#Setpatch update
34 messages in this thread
I have WB2.1 as well. I ran `Version C:Setpatch'.
The answer was `setpatch 38.31'
I don't think I want to update to a lower version. Did you check yours?
Dave Kay
You are right Dave, The WB2.1 version I have is 38.31. Why is someone
uploading an outdated setpatch update?
RJ……….on AutoPilot
>You are right Dave, The WB2.1 version I have is 38.31. Why is someone
>uploading an outdated setpatch update?
The newly posted setpatch is new. C= recently posted it to Bix.
I'll have to check with C= to be 100% sure, but I strongly suspect that
what happened is that when 2.1 (v38) went out, a setpatch went with it.
When they released a new setpatch a few weeks ago that works with V37 ROMs
(2.04), they called it V37, forgetting that there was a V38 or thinking
that it was less confusing to call it V37 since more people have V37 than
V38.
Dale Larson
– An Amiga Software Engineer with some time on his hands.
Does that mean I should use the setpatch update in place of my WB2.1 v38
setpatch even though it is a lower number?
RJ……….on AutoPilot
Robert,
Most definitely NO – the setpatch as released by Commodore is meant to
update ONLY the setpatch that is included in the 2.0 version of the
operating system. WB2.1 includes it's own SetPatch command, which should
NOT be updated by this release.
Basically, what I think is happening is that the 2.0 setpatch is being
updated to correct a few minor problems in the release version of 2.04.
Those corrections have already been incorporated in the 2.1 version of
SetPatch, which is why the update does not apply to those folks currently
running the release version of 2.1.
Hope this clarifies things…..
– BobR
Bob,
Isn't it kinda strange that C= has just now released an improved SetPatch
to be used with AmigaOS 2.04 when the *2.1* upgrade has been out for
months? Seems to me 2.04 should've been left behind when 2.1 came out….
<wrinkling brow>
-Dave (via AutoPilot)
Dave,
not really. There are quite a few of us out here that do not have 2.1.
I won't have it for several weeks, and the only reason I'm updating is to
enable certain capabilities of Final Copy II Release 2. Otherwise, I'd
never buy the 2.1 release. There isn't anything there for the "typical"
WB user.
Brian
Brian,
2.1 does have a number of good changes, not the least of which is the
inclusion of Cross-Dos.
Dom Fontana
–> Sent from NY via AP <–
Dave,
Using the words "strange" and "C=" in the same sentence does not strike me
as abnormal. Particularly in recent times, when the chicken seems to be
running around without it's lips. <grin>
Actually, I conjecture that they are releasing some fixes that they feel
that users do not want to be running without. These fixes are most likely
already implemented in both 2.1 (via 2.1's SetPatch) and in 3.0 (via the new
ROM revision). I don't have any hard facts on this (facts seem to be difficult
to come by these days), but this makes sense to me. And I _do_ believe that
there's a rational explanation somewhere. <grin>
– BobR
Bob,
Since we're on the topic, what does the new 2.05 ROM add? Is that ROM
necessary to use the high density drives? I'm using WB 2.1.
Thanks.
Dom Fontana
–> Sent from NY via AP <–
I'm as confused as everyone else about the various ROM revisions —
I'm far from an "expert", since I don't have access to C='s RCS
files. My understanding is that the main changes from 2.04 to 2.05
releases were providing support for the hardware needs of the A600
(i.e., the PCMCIA interface and IDE hard disk support). I don't
think there are any substantive changes in other areas.
Regarding high density drives – I don't know for sure, as I do not
have a HD drive on my Amiga. I believe that you should be able to
use a HD drive with 2.1 without problem, but have no hard
experience. You shouldn't need to update your (presumably 2.04) ROM
until/unless CBM decides to release 3.0 or above for ECS machines.
Note that no plans for the latter have been announced.
I can confirm that the HD floppy runs under 2.1 provided you use
HDFIXER. I was having trouble when mixing DD and HD disks on the HD
drive. Apparently the HD drive is not fully supported by Kickstart
37.175 and you get write errors on the root block. HDFIXER is a patch
to correct this. Soembody has just given it to me and it works fine.
It is a shareware product which I shall certainly support (its only
ten dollars)
The 2.05-ROM (version 37.350) added A600 hardwre support for the PCMCIA
slot, and IDE-interface, as well as support for the 68LC040 & 68EC040 CPUs
which had some slight differences in timings.
The 2.05 *MIGHT* have an improved "trackdisk.device" to correct the bug
with mixing DD & HiD floppies drives, BUT I don't know.
The SetPatch that ships with 2.1, does preform a "150rpm drive" patch,
(150rpm is the HiD floppy speed).
Ron.
– ap'ing with AP. (Eagles may fly, but weasles aren't sucked
into jet engines.)
David:
I think C= knows that many folks that have 2.04 aren't yet updating to
2.1, and so are helping those folks by releaseing a bug fix to the earlier
OS. (I'm not sure, but they *might* even have some obligation to do so
legally, they surely do morally).
// -Mike Schiller
\X/ AMIGA! On AutoPilot in sunny Fort Lauderdale
Mike,
I actually think the new SetPatch is a good move on C='s part. Looks
like they're acknowledging that a lot of folks are waiting for
AmigaOS 3.1 before they'll spend money on an upgrade.
