Upgrade to 3.1 - is there a good enough reason?

[DonnyEMU]

I was a developer with CATS. I have both the originally provided 3.0 and 3.1 kickstarts. I have had an Amiga 1200HD now for years with an '030 accelerator. I have never had a really good reason to load Kickstart 3.1.

Most of the time my OS has been KS 3.0 WB 3.1 and it worked together fine. While I don't dispute anyone's issues that there is issues with the 3.0 graphics.library I still have never found it affecting my use of the machine.

Addressing high amounts of memory on an Amiga has never been a need of mine, and I admit I don't try to adapt classic hardware to modern hardware needs. Everything I loved in terms of classic software already works great. I am also not one to play that many games on it. If I did, I'd probably get an emulator out anyway and start tweaking on PC hardware.

While I think most posters are giving good advice here, I am a good example of someone who bucked the trend and never had to replace the 3.0 rom. Of course I can "RAM KICK" any version I pleased.

I am just saying the advice given here shouldn't be so millitant. I certainly haven't limped along by not doing it, and I really do know the differences in the ROM, down to EXEC modules..

PS MY 3COM PCMCIA ethernet card works fine with 3.0 in ROM as well as any CDROM filesystem out there..

[taunusand]

Everblue wrote:

taunusand wrote:

gurthuk wrote:
I'll stick with 3.0 as that is how I remembered it as a kid. I'm certainly not buying an accelerator either as they're very expensive with no obvious gain.

"with no obvious gain." :-?
What? I disagree.
It will be much easier to play games, WHDLoad :-)

Why is it easier to play WHDLoad games with Kickstart 3.1?

I did not reply to that ;-)

SamuraiCrow wrote:
I think he meant that it's easier to play WHDLoad games with an '030 accelerator.

That is exactly what I mean :-)


Yes, more memory will do, but I think it's easier to find a 030 card than it is to find a RAM card. At least, I have had 3 acc. boards for my A1200, but I have almost never seen a RAM card for A1200 here in Denmark.

[klx300r]

gurthuk wrote:
I'll stick with 3.0 as that is how I remembered it as a kid. I'm certainly not buying an accelerator either as they're very expensive with no obvious gain.

3.0 to 3.1 is really no obvious gain unless you want to use a drive > 4GB; however, an accelerated 1200 compared to a stock 1200 makes the world of a difference in almost EVERY aspect!

[stefcep2]

klx300r wrote:

gurthuk wrote:
I'll stick with 3.0 as that is how I remembered it as a kid. I'm certainly not buying an accelerator either as they're very expensive with no obvious gain.

3.0 to 3.1 is really no obvious gain unless you want to use a drive > 4GB; however, an accelerated 1200 compared to a stock 1200 makes the world of a difference in almost EVERY aspect!

I'm sure you meant this but to clarify 3.1 of its own doesn't give access > 4 gig drives, you need 3.9 for that and to use 3.9 I *believe* you need 3.1 and not 3.0..

[stefcep2]

When I was using my A1200 as my only machine, upgrading seem to make a lot of "hacks" like fblit and ftext and quite a few other utilities on Aminet work more reliably.  i can definately say i had far less guru's when i got 3.1

I didn't play a lot of games though so may be 3.0 is fine for that with 4 meg ram.