Do I really need Kickstart 3.1 roms?

[itix]

There are several important reason to upgrade to 3.1. Speed is NOT one of them. Stability IS!

When it comes to "stability" Kickstart 3.0 and 3.1 are same.

Some games like dynAMIte run little faster on Kickstart 3.1 because they use WCP()(? IIRC) on the 3.1 ROM but Kickstart 3.1 is not faster than 3.0.

It is like upgrading from 2.04 to 2.1. Very little new, old same thing.

[weirdami]

3.1 gives you autoconfig for that one accelerator/RAM expansion thingy I had that I can't remember the name of right now. I only had 3.0, so I had to have the config thingy run in startup-sequence. So, pretty much I didn't get the extra RAM if I didn't.

[McVenco]

itix wrote:

It is like upgrading from 2.04 to 2.1. Very little new, old same thing.

Didn't kickstart 2.05 (not 2.1 - that's the WB version) had built in harddisk autoboot support, while 2.04 hadn't? AFAIK, the differences between 2.04 and 2.05 are bigger than between 3.0 and 3.1...

[Caius]

weirdami wrote:
3.1 gives you autoconfig for that one accelerator/RAM expansion thingy I had that I can't remember the name of right now. I only had 3.0, so I had to have the config thingy run in startup-sequence. So, pretty much I didn't get the extra RAM if I didn't.

Perhaps the Microbotics 1230 XA?

[Jope]

McVenco wrote:
Didn't kickstart 2.05 (not 2.1 - that's the WB version) had built in harddisk autoboot support, while 2.04 hadn't? AFAIK, the differences between 2.04 and 2.05 are bigger than between 3.0 and 3.1...

KS 2.05 (from rev 37.300 onwards) brought in a driver for the A600's internal ide connector.

All kickstarts from 1.2.1 (or really 1.3) onwards have supported autobooting from a hard drive.

The differences between 2.04 and 2.05 are rather minor. Merely a carddisk.device and the aforementioned a600 ide driver, perhaps a few bug fixes here and there.

Workbench wise 2.0x -> 2.1 was a bigger leap (yet still minor) than 3.0 -> 3.1