Picasso IV: P96 or CGFX?

[mdivancic]

I prefer CGX4, but I've found P96 works better with OS 3.1. I've got the following setups:

Picasso II on OS 3.1 running P96
Picasso IV on OS 3.9 running CyberGraphicX 4

[mdivancic]

I had just recently decided to rebuild my A3000T using OS 3.1 as opposed to OS 3.9 which I have been running for the last several years (I have OS 3.9 on my A4000T now). Just to be different, no other reason. I had always used CGX 4 (r5) without any problems, but on OS 3.1 on my A3000T it was not stable at all.  I don't why, but it would just lock up when trying to use Picasso II screen modes. I switched to P96 and did not experience the same problems.

Having run the two now they both function similar. I like the screen dragging ability of Cybergraphics and I like the tools that come with it a little better. Both are more than useable. I don't have any of the special requirements that Flashlab has, so I can use either. If CyberGraphicsX has been stable on my A3000T I would have stuck with it.

[mdivancic]

amiga_3k wrote:
I'd opt for P96. Used it on the PIV I owned in both a 3000 and 4000T, both on Kick3.1 and OS3.5 and never had any issues with it. Out of curiousity I once installed CGX but was so not impressed! So for everyday usages P96 is a good friend.

I'm not sure why by on my A3000T running OS 3.1 using a Picasso II it did not like CGX at all. Very unstable. I did not have any problems on the exact same setup using OS 3.9. So I switched to P96.

I agree with Keropi that the CGX tools are better, but it may just come down to what you are use to?