Amiga 3000 3.1 roms vs. Amiga 1200 3.1 roms

[Ilwrath]

Well, that part number is typically listed as an A1200 part.  But, the 3.1 ROMs are something of a mystery.  There are lots of versions and varients of them.  

As I understand it, there wasn't an official Commodore blessed 3.1 ROM for anything except the CD32.  C= went bust, and several places just burned the last test versions of the 3.1 ROM they had recieved into EEPROMs and started selling them.  (Who'd know the difference?  Who was going to sue for the infringement?  C= had its own problems...)  So you see all sorts of revision numbers, and improperly labelled ROMs.   Whether the errors were through ignorance or malice is anybody's guess.  

You may very well have an A1200 rom set.  Or, (more likely, I'd think) you may have an A3000 rom set that is simply mislabelled.  (I think the set of 3.1s I sold to Redrumloa recently was labelled similiar to yours.)  It's tough to tell what the ROM is, unless you dump the contents and compare it to a known one.  ;-)

[Ilwrath]

Are you sure about that? I remember seeing OS3.1 upgrade kits (roms + OS3.1 floppies) on eBay every once in a while, which were released by Commodore.

As far as I understood it, these were made by third party companies who WOULD have made the official run for C=, but the offical release versions were not yet out when C= packed it in.  The third party companies (probably illegally) packaged and sold the test versions as C= products to cover their own expenses.

I remember reading this in an Amiga mag back in the day, but I forget which one.  (sigh)

[Ilwrath]

If I were you, I wouldn't try them in A3000. I am not sure if you would damage something, however I am 100% sure that A1200 3.1 roms are vastly different than A3000 roms in compatibility.

Pinout wise, they should be the same.  Installing them shouldn't harm anything, provided you align them properly, don't bend any pins, etc.  

The contents ARE indeed vastly different, though.  Most likely, if they are the wrong version, you'll be greeted with the yellow (kickstart/hardware fault) screen.  (Or perhaps some other color fault -- it certainly wouldn't work, because it would have code for the IDE controller (A1200), not the WD SCSI (A3000).)

[Ilwrath]

Well..these roms dont have a white paper printed and glued to the rom.

Heh... that's actually a sticker over the EEPROM erase window...  Don't remove those!  ;-)

By the fact that yours are actual ROMs, not EEPROMs, makes me think that you may indeed have an A1200 version.  I don't think any actual ROMs were sold for the A3000.  (Only various EEPROM versions.)

[Ilwrath]

Well..after looking around in the net...couldnt find any reliable info about this...so i feel like im in the twilight Zone right now...

Yeah... That's because there ISN'T much reliable information on it.  The ROM revisions and packaging may vary by region and original vendor.  There's a lot of variations out there.  I recently sold a set of A3000 40.68's.  (So there IS a 40.68 for A3000 -- but there also is for A1200)  

I still have a set of A3000 40.70's.  Both sets were EEPROMs with stickers, though.  Who knows who made 'em.....  But, just because I haven't seen a non-EEPROM A3000 ROM doesn't mean they don't exist.  People find all sorts of things that no one else believes existed.  :-D

50 dollars missed...anyone interested in brand new A1200 3.1 roms ?? (i presume)  :-D

Bummer.  If you're good at swapping them out, you might want to try it just to make sure... But, from first glance, it does appear that someone sold you the wrong one.  :-(  (And, actually, I could use a set of A1200 40.68's, but I don't know how expensive shipping from Argentina would be -- it'd probably be cheaper for me to go to Software Hut.  ;-)  )

[Ilwrath]

What that page in the Amiga History guide doesn't mention is that VillageTronic were responsible for initial distribution of OS3.1. If I remember correctly, the manuals even state that it's licenced to them for distribution.

Hmm... You might be right.  I think they were responsible for the black box/documentation version.  They also had the closest thing to a legal agreement with C=.  I believe they did legally get clearance to release the last (still testing) version they had obtained.  I never said any of the versions were pirated or not.  Just that they weren't blessed by C= as final versions, and there's a LOT of different revisions out there.  Some of which are mislabelled.