Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Software Issues and Discussion => Topic started by: TheMud on May 16, 2007, 01:48:29 PM
-
??!! Saw this Kick... Does this version has any advantages ?
-
I'm pretty sure it's a fake, version 3.1 altered to show 3.5. The only versions higher than 3.1 that I know of were the betas used with the Walker, ect.
Jeff
-
It has any advantages of OS3.5 without the need for Setpatch to reboot the machine when it softkicks the updates (because they are contained in the ROM).
--
moto
-
@Jeff
It's not necessarily fake. It is entirely possible to incorporate the OS3.5/OS3.9 ROM Updates in to a 3.1 kickstart image to make a version 3.5/3.9 kickstart. The version number will even change on the purple "boot" screen if you have no hard drive plugged in and no floppy in the drive. I did this with my A1200 and burned the resulting image to EPROMs.
--
moto
-
I think the latest official version was 3.1,
its either a fake or maybe 3.1 with some builtin patches
-
@motorollin
Yes, and I would like to do that. I have all the stuff I think. Are you using Doobrey's tools?
I was just assuming the OP was refering to the fake 3.5 that has been floating around on the net forever.
Thanks for clearing it up.
Jeff
-
it is common knowledge that os3.5 and 3.9 patch the kickstart and update it to 3.5 or 3.9 ... so this is no fake. if you have an algor/kickflash/eflash you can store those patches in their boot rom and have the 3.5/3.9 kickstart on 1st boot... or u can do what motorolin said.
any amiga with OS3.5 or OS3.9 will report it has 3.5/3.9 kickstart.
-
@Jeff
Yes I used Doobrey's ROMSplit to split apart the 3.1 ROM and the 3.9 ROM Update and then Remus to combine it back in to one ROM. I then burned used WinHex to split the image in to two chunks (one for each chip) and some other modifications and then burned the files to the chips. Check back over my old posts if you want to do it - I did post the detail of the process at one point.
--
moto
-
Just tested the thingy... It runs ok... So guess Motorollin is right *Smile*
I'll keep it ...
-
KS 40.69 is no real OS 3.5 ROM (real as including the OS 3.5 ROM Updates).
It's a ROM with rompatches and some other BlizKick modules applied and the version field poked in manually.
Some archive even has my name tagged to such file. I have absolutely NOTHING to do with it, nor does it make the file any more genuine.
KS 40.71 (attributed to Amiga Technologies) is a fake. The file started circulating well before Doobrey's tools were developed.
If you want "real" 3.5 ROM you'll have to use Doobrey's tools yourself.
-
Piru wrote:
KS 40.71 (attributed to Amiga Technologies) is a fake.
Yup, that fake 40.71 is a slightly hacked 40.70 A4000(D) ROM.
Nothing more than a few changes to some strings, and a version bump.
-
I don't think this ROM is a fake, it's more like an unsupported prototype that someone did long ago around the time of OS 3.5 that incorporates certain library updates including cybergfx. I think this was put together for a technology demo of prototype hardware that was never release (that amiga that looked like a toaster box I believe).
If you want the real story on it, load it up and start looking at the libraries that are resident with it. It's quite interesting from that perspective.
-
1,3c1,3
< 0000: 11144EF9 00F800D2 0000FFFF 00280046 ..Nù.ø.Ò..ÿÿ.(.F
< 0010: 0028000A FFFFFFFF 00414D49 47412052 .(..ÿÿÿÿ.AMIGA R
< 0020: 4F4D204F 70657261 74696E67 20537973 OM Operating Sys
---
> 0000: 11144EF9 00F800D2 0000FFFF 00280047 ..Nù.ø.Ò..ÿÿ.(.G
> 0010: 0028000A FFFFFFFF 00416D69 67612052 .(..ÿÿÿÿ.Amiga R
> 0020: 414D204F 70657261 74696E67 20537973 AM Operating Sys
6,7c6,7
< 0050: 38352D31 39393320 00436F6D 6D6F646F 85-1993 .Commodo
< 0060: 72652D41 6D696761 2C20496E 632E2000 re-Amiga, Inc. .
---
> 0050: 38352D31 39393620 00416D69 67612054 85-1996 .Amiga T
> 0060: 6563686E 6F6C6F67 69657320 20202000 echnologies .
