OS 3.9 and ECS Amigas concerns

[AmigaPixel]

Cammy brings up a very interesting point which I copied below. This concerns me since I don't have an RTG graphics for my A2000 and it will be awhile before I can buy one. Workbench 3.1 floppies I have seen online are almost the same price as OS 3.9 and I rathe have 3.9. Can anyone using 0S 3.9 on ECS machines only (no graphics cards) give me feed back on the performance and speed of Workbench?Thanks

"Unfortunately picture.datatype in OS3.9 is just much slower than the 3.1 version, no matter what bitdepth the images being used are. I have pre-remapped every image I use in all of my programs to a special, locked 16 colour palette. In a program like YAM, which needs to load many of these images on startup, the difference in load times between 3.1 and 3.9 is very noticable. It takes less than a minute to load in 3.1, but over a minute to load in 3.9, and all the images it's loading are 4bit 16 colour iffs."

[Lockon_15]

If your A2000 is short of 68040 or 68060 accelerator with 16Mb or more FastRAM, you won't miss OS3.9.
I tried it on my setup and that was a really soooo sloooooow...I mean slow boot, no background eye candy, GUI is killing machine at all times....
Considering that fact, I set my sail for OS3.1. It's enhanced with MUI3.8, Scalos 1.2 and NewIcons 4.6. With inbound Indivision ECS I'll be shooting at stock 640x512 in 16 color.

[AmigaPixel]

If your A2000 is short of 68040 or 68060 accelerator with 16Mb or more FastRAM, you won't miss OS3.9.
I tried it on my setup and that was a really soooo sloooooow...I mean slow boot, no background eye candy, GUI is killing machine at all times....
Considering that fact, I set my sail for OS3.1. It's enhanced with MUI3.8, Scalos 1.2 and NewIcons 4.6. With inbound Indivision ECS I'll be shooting at stock 640x512 in 16 color.

Well I have a 68030 at 50mhz 18 megs ram. So I guess like cammy said unless you have an RTG video card it isn't worth it.

[kolla]

As I have tried to point out numerous times, just because OS3.9 gives you coloured icons and backdrops in ReAction/ClassAct apps you dont _have_ to use those, there's nothing in OS3.9 that really makes it so much slower than 3.1. Install 3.9 and replace the icons with those of 3.1 and voila, you have your speed back. If picture,datatype that comes with 3.9 is a problem, then just use the one from 3.5, or 3.1 instead, or a third party one.

My minimig is currently running OS-3.9 with MagicWB icons, and use less than 20 secs to boot, but then I have made a custom 3.9 kickstart so it doesnt waste time rebooting (or RAM on updated exec, scsi.device, fastfilesystem, shell, ram-handler etc). I've also been using OS-3.9 on my A600/030 for years and it's certainly not slow.

[Lockon_15]

The amount of time and nerves required to "tone-down" OS3.9 in order to  put it's performance in OS3.1 class is pretty close to same resources necessary to "tune-up" stock OS3.1.  It's down to user to decide which approach might hit projected needs.
 
With over 10Mb of RAM and a "speedy" 030 it might be a challenge. I guess AmigaPixel has setup which is enough qualified at least for a try.

[Cammy]

I don't think it would be very simple to replace the 3.9 picture.datatype with the 3.1 one, too many other components depend on it. I guess what we really need is a brand new, super fast picture.datatype written in Assembly that does everything the 3.9 one does, but maybe optimised for palette-mapped screens. That's the only thing I can think of that could help speed up 3.9, and I don't see it happening any time soon.

I think the 3.1 picture.datatype was written in ASM. I think the 3.5/3.9 ones were written in C, like many other components of the OS that were replaced.

[kolla]

I don't think it would be very simple to replace the 3.9 picture.datatype with the 3.1 one, too many other components depend on it.

Really? What components would that be?
On the Minimig (again) I use PictDT42, and it seems to work just fine (v44.x in OS3.5+ needs 020+).

I guess what we really need is a brand new, super fast picture.datatype written in Assembly that does everything the 3.9 one does, but maybe optimised for palette-mapped screens. That's the only thing I can think of that could help speed up 3.9, and I don't see it happening any time soon.

OK, time to pick up the FAQ from ... boingbag1:

Q: Where are the PowerPC datatypes on the OS 3.9 CD?

