering help are well known for their detailed knowledge of disk/controller/filesystem setups on the Amiga (thomas), or indeed actually worked on and wrote chunks of the operating system itself as well as many useful tools/libraries etc that interact with it at a low level (Thomas Richter).

I won't darken your threads again, as I have nothing constructive to add, but I do hope you find a solution to your issues - and are able to accept the help that actual experts are offering

Thanks, I stopped replying because what I was saying and explaining to others was apparently not being read or understood. I don't know how to better clarify what I was saying, so I gave up. The replies were going down the same exact path I had said multiple times, was NOT working and not the problem. And being called out and talked to like I had no idea what I was doing, pretty much ended my responses to a few others here.

I was able to get things working on my own and it had absolutely nothing to do with the stuff
a few others kept throwing at me over and over. It is and was OS 3.2 I was sent on disk.

I had someone else contact me and send me a clean copy to try. and I also grabbed the update for 3.2 and now the problem is gone.

So while, 3.2 overall is probably ok in most respects, just as I was repeatedly explaining to others, the problem to me and the troubleshooting process I was going through, consistently pointed AT 3.2 KS or OS or a combination of those as being the problem. The fact I trusted the copy I was sent when I bought it, the fact I trusted the thing to be a good copy, was MY first mistake, especially when I kept seeing the same result over multiple machines using multiple various hardware setups.

I kept being told it could not possibly be 3.2 and that I was the problem. Well, it was 3.2. And it was because of a bad production copy as it turns out. This version I was sent has the correct versioning numbers, yet I now know via direct comparison, it is literally missing a few files and a couple others are corrupted.

As I had stated in numerous posts 3.2 was not around when I was part of all this. It is new to me and trying to figure out all the new nuances takes time when someone jumps back in.

Trust me seeing versions 3.2, 3.5, 3.9, 4.0, 4.1, 4.x and no solid information on who or what is the current 'standard' now is confusing as hell. And in my world, common sense would tell a new person or person like me returning that, gee, I need to get version 4.x since it is apparently they latest and greatest since the last version I used in a consistent way, 2.04.

Then to find out there are multiple companies, multiple builds, and this works this way, while that one works that way, this one works on this but that one only works on that... pretty damn confusing to start with.

I think the problem is also that 3.5 and 3.9 were created to ONLY work on systems with 020 or higher CPU's for some reason. So when one goes to upgrade on a base A500 or A2000, the first assumption is that 3.9 would be the way to go for all the current versions, updates etc.

I currently at this moment, have no idea what the status of 3.2, 3.5 and 3.9 is in terms of 'real' support and development.

From what I am reading, I gather 3.2 is still actively in support development. Is that right? But 3.5 and 3.9 are dead to any development support, and if so, why? And the 4.x stuff is in development but that's for a whole new generation/line and direction of Amiga OS, if I understand that now.

[guybrush]

Originally Posted by Malakie

Thanks, I stopped replying because what I was saying and explaining to others was apparently not being read or ...

I would suggest to start a separate thread, so you can get aimed reply and share your findings, instead of being buried here in my thread

[Daedalus]

Originally Posted by Malakie

I kept being told it could not possibly be 3.2 and that I was the problem. Well, it was 3.2. And it was because of a bad production copy as it turns out. This version I was sent has the correct versioning numbers, yet I now know via direct comparison, it is literally missing a few files and a couple others are corrupted.

More than once, after you said you had two different versions of Kickstart 3.2, I've asked you which one you were using for this testing and you never confirmed which or what the actual difference is. It's been clear for some time that whatever you have isn't a proper version of 3.2. As far as I'm aware (but the 3.2 devs or publishers can probably confirm), there has only been one pressing of 3.2 CDs, which means that they should all be identical. Perhaps your CD was damaged, though that's unlikely. Or maybe it's not a legitimate copy and someone's sold you a dodgy pirated version. Either way, there has only been one official release of 3.2, which means that it's still the case that 3.2 isn't the problem. The problem is that whatever you were trying to use isn't actually 3.2, but an incomplete approximation of 3.2. Actual 3.2 as released isn't missing any files and doesn't contain any corrupted files. So no, the issue is not 3.2.

Who did you buy your copy from? Was it an official Amiga retailer? Is it a pressed CD or a CD-R? It sounds like it's down to the retailer to replace your faulty copy...

Trust me seeing versions 3.2, 3.5, 3.9, 4.0, 4.1, 4.x and no solid information on who or what is the current 'standard' now is confusing as hell. And in my world, common sense would tell a new person or person like me returning that, gee, I need to get version 4.x since it is apparently they latest and greatest since the last version I used in a consistent way, 2.04.

I currently at this moment, have no idea what the status of 3.2, 3.5 and 3.9 is in terms of 'real' support and development.

Perhaps this informative post will help?

From what I am reading, I gather 3.2 is still actively in support development. Is that right? But 3.5 and 3.9 are dead to any development support, and if so, why? And the 4.x stuff is in development but that's for a whole new generation/line and direction of Amiga OS, if I understand that now.

Yep, that's the general idea. It is a little confusing, I'll grant you, but it's also well understood by people who actually want to help, if you were a little more receptive and less dismissive of what people are trying to say.

[bubbob42]

@Malakie There is only one version of 3.2 shipped on CD. It doesn’t matter, if it was produced yesterday or last May.

Where did you get the CD from and what are the version numbers of the files?

[guybrush]

Originally Posted by bubbob42

@Malakie There is only one version of 3.2 shipped on CD. It doesn’t matter, if it was produced yesterday or last May.

Where did you get the CD from and what are the version numbers of the files?

@admins


Would be great to avoid to hijack threads and move this convo in its own thread, since my issue has nothing to do with this?


It may bring info to others that have similar problems with 3.2; so it if stay buried here nobody will find it