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

[guybrush]

Got this install done when my amiga 1200 had the 3.1 rom; then I got the 3.2 roms and now when it boot I get an error when it try to execute the line in startup-sequence:

LoadModule DOWNGRADE

I get an object not found, and indeed if I type in amigados the string as in the startup sequence, it does give me the error because it does not know what DOWNGRADE means.


I assume that the code was added to the startup sequence only because I did the install using 3.1? Looking at the code seems that the first time it check for exec library, if it is not v47 it does the

loadmodule L:system-startup ROMUPDATE

and then the second time it does a

version strap version 47

and if that fail it run the DOWNGRADE line.


Not sure what DOWNGRADE and ROMUPDATE are; those do not look like old school commands; also can't find what strap does and why is it checked in that line.



Any help to understand this would be really appreciated; for now I just put back the 3.1 physical roms and the OS boot fine (twice since it need to load the roms in memory); but I would like to understand this code also for the future, if I want to modify the startup sequence. Thanks!

[Exodous]

I didn't have any issues when I did this myself and things just worked. Using WinUAE, I've just done a base install from the 3.2 CD using the 3.1 ROM and then again with the 3.2 ROM and compared the installations.

In both, the top of the installed Startup-Sequence looks like:

; $VER: Startup-Sequence_HardDrive 47.14 (7.3.2021)
; Startup-Sequence for hard drive systems

Version exec.library version 47 >NIL:
If Warn
  LoadModule L:System-Startup ROMUPDATE
EndIf
SetPatch >NIL:

........
........

The only instance of LoadModule in the line above, which is only run if exec.library is less than version 47. There is nothing asking to "DOWNGRADE" any modules.

Can you share your full Startup-Sequence as it sounds like it has been modified by something else outside the OS's installed version which is then breaking things?


In terms of the installation, all files that are present in both installations are the same (*). There are no different configuration settings between an 3.2 installation made with 3.1 or 3.2 ROMs.

(*) Some icon modification time and/or position settings differ, but all tooltypes are the same, so there are no operational changes here.

The installation with the 3.1 ROM has extra files in various locations around the filesystem, which aren't present in the installation from the 3.2 ROM. These are essentially the contents of the "Modules" disk. However, these files should match the resident versions physically in the 3.2 ROM and, based upon the Startup-Sequence check, shouldn't be loaded anyway if you already have 3.2 ROMs and will therefore be ignored:

Devs
audio.device
console.device
gameport.device
input.device
keyboard.device
ramdrive.device
timer.device
trackdisk.device

L
Con-Handler
Ram-Handler
Shell-Seg
Syslog
System-startup

Libs/A2000A
exec.library

Libs/A2000B
exec.library

Libs/Modules
bootmenu
syscheck

Libs/Resournces
battclock.resource
disk.resource
FileSystem.resource

Libs/
dos.library
gadtools.library
graphics.library
intuition.library
layers.library
mathffp.library
mathieeesingbas.library
utility.library

[thomas]

To me it seems that

1. you didn't mention that you did an update to 3.2.1 but your ROM is 3.2, not 3.2.1
2. you have a pre-3.2 version of LoadModule installed. You should use the one which comes with 3.2 or even 3.2.1.

DOWNGRADE and ROMUPDATE are keywords of LoadModule. But they are only known since 3.2. LoadModule itself was available from Aminet long before 3.2, but only in recent versions these keywords were added.

[guybrush]

Thanks Exodus, it looks like your startup is different from mine I just added the echo to debug on screen when each option was picked

I installed 3.2 from CD, then 3.2.1 via ADF using winuae; this is what the top of my startup sequence look like

; $VER: Startup-Sequence_HardDrive 47.16 (18.10.2021)
; Startup-Sequence for hard drive systems

Version exec.library version 47 >NIL:
If Warn
echo "your exec.library is older than V47, patching ROM to 3.2"
LoadModule L:System-Startup ROMUPDATE
Else
Version strap version 47 >NIL:
If Warn
echo "your exec.library is V47 or newer, no ROM patching"
;LoadModule DOWNGRADE L:Ram-Handler L:Shell-Seg L:System-Startup Libs:dos.library Libs:gadtools.library Libs:graphi
EndIf
EndIf
SetPatch >NIL:

[guybrush]

Originally Posted by thomas

To me it seems that

1. you didn't mention that you did an update to 3.2.1 but your ROM is 3.2, not 3.2.1
2. you have a pre-3.2 version of LoadModule installed. You should use the one which comes with 3.2 or even 3.2.1.

