3.5/3.9 on 030?

[runequester]

So anyone have experience with running 3.5 or 3.9 on an 030 ?
 
Im tempted to get one of them once I get a second CF card to use as a second hard drive. For what its worth, the card I have is the ACA 030/56.

[LoadWB]

I've run it on an 030.  Works fine, though slower than an 040 or 060.  But a 50MHz 030 runs it well enough.

One more thing... the accelerator matters.  I always loved my GVP A530 Turbo, but my Derringer kicks its ass though I miss SCSI.  My A500+ system was accelerated by a 40MHz Derringer (now 50MHz,) 32MB, and a GVP A500+ SCSI controller.  Worked (and still works) like a peach.

[runequester]

I've run it on an 030. Works fine, though slower than an 040 or 060. But a 50MHz 030 runs it well enough.

I imagine it'll work decent on mine then

[LoadWB]

I imagine it'll work decent on mine then

If you're talking about this machine:

   Amiga 1200. 4 gig CF hard drive. 030/56 with 64 meg RAM. 3.1 ROMs. And she's online!

I imagine you'll be satisfied.  If you're just running AGA (no RTG video,) you'll want to hunt around (or ask, really -- I think a FAQ or a good thread would suffice) for a number of enhancements.  Primarily, move everything you can out of Chip RAM, and some other speed-ups.  FBlit was a good one, but I think that's supplanted by some of the more recent library redevelopments.

I can't recall all of the patches I used on my 4000, but I am sure I only commented them out of s-s for future reference.  I'll have a look-see next week when I fire her back up to finish my USB installation

[runequester]

yeah, thats the girl

[magnetic]

Rune

It should run well on 030/ 56 let us know how it goes with a report plz

[Franko]

I run 3.5 on one of my A1200s with a Blizzard030 50Mhz & 64MB ram and it run nicely so with your set up you should be quite happy with it...

I would only say and it's just my opinion, it's not worth going to 3.9 as it's too bloated compared to 3.5 and in some parts a lot slower...

[runequester]

I'll need to see which I can find the easier and cheaper. It'd be interesting to test them side by side (3.1, 3.5 and 3.9)

My 3.1 install has very few tweaks to it, so it'd be a comparison of the "stock" options for a classic miggy (not counting 2.x and 1.x of course)

[zipper]

As my 060 needed maintenance I replaced it with my backup 030/25 using 3.9 in my A4000. It was quite an experience - the speed difference was so big. So, at least 030/50 recommended.

[mfilos]

ACA1230@56 is a really speed devil!
My own experience was thrilling cause it really felt as if I had an 040 on the Amiga. (I guess due to the really fast RAM that Jens putted).

I'd suggest 3.9 over 3.5 any day.

[magnetic]

Well hopefully i'll have it installed on my 1200 soon see my sig.. should run decent. Apollo is pretty fast

[Retro_71]

I had both.. if you going to keep your hard drive small then 3.5 is faster BUT if your going to use big drives 3.9 is easier.

[mfilos]

After some messing around and with nice advices of Gulliver I found out that 3.5 isn't faster if you disable some WBStartup applications that for some people (incl. me) aren't so important from 3.9:

- AmiDock (extra toolbar for application, that is kinda heavy shiz)
- AsyncWB (for better asynchronous file operations - if you copy or delete multiple files at the same time)
- BenchTrash (Global Trashcan, like the recycle bin on windows)
- DefIcons (for configuring easily, custom actions by default, on a set of specific type of files)
- RawWBInfo (for more complete Icon information windows - basically arranging stuff in 2 tabs)

You can also use Env-handler that saves precious Chip RAM by holding environment variables in a  more accessible fashion.

Also 3.5 has memory leaks AFAIK so I'd suggest using 3.9

[PanterHZ]

Another thing that can be done is to find a tool on Aminet that can  strip out the OldIcon images from the 3.5/3.9 icons. This may make the  icons appear faster on the WB screen.

[nicholas]

3.9 plus Boing Bag 4 on my 8MB A1200 with 50mhz 030 is faster than 3.5 running on the same machine.