A: Due to the extremely tight deadline required to ship OS 3.9 by December 4th, only the picture.datatype is currently
available for the PowerPC (and none of it's sub-classes are PPC-enabled):

AmigaOS3.9:OS-Version3.9/Workbench3.9/Classes/Datatypes/picture.datatype (82,264 bytes).

This is a 'fat' binary, meaning it contains both 68k and PPC code, and will automatically use the fastest processor available. For other PPC
datatypes, simply search any Aminet mirror for "warpjpeg", "warppng", and "warpgif". [David Rey/Remco Komduur]

The OS 3.9 picture.datatype offers a new scaling feature, and far better dithering (not really a concern unless you use 8-bit screens), and uses the PPC only for dithering or scaling, so you need to consider whether you're likely to use those features--if not, then it would be preferable to stick with the CyberGraphX one, simply because it's faster. [Oliver Roberts]

See?

I ?think the 3.1 picture.datatype was written in ASM. I think the 3.5/3.9 ones were written in C, like many other components of the OS that were replaced.

Have you actually tried using the OS 3.1 one in OS3.9? And if so, did you actually get errors messages? Also it would be interesting to know about PictDT42 or PictDT43. Many sub datatypes of picture.datatype need v43+, for example the ones from Andreas Kleinert.

[AmigaPixel]

@kolla
Thanks I will try those tips."As I have tried to point out numerous times" Sometimes I have to be beat over the head before finally get it! Not as quick as I used to be. Darn Thyroid

[pyrre]

@ Amigapixel
(sorry if i am duplicating this post)

If i am not completely mistaken a WB 3.1 install is included on the 3.9 CD-rom.
Just copy the contents to your HDD and you are ready to go.
And you have the 3.9 cd til you are able to purchase a GFX card...

Go for the 3.9 cd

EDIT: After browsing the 3.9 cd-rom there is a WB 3.5 folder.
And it looks complete....

I would anyway go for the 3.9 cd-rom...

[mr_a500]

@kolla

What's with the attitude? I hate to tell you, but Cammy is exactly right and you are wrong. I swapped the picture.datatype years ago and ran into many problems.

Please don't recommend things that you've never tested personally.

[tone007]

My OS3.9 installs are always slower because I can't resist using a pretty fullscreen JPG WBPattern.

[AmigaPixel]

@ Amigapixel
(sorry if i am duplicating this post)

If i am not completely mistaken a WB 3.1 install is included on the 3.9 CD-rom.
Just copy the contents to your HDD and you are ready to go.
And you have the 3.9 cd til you are able to purchase a GFX card...

Go for the 3.9 cd

EDIT: After browsing the 3.9 cd-rom there is a WB 3.5 folder.
And it looks complete....

I would anyway go for the 3.9 cd-rom...

Thanks for the tip pyrre, good to know those are included. I was thinking about that too  at least having the OS 3.9 cd on hand.

[Acill]

I would just archive 3.1 and use that. 3.9 is so bad on a non accelerated machine. Everything you need is on the 3.1 system and i would argue that 3.1 is better then 3.9 and its hacks anyway!

[kolla]

@kolla

What's with the attitude? I hate to tell you, but Cammy is exactly right and you are wrong. I swapped the picture.datatype years ago and ran into many problems.

I suppose you have details? You swapped which picture.datatype incarnations and ended up with what kinds of problems?

Please don't recommend things that you've never tested personally.

Think what you like, but I know what I have running and that works just fine. But hey, I guess I should just ignore what works for me and recommend "pure" old OS3.1 like everyone else

[matthey]

I would just archive 3.1 and use that. 3.9 is so bad on a non accelerated machine. Everything you need is on the 3.1 system and i would argue that 3.1 is better then 3.9 and its hacks anyway!

I wouldn't say 3.9 is a bunch of hacks. Sure it has some pieces that aren't integrated very well but that doesn't make them hacks. It's no different than the hacks and patches that are thrown on a 3.1 install. 3.9 was more geared for a gfx card but there are some things that were actually made faster. The memory allocation routines and memory copy routines in exec.library are faster. They still aren't blazingly fast but they are faster than 3.1. 3.1 did set a very good standard. It's the best AmigaOS classic release ever.