DOWNGRADE and ROMUPDATE are keywords of LoadModule. But they are only known since 3.2. LoadModule itself was available from Aminet long before 3.2, but only in recent versions these keywords were added.

Good point; I've got 3.2 rom as physical; although the 3.2.1 roms came as rom file with the update; so you still need loadmodule to load those, so they can match the OS version installed.


as far as loadmodule, I didn't install it; this is a 3.2 installation, so anything on this drive is coming from 3.2 installer. Not sure if 3.2.1 updated it or not.


Thanks for the explanation about the 2 keywords. I assume that the documentation for the extra keywords are on the 3.2 docs or somewhere else?

[thomas]

I tried to reproduce you issue and I failed (meaning that I didn't have any issues).

I made a WinUAE config with ROM 3.1, installed 3.2, changed ROM to 3.2 and then installed 3.2.1. All went fine.

Questions:
- did you upgrade 3.1 to 3.2 or did you make a fresh install of 3.2?
- did you first change the ROM chip and then install 3.2.1 or vice versa?
- Are you sure you never played with an older version of LoadModule?

[guybrush]

Originally Posted by thomas

I tried to reproduce you issue and I failed (meaning that I didn't have any issues).

I made a WinUAE config with ROM 3.1, installed 3.2, changed ROM to 3.2 and then installed 3.2.1. All went fine.

Questions:
- did you upgrade 3.1 to 3.2 or did you make a fresh install of 3.2?
- did you first change the ROM chip and then install 3.2.1 or vice versa?
- Are you sure you never played with an older version of LoadModule?

That is interesting; I didn't try to run a new installation but at this point I am curious.


As far as your questions:


1) nope, started with 3.2 from the CD install, and when 3.2.1 came out, I used their installer. The only extra I did install was the betterwb package posted here somewhere (there was a thread, I need to dig in my history to find it); which would install things like whdload, magicwb, MUI and other apps. I would assume that the package does not alter anything in the os beside copying files, but I could be wrong.


2) started with 3.1 roms and used loadmodule to load the 3.2 roms; then swapped the roms to 3.2. Although with 3.2.1 you still need to use loadmodule from my understanding, since there are no 3.2.1 roms yet (and honestly I am not going to burn another set and pay 40 more dollars LOL especially when in 3.2.1 doc there is something saying "we may update the roms again, so don't bother".)
I wonder if I should just ditch the 3.2 roms at this point


3) totally sure; when I got 3.2 I started from scratch. I have a different SD card using 3.1 ClassicWB, which is also untouched (it works, why would you touch it?). I just swap SD card when I want to use one environment or the other, although I find myself using more and more 3.2, since it has a lot of nice things out of the box (although can't stand the icons to be honest; I am just used to the magicWB icons since 1991 )

[Malakie]

Interesting thread being some here know I have been fighting two separate 3.2 os/kickstart problems with HD's, either SCSI or IDE and file copy or movement or validation.

And I think I have figured out the problem.

Everything was fine UNTIL I introduced another hardware part to the Amiga after installed 3.2 and the 3.2 kickstart. And that other hardware part uses a different device than what the main drives do.

i.e., the HD's use FastFileSystem right now, on either IDE or SCSI. But when I add another device that uses a different file system, say FAT95 or something else, all the problems then start.

IF I remove that same device and the file system for that device, suddenly everything works again.. no more errors for copying files, no more suddenly non executable exe's etc.

Something is not right in KS 3.2 and/or OS 3.2, because I can change back to another OS and KS revision and this problem disappears, as I have said quite a few times as well.

The very fact I can not replicate this on 3.1 OS/KS or even back to 2.04, pretty means something is going on with either 3.2ks or 3.2os or both combined. I have tried a network adapter, a SD card reader, a second HD card (scsi and IDE using a different file system) and this is reproduceable every time if KS 3.2 and OS3.2 are in use. It does NOT appear on other setups and they work just fine.

The easiest and fastest way I can reproduce this is to use a basic Amiga 2000, KS 3.2 and a small SCSI HD connected to an A2091 (7.0 roms) OR use an AmiKit IDE interface card and either an IDE HD or CF card. Do a full clean install of 3.2. From there, try installing an SDBox and see what happens. Or some other device that uses its own FILE system, not the default for OS3.2. Doing this, I can repro this 100% of the time.

[thomas]

Originally Posted by guybrush

The only extra I did install was the betterwb package

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.