Now, if they can get 3.1 out the door in a reasonable amount of
time….
I doubt C= is obliged legally to patch 2.04. Now that MSDOS is up to
version 6, I doubt MicroSoft/IBM cares a whit (or, more importantly,
*has* to care) about those poor folk still using MSDOS 4. Compared to
MSDOS 4, AmigaOS 2.04 is rock solid.
I _thought_ CPU was supposed to be a SETPATCH replacement? Can't
remember where I heard this, but is it true and if not what does CPU do?
I have that in my startup and not Setpatch.
Ted
No, the "CPU" command was an official repalacement for the third party
"SetCPU" command, but both SetPatch & "CPU" do (did?) share a cache
option.
SetPatch is used to preform two different jobs:
1) It is used to install patches to the KickStart code. These can be
bug fixes, or simple (but not required) adjustments for improved
performance. Some patchs are for increased compatibility with a
third party device/card.
2) It is also used to activate extended options. Some options such as
CPU caches, and 32-bit CHIP RAM paths, are set to "off" for increased
compatiblity with custom-boot block games. Setpatch can then be used
from a standard boot-up to activate the extended features.
Ron.
– ap'ing with AP. (Eagles may fly, but weasles aren't sucked
into jet engines.)
Thanks for the explanation on CPU, SetCPU and SetPatch. I must have
gotten my commands mixed up and thought CPU had replaced SetPatch, but I
guess it only makes sense that CPU replaced Set_CPU_ 😉
Ted
Theodore,
No I don't believe that CPU is a setpatch replacement in anyway.
CPU and variations of it are for controlling 68030 ..040 processors,
turning on/off such thaings as instruction cache and data cche etc..
SETPatch applies some 'fixes" to the ROM routines that otherwise would
require a new ROM.
Regards Leonard.
Yeah, I had realized my mistake…thanks for replying!
Ted
Ted,
No, CPU is most definitely not a SetPatch replacement! CPU gives you some
control over your system's MMU (if it has one) and allows you to turn on
and off the instruction and data caches of those processors that have such
features.
Put SetPatch back in your startup-sequence (at the very top). Otherwise
your system will be less stable than it should be.
-Dave (via AutoPilot)
c:setpatch >NIL: It's the first command again. Yeah, I realized how I
made the mistake by confusing the two. Thanks for your response.
Ted
_Lots_ of people may choose not to upgrade to 2.1. That doesn't mean that
they should live with bugs Commodore has already fixed.
Dale Larson
– An Amiga Software Engineer with some time on his hands.
Dale,
I understand what you're saying. Gold Disk has done a similar thing to
C= by just releasing PPage 3.1, a bug-fixed version of PPage 3.0,
even though PPage 4.0 (now 4.1) has been on the market for months.
My impression of AmigaOS 2.1, though, is that *it* is primarily a
bug-fix update of 2.04. Not much, other than CrossDOS, in the way of
new features (and you could quibble that CrossDOS isn't really new
either). Of course, it certainly isn't free. 8^)
I'm not complaining in the least that C= is posting SetPatch updates
here. I hope they continue to do so! But I also hope that working on
2.04 fixes doesn't slow down the development of 3.x and above. (I
realize, of course, that this "new" SetPatch may have been put
together some time ago.)
Besides, sometimes I like to play Devil's Advocate. <g>
C= (or at least everyone in Engineering) always said that 2.1 was
primarily for localization and any bug fixes. CrossDOS slipped in
easily as did other minor features. Don't worry about it slowing
down future releases. Most SetPatch releasees are trivial. The work
is already done for other reasons, it just needs to be compiled and
released in the proper form.
re: Setpatch 37.38's creation. According to version, it was compiled
11/25/92.
If we're to believe it, it's kinda old.
Miguel ——– AP, AP, and away!
It takes the lawyers a long time to approve a release. 1/2 🙂
Dale Larson
– An Amiga Software Engineer with some time on his hands.
Thanks Bob.
RJ……….on AutoPilot
No. I checked with C= and posted a later message. V37.38 or whatever is
for people who are using a V37 (2.04) system.
Dale Larson
– An Amiga Software Engineer with some time on his hands.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
RJ……….on AutoPilot
Something else that users reading these messages need to be told is:
v37 _is_ Workbench/KickStart 2.0
v38 _is_ Workbench 2.1 / Kickstart 2.0
v39 _is_ Workbench 3.0 / Kickstart 3.0
Get the idea? I thought you might. ANYTIME you read a version number
of v37.xx for any system software, it is meant to be used with
Workbench/Kickstart 2.0. I think the rest will be obvious to you all.
Ric Fischer via AutoPilot 1.051
Phoenix, Arizona, USA
V37 is 2.04. V36 is earlier (obsolete) 2.0x.
And this can be a little more confusing that that. Enforcer, for example,
is system software for some systems (i.e., systems with bridgeboards) and
is only V37.XX though it is meant to be used with 2.04 or greater.
Dale Larson
– An Amiga Software Engineer with some time on his hands.
Thanks, I _needed_ that 😉
Ted