9c9
< 0080: 7665642E 00332E31 20524F4D 20006578 ved..3.1 ROM .ex
---
> 0080: 7665642E 00332E35 20524F4D 20006578 ved..3.5 ROM .ex
11c11
< 00A0: 34302E31 30202831 352E372E 3933290D 40.10 (15.7.93).
---
> 00A0: 34302E31 31202831 312E312E 3936290D 40.11 (11.1.96).
37,38c37,38
< 0240: 26802089 2F0241F8 0400240A 08020003 &. ./.Aø..$.....
< 0250: 670441F8 100043FA 0104200B 22089081 g.Aø..Cú.. ."...
---
> 0240: 26802089 2F0241F8 3000240A 08020003 &. ./.Aø0.$.....
> 0250: 670441F8 300043FA 0104200B 22089081 g.Aø0.Cú.. ."...
885,888c885,888
< 3740: 536F6674 77617265 20466169 6C757265 Software Failure
< 3750: 2E200026 0F526563 6F766572 61626C65 . .&.Recoverable
< 3760: 20416C65 72742E20 00EA0F50 72657373 Alert. .ê.Press
< 3770: 206C6566 74206D6F 75736520 62757474 left mouse butt
---
> 3740: 47757275 204D6564 69746174 696F6E20 Guru Meditation
> 3750: 2E200026 0F536D61 6C6C2053 696E7320 . .&.Small Sins
> 3760: 20416C65 72742E20 00EA0F4D 65646974 Alert. .ê.Medit
> 3770: 61746520 616E6420 75736520 62757474 ate and use butt
1970c1970
< 7B10: A5BC0128 030A00F8 7B2200F8 7B2E00F8 ¥¼.(...ø{".ø{..ø
---
> 7B10: A5BC0128 000A00F8 7B2200F8 7B2E00F8 ¥¼.(...ø{".ø{..ø
6352c6352
< 18CF0: 61444F53 2F417574 6F2F4E6F 436C6F73 aDOS/Auto/NoClos
---
> 18CF0: 61204F53 2F417574 6F2F4E6F 436C6F73 a OS/Auto/NoClos
19399c19399
< 4BC60: 00356708 08AB0001 006156C3 08EB0001 .5g..«...aVÃ.ë..
---
> 4BC60: 00356708 08AB0001 006156C3 086B0001 .5g..«...aVÃ.k..
32331,32334c32331,32334
< 7E4A0: 74696E67 20257300 416D6967 614F5320 ting %s.AmigaOS
< 7E4B0: 332E3120 2020256C 44206772 61706869 3.1 %lD graphi
< 7E4C0: 6373206D 656D2020 256C4420 6F746865 cs mem %lD othe
< 7E4D0: 72206D65 6D202020 00766572 73696F6E r mem .version
---
> 7E4A0: 74696E67 20257300 416D6967 6120576F ting %s.Amiga Wo
> 7E4B0: 726B6265 6E636820 20256C44 20677261 rkbench %lD gra
> 7E4C0: 70686963 73206D65 6D202025 6C44206F phics mem %lD o
> 7E4D0: 74686572 206D656D 00766572 73696F6E ther mem.version
32767c32767
< 7FFE0: FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF E20F9194 00080000 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿâ.......
---
> 7FFE0: FFFFFFFF FFFFFFFF 5AE7AE2A 00080000 ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿZç®*....
'nuff said. It is a fake, and a bad one.
-
DonnyEMU wrote:
I think this was put together for a technology demo of prototype hardware that was never release (that amiga that looked like a toaster box I believe).
If you want the real story on it, load it up and start looking at the libraries that are resident with it. It's quite interesting from that perspective.
Are you thinking of the v43 ROMs that were in the Walker prototypes?
-
I wish it was true, but today with a fast hard drive and fast memory, you don't get any benefits with any roms. It's about Speed issues. If you want fast machine you already use a program that copies your rom's data into your miggy's fastmem.