@Malakie you should open your own thread. Your issue is hardware related and completely off-topic here.

[Malakie]

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.



@Malakie you should open your own thread. Your issue is hardware related and completely off-topic here.

Wrong, the problem is NOT hardware related. It is KS 3.2 and WB 3.2 PERIOD.

I know what I am doing, and I am telling you, with all the trial and error, hardware swapping and system changes trying to isolate this, and everything I have posted, the ONLY uniform thing is KS 3.2 and OS 3.2 for this issue.

You don't have a now 100% reproducible problem on MULTIPLE systems without something causing it that is common among them all.

The ONLY thing common is ks 3.2 and OS 3.2

Now since there is an updated KS apparently, maybe that's the cause, maybe not. If there are also updates to OS 3.2, then perhaps that's the cause. Maybe not. Or maybe it is both combined. But the problem is NOT the hardware.

Unless you want to tell me now that all four A2000 systems here that run absolutely perfectly on other OS revisions, are all somehow bad?

[indigolemon]

Originally Posted by Malakie

Wrong, the problem is NOT hardware related. It is KS 3.2 and WB 3.2 PERIOD.

I know what I am doing, and I am telling you, with all the trial and error, hardware swapping and system changes trying to isolate this, and everything I have posted, the ONLY uniform thing is KS 3.2 and OS 3.2 for this issue.

You don't have a now 100% reproducible problem on MULTIPLE systems without something causing it that is common among them all.

The ONLY thing common is ks 3.2 and OS 3.2

Now since there is an updated KS apparently, maybe that's the cause, maybe not. If there are also updates to OS 3.2, then perhaps that's the cause. Maybe not. Or maybe it is both combined. But the problem is NOT the hardware.

Unless you want to tell me now that all four A2000 systems here that run absolutely perfectly on other OS revisions, are all somehow bad?

The issue here is that you are the only one having these issues with 3.2. No one else has reported these kinds of problem with the OS.

I dunno, maybe these issues simply didn't happen back when I didn't work for CBM.

Anyway, I hate to point this out, but there is another common denominator in all these cases ....

[Malakie]

Originally Posted by indigolemon

The issue here is that you are the only one having these issues with 3.2. No one else has reported these kinds of problem with the OS.

I dunno, maybe these issues simply didn't happen back when I didn't work for CBM.

Anyway, I hate to point this out, but there is another common denominator in all these cases ....

Odd, you stop by and throw an insult at me but don't bother to mention anything I actually said.

So tell you what mr. expert. Explain 4 different systems using different configurations, all exhibited identical behavior on ONE OS, which happens to be 3.2, kickstart AND OS.

Of course it could never be possible that I stumbled across a bug that occurs with a combination of things, perhaps the revisions of either or some step that is happening in the install process, i.e. which I CLEARLY identified and said I can REPRO 100% OF THE TIME.

But no, you use a snide remark to throw an insult at me. I don't know maybe you don't like the way I type, but whatever it is, if you don't actually care to help figure it out, than don't bother to post just to throw an insult at someone.

And unless someone can explain how it is IMPOSSIBLE for a bug to have been found in KS 3.2 OR WB 3.2 libraries OR a combination of both, then I will continue to troubleshoot it until confirmation of the cause of these issues can be had.

I was trained well and one thing I learned. When you can reproduce a bug 100% taking the same steps, well guess what? most likely cause is the items used in the process of reproduction. In this case, and as I ALREADY SAID after a LOT of work, I can reproduce this 100% once I start adding OTHER FILE SYSTEM TYPES for other hardware.

It acts like it is somehow reading the wrong file system originally used UNTIL YOU REMOVE that new filesystem library.

Now I don't know about you, but if you have two files, one say fastfilesystem and a second say fast95 file system and when you add the second and the problems show up but when you remove it the problems go away, EITHER I have 4 major defective A2000 systems here OR I have stumbled across a bug in the KS OR OS 3.2 or both combined under certain circumstances.

Instead of offering suggestions and ideas of how to better confirm this, you just jump in and throw an insult. Instead of maybe trying to reproduce this and help, you jump in and throw an insult. Instead of maybe considering it could be a new bug found by accident or through a means I am using to do this, you throw an insult.

Back when I started this chain, I gave my background with CBM Amiga as a means to say I am not a newbie and am playing catchup so I had some questions. But now, apparently, some want to use that as some form of insult for whatever reason.

