Picasso IV: P96 or CGFX?

[McVenco]

The A4000T that I picked up last weekend came with a Picasso IV (woohoo! finally got one!) and Picasso96 installed.
It all works fine (I haven't tried much yet), but I was just curious if there are any pros/cons or major differences between the Picasso96 or CybergraphX software packages. Can I install them both to try out the differences?
Are there any specific programs which will *only* work with one of the packages and not with the other?
Is there anywhere where I can find detailed info on both packages?

And about the P-IV itself: I also haven't checked which version I currently have, but what is the latest firmware version available?

Yeah, lotsa questions, but any helpful answer is appreciated :-)

[keropi]

if you have a paloma too, then only p96 supports the picassoIV PiP feature...
ok a little more info  :lol:
- you can't have both cgx and p96 installed
- only a handfull of progs (all I remember is a mac emulator) works only in cgx
- you need to purchase CGX , whereas the picassoIV has an OEM license for p96

[zipper]

I feel that the FliFi works better with P96.

[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

[McVenco]

mdivancic wrote:

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

In what way does p96 work better with 3.1? And why do you prefer CGX?

I'd like to hear some reasons/facts/experiences (good or bad), not just opinions! :lol:

[keropi]

I too prefer CGX, I just like it better. the mode settings and all its progs have way better usabillity (for me lol)
plus I like the fact that CGX does not consume any chipmem at all... p96 takes some kb as you open windows/gfx (maybe uses it as pointers?) nothing bad, just the feeling lol

[amiga_3k]

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.

[Flashlab]

I prefer P96. I have installed both CGX and P96 because of the CVision and switch between the two with a script that moves some files and reboots.

I've had some colour distortion with the mouse pointer which doesn't occur with P96. IMHO P96 is also better for the PIV because of PiP which is also used by some ShapeShifter drivers and of course I need Paloma support!

[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?