Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!shelby!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!gatech!udel!sbcs!csserv1.ic.sunysb.edu!dtiberio
From: dtiberio@csserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to improve Workbench 2.0!
Message-ID: <1991Feb10.022601.27818@sbcs.sunysb.edu>
Date: 10 Feb 91 02:26:01 GMT
References: <4058@orbit.cts.com>
Sender: usenet@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Usenet poster)
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Lines: 35

In article <4058@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes:
>dtiberio@csserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:
>>In article <1659@crackers.clearpoint.com> jeff@fang.clearpoint.com (Jeffrey J. Griglack) writes:
>>>
>>>I think that the best way to improve WB 2.0 would be to release it for the
>>>500, 2000 and 3000.  What's the holdup guys?
>>>
>>>Jeff Griglack
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>Jeff Griglack             |  Yea, I feel terrible.  I should be forced to
>>>jeff@fang.clearpoint.com  |  see "Cats" again.  --From "30 Something"
>>
>>  WB 2.0 requires 1 meg of chip ram. The kickstart in itself is about 540k.
>
>TOTALLY untrue.  what does the size of the kickstart have to do with the
>amount of chip ram?  NOTHING since the kickstart will be in ROM.
>
>>
>>DavidTiberio SUNYStonyBrook2-3605 AMIGA TotoProductions DDDMEN

  Okay, okay. This is about the 10th message in reply to my mistake, even 
after I admitted that I made a mistake. On last Sunday, I was wondering why
the WB 2.0 wouldn't work on any of the machines we tested it on. I asked a
friend who is an Amiga graphics artist/programmer/journalist who told me I
would have needed the 1 meg chip ram. 
  Once again, I am sorry that I posted that. Please forgive me, and please
compensate my guilt with a new Amiga 3000. :)

>
>
>UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks
>ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil
>INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org