Anyway here is a link:
http://www.amigahistory.co.uk/kickstart35.html
-
motorollin wrote:
@Jeff
Yes I used Doobrey's ROMSplit to split apart the 3.1 ROM and the 3.9 ROM Update and then Remus to combine it back in to one ROM. I then burned used WinHex to split the image in to two chunks (one for each chip) and some other modifications and then burned the files to the chips. Check back over my old posts if you want to do it - I did post the detail of the process at one point.
--
moto
Hello Moto. (ahah, I always want to say that! Sorry)
Can u make a tutorial or even put the two final images to other ppl who want to make their own ROMs?
Ok, maybe it offends the copyrights. Just a try.
-
@motorollin
I agree, if you can, do a tutorial! and what hardware is needed, eg. chip types. Adding in newer libraries to essentially a startup sequence that would get loaded anyway by a re-boot can't be against copyrights, esp if you own the ROMS to begin with. It would be like making a copy of the AMIGA OS 3.9 CD, including some new libraries and using that to re-install instead of your original one. It's just a backup from a ROM chip instead of a CD. Like a USB stick would be.
Please make a full step tutorial. If in doubt, could always ask AMIGA if it's ok to do it if you OWN the ROM in the first place. Pretty sure you're allowed to make a copy if you own it. Not sure about the adding in library bit...who knows I see no harm, beats having to re-boot.
-
Irrespective of 3.5 or 3.9 ROM being fake, the 4000D using 3.1 Rom is Rev 40.68.
The A4000T uses 3.1 Rom, but version 40.70 as this includes the on-board SCSI, which was only available on the A4000T.
40.68 Roms work in an A4000T mobo, but this makes the SCSI non-functional.
IDE should never have been used on the Amiga; Just too much CPU usage! :pissed:
-
@Kin-Hell
There's no relationship between the kickstart version and the machine it's made for.
eg. There was a 40.70 for the A4000D, but it had problems with scsi.device when used with some CPU cards, so they dropped back to 40.68
IIRC, there was a similar situation with the A3000 too.
-
Last time AMIGA Inc. heard of someone making his own 3.9 ROM they send their lawyers. They do not want to sell 3.9 ROMS to you, but they sue you if you make your own ROM/tell others how to do it.
-
Thats a load of crap. They cant do anything to you for using tools and files that are free to amiga owners. If you take YOUR rom and YOUR Boing Bag files to make it and dont download an image because you dont own a 3.1 ROM then that is diffrent.
-
@Donar
Last time AMIGA Inc. heard of someone making his own 3.9 ROM they send their lawyers.
It was a bogus DMCA claim. Basically if it would have been someone with enough balls (or money I guess), they could have sued Amiga Inc for it.
but they sue you if you make your own ROM/tell others how to do it.
It's nonsense really, they can't tell you what you can or can't do with the KS ROM you own. I should know, being BlizKick author and all. I've never heard a beep from Amiga Inc.
BlizKick is in aminet, and I see no reason why romus tools couldn't be aswell.
-
See Amiga is a hobby and if some company sends you a not so nice letter via Reedsmith because you made a Video where it seems that an A1k is showing OS3.9 boot screen. You probably will not fight it out to all extent.
With regard to the issue that you are talking about, we were notified by third parties that someone had manipulated and altered the ROM’s. This is a violation of our IP and they were notified. We have since been told that it was not true and nothing was really done, that it was a manipulated video, not actual code that was changed.
Look at number eight... (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=46682)
Maybe (surely?) Bill's claim is crap, but will you mess with Reedsmith for your hobby? Just announce that you make a step by step guide for creating a 3.9 ROM out of your original 3.1 ROM and the BB2 RomUpdate of your legally purchased OS3.9 CD and fight it out, if you have the balls (or money). :-P
I don't say that it is illegal, but AMIGA Inc. thinks it is and they (maybe) will come after you as they already have with others.
-
Some archive even has my name tagged to such file. I have absolutely NOTHING to do with it, nor does it make the file any more genuine
Maybe it has your ExecSG incorporated as it is (writing out of head) a little bit smaller than original Exec, leaving more room for other updated libs ...
-
Maybe it has your ExecSG incorporated
It doesn't.
-
With regard to the issue that you are talking about, we were notified by third parties that someone had manipulated and altered the ROM's. This is a violation of our IP and they were notified
Well, even if the ROM was changed, it's none of Amiga Inc's business.
