Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!nih-csl!lhc!adm!cmcl2!yale!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!cbmvax!jesup From: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Trouble with ADOS 2.0 and Fonts Message-ID: <14707@cbmvax.commodore.com> Date: 28 Sep 90 04:44:16 GMT References: <1990Sep24.165910.15857@agora.uucp> <2277@trlluna.trl.oz> <1990Sep27.205201.25306@agora.uucp> Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA Lines: 31 In article <1990Sep27.205201.25306@agora.uucp> billsey@agora.uucp (Bill Seymour) writes: >In article <2277@trlluna.trl.oz> aduncan@rhea.trl.oz.au (Allan Duncan) writes: >:No, no typos - this is what was sent to Australian developers as "2.0 B5". >:I'm told that beta 6 will be released here RSN, along with the recent >:American DevCon notes. >:See - we are kept right up to date by Commodore Australia. >: >:What do you show for version, and what is it labelled as? > > My current version kicks out: > >Kickstart version 36.197. Workbench version 36.77 > > That is labeled as 2.02 beta 2. 2.01 was Kickstart 36.143 and 2.0 >was Kickstart 36.141. Beta 6 was a 3000 release of beta 5, I believe. >Hope they get you guys caught up soon! :-) NOTE: "Beta 6" for non-US companies is what the US calls "2.00 Release" aka KS 36.141 (or maybe 2.01 (aka 36.143), it may depend on the country, I don't know for sure). Note that Bill just got 36.197 a very short time ago, it's not something that has been around any amount of time. I'm not in CATS, and I don't know exactly what the criteria for being shipped copies was (Commercial Developers for certain). I can't talk much about these, but I wish to avoid any confusion for people out there, particularily the Beta 6 vs 2.0 release confusion. #include -- Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering. {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com BIX: rjesup Common phrase heard at Amiga Devcon '89: "It's in there!"