OS 3.5/3.9: To install or not to install?

Amiga1992 · 03 December 2003, 07:41

Ok, never had taken this seriously into consideration, but right now I'm being bloody curious, so here's the Q:

Is it worth it to install OS3.5 or 3.9 in my 030@50, 32MB RAM Amiga 1200?

That simple. I'm very happy with 3.0, but as I said, I'm curious

03 December 2003, 08:27

My opinion: Don't install.
I've bought 3.5 and 3.9 and wish that I hadn't. They're glorified versions of 3.1, nothing more. My suggestion is to install 3.1 (and Scalos if you like that), get SFS, Miami and a bunch of hacks from Aminet.

Severin · 03 December 2003, 14:40

OS3.9 yes, 3.5 no...

You should be ok with an 030/50 with 3.9, don't forget the two boingbags, they make quite a difference.

@Amigaboy

If you mean updates, bugfixes and tweaks to support newer hardware then yes 3.5/9 is just a glorified 3.1. I would never use 3.1 again...

But then I'm running it on an 060/50 with 128Mb and P-IV, I've heard it's really slow on an 020, but Akira is scraping in with the minimum requirements from the cd cover

Amiga1992 · 03 December 2003, 16:07

I suppose I would notice a performance drop, innit?

I was asking mainly because I always thought 3.5 and 3.9 brought shitloads of thiungs for PPC that I will never use.

Which would be the main advantages of 3.9 against a 3.0 with SFS and the lot installed?

thomas · 03 December 2003, 17:03

Well, most improvements are internally.

- NewIcons and DefIcons are now integrated in a system-friendly way.
- Workbench has an Arexx interface.
- You can arrange icons in a window by name.
- icon.library has some nice new functions making patches like PowerIcons (truecolor png icons) possible.
- system programs (prefs, tools etc.) look a little bit more modern.
- there is real 64bit support for the internal IDE bus (note: with the original scsi.device you still have an 8GB limit, even with SFS !)
- datatypes have support for multi-image files (e.g. multi-page TIFs or GIF-Animations)
- some multimedia utilities (movie player, mp3 player) are now intergrated into the os. (Earlier you had to test several products and to choose one of them, this decision has been made for you now

)
- probably some others that I don't remember because It's so long ago I used 3.0.

DrBong · 03 December 2003, 19:28

@Akira
IMHO you'll just be bogging your machine down unnecessarily by
installing OS3.5/3.9 on an A1200/030/50 without a graphics card. I
would recommend an 040/25 minimum configuration. On your set-up I
think you're better off just using Aminet software to build on WB
3.0/3.1.

If you're still curious to try, then go for OS 3.5. OS 3.9 is
essentially a bloated version of 3.5 and will bog the machine down
even more.

th4t1guy · 03 December 2003, 21:23

I run OS 3.9 on my cd32 (which only has a 68020 and 10meg total RAM) and I've no speed problems at all, unless I try to run the desktop greater than 32 colors (I use NTSC interlaced resolution on my tv).

I think it's a good improvement over 3.1, but if you have your 3.1 install tweaked to the extreme, you might not notice.

adolescent · 04 December 2003, 04:29

I think OS3.9 is worth it for the reasons Severin stated. Plus, you get a good TCP/IP stack to boot. Definately worth the $35 or so in my book.

Quote:

Originally posted by thomas
- there is real 64bit support for the internal IDE bus (note: with the original scsi.device you still have an 8GB limit, even with SFS !)

But, the OS3.9 setpatch patches (or replaces) the scsi.device to support larger drives. I have a 20GB HD in my A1200 using the standard scsi.device (ie. no IDEFix, etc.)

thomas · 04 December 2003, 09:25

Quote:

Originally posted by adolescent
But, the OS3.9 setpatch patches (or replaces) the scsi.device to support larger drives. I have a 20GB HD in my A1200 using the standard scsi.device (ie. no IDEFix, etc.)

I'm sorry, I didn't make it clear. With the words "original scsi.device" I referred to the OS3.0/3.1 version. With the OS3.9 scsi.device all those bugs have been removed, but with OS3.0 you can only handle hdds up to 4GB using FFS, PFS3 or SFS version >= 1.187 and up to 8GB using PFS3ds or SFS version <= 1.84.

Antiriad · 04 December 2003, 09:41

Like th4t1guy I run it on my SX32 CD32 with 8MB Fast Ram and it runs fine. Same on my 060 A1200 with 98MB!

Id say its worth it for the convenience factor for all the features built in as mentioned by the folks whove posted before me.