Oh, and BlizKick (http://aminet.net/package/util/boot/BlizKick) has done this for a decade now, where is my DMCA takedown notice or the lawsuits against me? (Included is a a tool that can apply the modules to ROM and create a new one, this can be used with BlizKick itself, or burned to EPROM for example)
I don't say that it is illegal, but AMIGA Inc. thinks it is and they (maybe) will come after you as they already have with others.
I can't wait.
-
Oh, and BlizKick has done this for a decade now, where is my DMCA takedown notice or the lawsuits against me? (Included is a a tool that can apply the modules to ROM and create a new one, this can be used with BlizKick itself, or burned to EPROM for example)
I don't say that BlizKick/Remus/ROMSplit are illegal and i'm not AInc's or someone elses lawyer, i only tell you what has happened at least one time, that's all. Maybe in their view the tool is not illegal, using it for altering their code is. -> Ask AInc.
Taking a weapon with you is not always illegal, shooting someone with it will be most of the time -> Bad analogy but i hope you get what i mean.
Piru you got mail.
-
Well yeah. Still doesn't explain why Amiga Inc took down some *video* showing the AmigaOS 3.9 ROM on A1000. Amiga Inc had absolutely NO rights whatsoever to the video, the author recording it had all the copyrights.
Speaking of interesting tools, here's one (http://aminet.net/package/hard/hack/DC-KF500)
-
The video was taken down by the author because of causing trouble with AInc/Reedsmith because they thought the author had really manipulated their ROM's/Kickstart Disk - infringing their copyright in their POV.
-
Ohwell. I would have contested that view and kept the video up.
Since after all, the video itself isn't infringing in any way.
-
Donar wrote:
The video was taken down by the author because of causing trouble with AInc/Reedsmith because they thought the author had really manipulated their ROM's/Kickstart Disk - infringing their copyright in their POV.
I was told their complaint was 'manipulation of copy protection'
Since there's no copy protection in the ROM or the 3.5/3.9 ROMUpdate files,I'd love to see Amiga Inc try and prove that one in court.
-
Indeed, the ROMUpdate format is rather self-explonary.. if you have any clue what executable files look like it's trivial to extract the modules out of it.
It took me just couple of hours to write the tool to extract the files out of the update. The result is in the BlizKick archive, including source code.
-
For the tinkerer, what size are the Kickstart ROMs: 256k (32kx8) or 2Mb(256kx8)?
-
Hello to all of you,
I explained why I have put the video and thread offline somewhere on amiga.org! At that time it was a good decission to save my forum, nowadays I think I would react different...
I am still waiting (since over 1 year) to get my acquittal from the german public prosecutor. ;-) Nice {bleep}ings to McEvil. :-)
-
Doobrey wrote:
Since there's no copy protection in the ROM or the 3.5/3.9 ROMUpdate files,I'd love to see Amiga Inc try and prove that one in court.
That is may the reason why I am still waiting to get an answer from the court... but today I know that whole AInc. consists of some old computers and an empty office, nothing to be afraid of here in germany. ;-)
-
TheMud wrote:
??!! Saw this Kick... Does this version has any advantages ?
Strange version. :-) I saw only this kickstart...
(http://www.orderathome.de/amiga/391.jpg)
(http://www.orderathome.de/amiga/392.jpg)
-
:lol:
-
:lol: :lol:
-
I have posted photos and a video of my custom 3.9 ROM in my A1200. AInc are more than welcome to attempt to prosecute me. I know I have done nothing illegal.
--
moto
-
Doobrey wrote:
@Kin-Hell
There's no relationship between the kickstart version and the machine it's made for.
eg. There was a 40.70 for the A4000D, but it had problems with scsi.device when used with some CPU cards, so they dropped back to 40.68
Kinda Contradictory if you really think about what you wrote! :-D
-
@ motorollin
I'd still love to see that tutorial up on A-Org properly written out.
Any chance?
-
Donar wrote:
The video was taken down by the author because of causing trouble with AInc/Reedsmith because they thought the author had really manipulated their ROM's/Kickstart Disk - infringing their copyright in their POV.
And I thought it was H&P's IP... :lol:
They don't sue H&P and sue these guys.... jesus...