AmigaOS 3.1.x v 3.9

steve_mynott · 11 July 2019, 19:00

What are the main pros and cons of 3.1.x (the new ones) and 3.9 on an A1200 and running emulation?

Daedalus · 11 July 2019, 23:08

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.

steve_mynott · 12 July 2019, 21:35

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.

cloverskull · 12 July 2019, 21:51

Unfortunately not, sorry man.

Thomas Richter · 12 July 2019, 22:41

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.

malko · 12 July 2019, 22:45

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

AMIGASYSTEM · 12 July 2019, 23:03

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.

Korodny · 13 July 2019, 20:07

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.

Retro1234 · 13 July 2019, 20:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMIGASYSTEM

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.

AMIGASYSTEM · 13 July 2019, 22:01

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 ]

ma693541 · 15 July 2019, 19:33

I was running AOS3.9 on my A1200 with Apollo 040/040, 32MB RAM and a small HD.

MartinW · 16 July 2019, 01:10

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

Hewitson · 25 July 2019, 12:07

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.

Thomas Richter · 25 July 2019, 12:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hewitson

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.

Hewitson · 25 July 2019, 12:39

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.

AMIGASYSTEM · 25 July 2019, 21:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hewitson

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.

Daedalus · 25 July 2019, 22:45

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.

crazyc · 25 July 2019, 22:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartinW

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

tom256 · 26 July 2019, 02:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyc

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

.

crazyc · 26 July 2019, 02:22

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

11 July 2019, 19:00	#1
steve_mynott Registered User Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: london Posts: 49	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?

13 July 2019, 22:01	#10
AMIGASYSTEM Registered User Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Brindisi (Italy) Age: 70 Posts: 8,248	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.

25 July 2019, 12:39	#15
Hewitson Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Age: 41 Posts: 3,771	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.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Available now: AmigaOS 3.1.4	bubbob42	Amiga scene	1002	14 August 2021 23:22
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

11 July 2019, 23:08	#2
Daedalus Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Dublin, then Glasgow Posts: 6,334	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.

12 July 2019, 21:35	#3
steve_mynott Registered User Join Date: Jul 2014 Location: london Posts: 49	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.

12 July 2019, 21:51	#4
cloverskull Registered User Join Date: Sep 2018 Location: California Posts: 322	Unfortunately not, sorry man.

12 July 2019, 22:41	#5
Thomas Richter Registered User Join Date: Jan 2019 Location: Germany Posts: 3,215	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.

12 July 2019, 22:45	#6
malko Ex nihilo nihil Join Date: Oct 2017 Location: CH Posts: 4,856	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

12 July 2019, 23:03	#7
AMIGASYSTEM Registered User Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Brindisi (Italy) Age: 70 Posts: 8,248	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.

13 July 2019, 20:07	#8
Korodny Zone Friend Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Germany Posts: 812	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.

15 July 2019, 19:33	#11
ma693541 Computer Wizard Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Ramberg/Norway Posts: 928	I was running AOS3.9 on my A1200 with Apollo 040/040, 32MB RAM and a small HD.

16 July 2019, 01:10	#12
MartinW Registered User Join Date: Mar 2017 Location: Minehead / UK Posts: 608	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

25 July 2019, 12:07	#13
Hewitson Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Age: 41 Posts: 3,771	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.

25 July 2019, 22:45	#17
Daedalus Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Dublin, then Glasgow Posts: 6,334	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.

26 July 2019, 02:22	#20
crazyc Registered User Join Date: May 2012 Location: Gravesend - UK Posts: 927	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

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