Bloodwych · 04 December 2003, 12:53

Unknown had a thread with a similar discussion right about here

........so I'll refer you to replies there to further confuse your decision.

03 December 2003, 07:41	#1
Amiga1992 Registered User Join Date: May 2001 Location: ? Posts: 19,658	OS 3.5/3.9: To install or not to install? Ok, never had taken this seriously into consideration, but right now I'm being bloody curious, so here's the Q: Is it worth it to install OS3.5 or 3.9 in my 030@50, 32MB RAM Amiga 1200? That simple. I'm very happy with 3.0, but as I said, I'm curious

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Re-Install ?	Washac	support.Apps	2	08 February 2010 20:53
Install	Champions_2002	New to Emulation or Amiga scene	1	17 August 2006 15:09
How to install something on HD?	S. Campbell	support.WinUAE	9	07 September 2004 22:47
How do i install a HD?	Reppyboyo	support.Hardware	3	05 April 2003 11:35
Wb install	stainy	support.WinUAE	2	22 December 2001 00:56

03 December 2003, 08:27	#2
Amigaboy Posts: n/a	My opinion: Don't install. I've bought 3.5 and 3.9 and wish that I hadn't. They're glorified versions of 3.1, nothing more. My suggestion is to install 3.1 (and Scalos if you like that), get SFS, Miami and a bunch of hacks from Aminet.

03 December 2003, 14:40	#3
Severin Registered User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Gloucester / UK Posts: 700	OS3.9 yes, 3.5 no... You should be ok with an 030/50 with 3.9, don't forget the two boingbags, they make quite a difference. @Amigaboy If you mean updates, bugfixes and tweaks to support newer hardware then yes 3.5/9 is just a glorified 3.1. I would never use 3.1 again... But then I'm running it on an 060/50 with 128Mb and P-IV, I've heard it's really slow on an 020, but Akira is scraping in with the minimum requirements from the cd cover

03 December 2003, 16:07	#4
Amiga1992 Registered User Join Date: May 2001 Location: ? Posts: 19,658	I suppose I would notice a performance drop, innit? I was asking mainly because I always thought 3.5 and 3.9 brought shitloads of thiungs for PPC that I will never use. Which would be the main advantages of 3.9 against a 3.0 with SFS and the lot installed?

03 December 2003, 17:03	#5
thomas Registered User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Germany Posts: 7,035	Well, most improvements are internally. - NewIcons and DefIcons are now integrated in a system-friendly way. - Workbench has an Arexx interface. - You can arrange icons in a window by name. - icon.library has some nice new functions making patches like PowerIcons (truecolor png icons) possible. - system programs (prefs, tools etc.) look a little bit more modern. - there is real 64bit support for the internal IDE bus (note: with the original scsi.device you still have an 8GB limit, even with SFS !) - datatypes have support for multi-image files (e.g. multi-page TIFs or GIF-Animations) - some multimedia utilities (movie player, mp3 player) are now intergrated into the os. (Earlier you had to test several products and to choose one of them, this decision has been made for you now ) - probably some others that I don't remember because It's so long ago I used 3.0.

03 December 2003, 19:28	#6
DrBong HOL / AMR Team Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 2,632	@Akira IMHO you'll just be bogging your machine down unnecessarily by installing OS3.5/3.9 on an A1200/030/50 without a graphics card. I would recommend an 040/25 minimum configuration. On your set-up I think you're better off just using Aminet software to build on WB 3.0/3.1. If you're still curious to try, then go for OS 3.5. OS 3.9 is essentially a bloated version of 3.5 and will bog the machine down even more.

03 December 2003, 21:23	#7
th4t1guy Registered User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Kansas City, MO, USA Posts: 683	I run OS 3.9 on my cd32 (which only has a 68020 and 10meg total RAM) and I've no speed problems at all, unless I try to run the desktop greater than 32 colors (I use NTSC interlaced resolution on my tv). I think it's a good improvement over 3.1, but if you have your 3.1 install tweaked to the extreme, you might not notice.

04 December 2003, 09:41	#10
Antiriad The Sacred Armour Of Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Sussex, UK Age: 45 Posts: 1,141	Like th4t1guy I run it on my SX32 CD32 with 8MB Fast Ram and it runs fine. Same on my 060 A1200 with 98MB! Id say its worth it for the convenience factor for all the features built in as mentioned by the folks whove posted before me.

04 December 2003, 12:53	#11
Bloodwych Moderator Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: I'm behind you! Posts: 3,763	Unknown had a thread with a similar discussion right about here ........so I'll refer you to replies there to further confuse your decision.

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