You don't see me running around insulting those people, do you? In fact, some of them have actually offer helpful things to me already that I did not know had changed or was trying to re-learn. I actually WAS trained in both the Amiga systems AND component level repair and troubleshooting. Most people are not and are hobbyists learning as they go.

That's what used to make the community great but I am starting to see a whole new side where some seem to think they are the ultimate experts bar none and anyone like me that questions things, is just a threat to their ultimate expert status apparently. I have NEVER said I was such a thing, only explained my background so others would know I am not a newbie or simple hobbyist, rather I do have some actual knowledge.

What frustrates me is how some replying, completely ignore the facts as I have posted multiple times.

1) 4 systems, identically reproduced on all 4 using various hardware, the ONLY common factor is KS 3.2 and OS 3.2 TOGETHER. It does not appear to happen when any other OS revision is used.
2) It is clearly not hardware related in terms of SCIS OR IDE drives because it happens on both on different mainboard revisions.
3) I can move the same exact hardware from one unit to the next, and the problem repro's 100% with a CLEAN install of the OS.
4) I have spent weeks now testing back and forth, trying everything people suggested, and asking questions in many places, not just here. (ironically others actually do come up with ideas and suggestions that we then try)

5) I am tired of people defending OS and KS 3.2 as if it is some kind of GOD of OS's and could never be the problem ever. Which of course is ridiculous or there would not be updates being put out apparently.

You want to help with ideas and suggestions, by all means. But don't think I am going to shrink back into a little violet when someone comes at me and when some repeat the same damn thing over and over and over because they think anything else could not be even possible or conceivable.

No one here is an expert on anything above anyone else. Everyone has ideas, experiences and even training in the area. And some of those, I have called out myself because they are utterly ridiculous on the face.

You want to throw more insults, it will get us no where as usual. You want to help, then read what I wrote clearly in many posts about the symptoms, the changes when I made a change, the new updates I have made and offer some suggestions next time.

[bubbob42]

@Malakie

please post full showconfig report (check out the help system in case you don’t know how to generate it), full system log (enable via bootmenue and grab it from RAM. Start with one machine only.

Edit: You need to install the 3.2.1 update to produce the showconfig report

[Daedalus]

Originally Posted by Malakie

So tell you what mr. expert. Explain 4 different systems using different configurations, all exhibited identical behavior on ONE OS, which happens to be 3.2, kickstart AND OS.

Four 100% independent systems? So you haven't swapped SCSI cards, IDE cards or hard drives/CF/SD cards between them? Alright, the next common denominator aside from the OS is the setup procedure itself, including everything to do with HDToolbox, then whatever other steps you've taken (additional software etc.).

Of course it could never be possible that I stumbled across a bug that occurs with a combination of things, perhaps the revisions of either or some step that is happening in the install process, i.e. which I CLEARLY identified and said I can REPRO 100% OF THE TIME.

It could definitely be a bug. But other factors need to be ruled out first before it becomes more likely to be a bug.

And unless someone can explain how it is IMPOSSIBLE for a bug to have been found in KS 3.2 OR WB 3.2 libraries OR a combination of both, then I will continue to troubleshoot it until confirmation of the cause of these issues can be had.

Continuing to troubleshoot is a good idea.

I was trained well and one thing I learned. When you can reproduce a bug 100% taking the same steps, well guess what? most likely cause is the items used in the process of reproduction. In this case, and as I ALREADY SAID after a LOT of work, I can reproduce this 100% once I start adding OTHER FILE SYSTEM TYPES for other hardware.

Define "adding"? Copying files over? Mounting drives? Modifying mountlists? Modifying RDB contents or parameters?

Now I don't know about you, but if you have two files, one say fastfilesystem and a second say fast95 file system and when you add the second and the problems show up but when you remove it the problems go away, EITHER I have 4 major defective A2000 systems here OR I have stumbled across a bug in the KS OR OS 3.2 or both combined under certain circumstances.

What exactly is using Fat95 on your systems? What else are you adding when you add that file? Simply putting a file in L: won't change anything unless you've also installed something to use it.

Back when I started this chain,

Which chain? You hijacked this thread, I can only assume because your original thread(s) got you nowhere.

I gave my background with CBM Amiga as a means to say I am not a newbie and am playing catchup so I had some questions. But now, apparently, some want to use that as some form of insult for whatever reason.

The problem is that you wear this limited experience as a badge of expertise and a mark of superiority, when in reality you left Commodore after only a few years, and a good many technical users here have *decades* more experience than you. Such behaviour will attract ridicule.

