Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!alberta!aunro!apss!nmm
From: nmm@apss.ab.ca (Neil McCulloch)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: I need Help with the A3000!
Summary: Obselescence?
Message-ID: <2265@apss.apss.ab.ca>
Date: 26 Jul 90 05:02:26 GMT
References: <1027@tau.sm.luth.se> <13183@cbmvax.commodore.com> <13386@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Organization: Alberta Public Safety Services
Lines: 20

In article <13386@cbmvax.commodore.com>, daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes:

>                                                  If we spend time working on
> the old (obselete, unsupported, antiquated, whatever) OS, the new one doesn't
> get written.  

I'll buy unsupported only.  1.3 is neither obselete nor antiquated.  While
one can argue the semantics (let's have another flame fest...) back and forth,
calling an upgraded OS like 1.3 obselete and antiquated is plain rhetoric,
probably to justify the fact that it is probably no longer cost effective
to support it.  Since 2.0 only runs on the 3000 as yet, I have to wonder
how all those 2[05]00 owners feel about having an obselete, unsupported and
antiquated OS?  

Seriously,  I'm concerned that this all or nothing approach to upgrades
might become prevalent.  It implies that design decisions may be taken
that ignore optimum life-cycle for the small system owner. To whit: 
the investment of 4-5 K over 3-5 years.

neil