Which OS?

[Zero]

I run OS 3.9 on my miggy, (specs in my sig).
It runs well, altough quite often I find myself going back to OS 3.1, but mainly because I am more use to it, and it seems a bit faster.

 :-)

[fx]

steve30 wrote:
Since when has WB3 worked on KS2 roms?

It hasn't. Therefore my only option is WB2. Or WB1, which isn't as good.

Well I thought you actually prefered WB2 over WB3 on a slow computer (which would be wrong :-) ). And you can always buy 3.1 roms

[Tomas]

I would go with 3.1 on that setup. If you had more ram, then i definitely would have upgraded to 3.9. It meets the minimum requirements, but i doubt you have much reserve for other software.

[Hyperspeed]

Workbench 3.0 here... I've heard 3.1 slows down SCSI boot times unless you add a dongle to the IDE interface to make it believe there's a drive in there.

Anyone got pics of OS3.9's HDToolBox? I've read it has SCSI integrity testing features...

[Warface]

If you ask me, 3.1. You can always add the bells and whistles later.

[leofoe]

I would use 3.9 on any Amiga that meets this specs:
KS: 3.1
RAM: 8+MB
CPU: 030+
Graphics Card
Otherwise I'd stick to 3.1.

[darksun9210]

3.9, if only because of the complete TCP/IP stack that doesn't time out after 30 minutes, or need a couple of hours configuring like amitcp...

anything with a 3.1 rom, an 020/030, a couple of meg fast should be able to run 3.9...

if i can run windows 3.1 under PC task on a 25Mhz EC030, 3.9 should be fine

[Agafaster]

leofoe wrote:
I would use 3.9 on any Amiga that meets this specs:
KS: 3.1
RAM: 8+MB
CPU: 030+
Graphics Card
Otherwise I'd stick to 3.1.

Thats what I used on my A1200 (still do when I dust it off occasionally! ;-))
Spec:
A1200 Apollo1230Lite (68030+68882 25MHz) 8MB KS3.1 AGA only, Silversurfer.

I regularly used it for the Web too !

I always found there was an improvement in my system after upgrade, once I'd got it 'right'.

although my preferred choice is OS4.0 on my A1XE. :crazy:

[justthatgood]

Well I have 3.9 on one of my Amigas. The other two have 3.0.  I guess since later they are going to be pushing toasters it really wouldn't make sense to use anything past 3.1 I guess.

You could always be freaky and install NetBSD/68k or something  :-D

[mr_a500]

I prefer WB 3.1, but if you've got a graphics card, 060 or PPC, or if you like to use only default configurations, then go with 3.9.

if i can run windows 3.1 under PC task on a 25Mhz EC030, 3.9 should be fine

Impressive. I always wanted to try that, but thought it would be way too slow on my 33Mhz 020. I also didn't want the nightmare of attempting to install Windows.

[Hyperspeed]

I never did manage to get Win3.11 running on PCTask4, probably because I never came across the original disks.

It's a shame that nowadays with USB and Mediator that PCTask/PCX didn't continue to be developed as Win'98 would be pretty handy if it was emulated on Amiga.

Anyone know about HDToolBox SCSI bus testing on OS3.5/3.9?

[steve30]

You could always use basiliskII to emulate a mac and then use the mac to emulate windows, but I'm not sure if there is something for 68k mac that will emulate 98.

I know you can emulate win95 with softwindows on 68k mac.

[Hyperspeed]

I think PCX on Amiga could do Win'95. PCTask may have mentioned it for version 5.

It'd be interesting to hear from Amiga users who actually make a lot of use of MacOS 7.5.5 or Win3.11 via emulation.

[Syperhawk]

Hyperspeed wrote:
I never did manage to get Win3.11 running on PCTask4, probably because I never came across the original disks.

It's a shame that nowadays with USB and Mediator that PCTask/PCX didn't continue to be developed as Win'98 would be pretty handy if it was emulated on Amiga.

Anyone know about HDToolBox SCSI bus testing on OS3.5/3.9?

I had Pc-Task working 1 time, win 95 on my Amiga 4000T.


==============================
Check out my Amiga Fourm at
www.islandfriendly.ca
==============================