I actually WAS trained in both the Amiga systems AND component level repair and troubleshooting. Most people are not and are hobbyists learning as they go.

Case in point.

That's what used to make the community great but I am starting to see a whole new side where some seem to think they are the ultimate experts bar none and anyone like me that questions things, is just a threat to their ultimate expert status apparently. I have NEVER said I was such a thing, only explained my background so others would know I am not a newbie or simple hobbyist, rather I do have some actual knowledge.

Perhaps if you stopped assuming you have relevant knowledge, you wouldn't fall into the trap of automatically assuming others don't know what they're talking about, just because their suggestions are at odds with what you think. You literally have the developers of the OS available to you on EAB, who would love to fix any issues in the OS for you. But so far you've been very vague with things and have a bit of an attitude that probably puts people off wanting to help you.

What frustrates me is how some replying, completely ignore the facts as I have posted multiple times.

And yet you're oblivious to the frustration of those who try to help you, repeatedly asking for relevant information which you still have not supplied.

1) 4 systems, identically reproduced on all 4 using various hardware, the ONLY common factor is KS 3.2 and OS 3.2 TOGETHER. It does not appear to happen when any other OS revision is used.

You said you had two different 3.2 ROMs - have you identified which is the correct one? Which one are you using for these tests?

2) It is clearly not hardware related in terms of SCIS OR IDE drives because it happens on both on different mainboard revisions.

But with the same SCSI and IDE cards, right? By the same token I can say it is clearly not software related since I have both IDE and SCSI drives working just fine under 3.2.

3) I can move the same exact hardware from one unit to the next, and the problem repro's 100% with a CLEAN install of the OS.

Excellent. So what version(s) of the filesystems are you using? What, exactly, have you installed on that clean OS? What versions of the device drivers? What partitions are you using Fat95 on? What are your Fat95 mountlists? Are you even using Fat95, or have you just copied it to your hard drive? Can it be reproduced with another copy operation other than putting a filesystem?

4) I have spent weeks now testing back and forth, trying everything people suggested, and asking questions in many places, not just here. (ironically others actually do come up with ideas and suggestions that we then try)

Some people have come up with suggestions and questions that you haven't answered, and some users in other places have come up with dubious and flawed advice based on their own misplaced self-belief.

5) I am tired of people defending OS and KS 3.2 as if it is some kind of GOD of OS's and could never be the problem ever. Which of course is ridiculous or there would not be updates being put out apparently.

I don't think anyone's seriously calling 3.2 a perfect OS. Most of us are somewhat realistic about these things. Besides, they very recently released an update, which kinda demonstrates it's *not* perfect, but also that problems and bugs are acknowledged and fixed. But if nobody can reproduce the problem, and there are other possible causes beyond the OS, the limited time of the developers is better spent on other things.

No one here is an expert on anything above anyone else.

And yet, there are some people who have tried to help you here and on other sites, who most would consider experts on particular subjects. You would do well not to assume that, just because you stopped learning about Amigas 30 years ago, everyone else did too. Of course, there are also people who throw out useless, and sometimes even downright dangerous advice while also claiming technical prowess (users no longer on this site but still spreading their mush elsewhere), and you'd do well to treat their advice accordingly. So yes, some people here are more proficient on certain matters than others, and understanding that is half your battle.

[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

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by Malakie

Interesting thread being some here know I have been fighting two separate 3.2 os/kickstart problems with HD's, either SCSI or IDE and file copy or movement or validation.

Nope, you didn't. I'm serious, at this point, nobody knows where the problem is, and there is only one guy who can help to nail it down, and that's you.

Thus, I afraid I'm asking this for the forth time, please be so kind and post the output of a couple of programs here. "ShowConfig" is one. Then, please download "Devices" from Aminet: http://aminet.net/dev/misc/Devices.lha run as

 devices DH0:

if DH0: is the name of the harddisk creating trouble. The output of the above command is helpful to nail a couple of problem cases as well, and please also post your startup-sequence.

You have been asked this so many times, I really wonder what you are up to. Trolling, or asking for help? If you want help, you need to provide information - nobody can read your mind.

[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.

[boemann]

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.

Great find - it must be something that edits the startup sequence after 3.2.1 is installed. The 3.2.1 itself copies a complete file so it must be something you did after that which causes this.

[daxb]

The ed text editor that comes with OS3.1 truncates too long lines silently. I would check all used editors how they behave.

[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?