Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!samsung!uunet!mcsun!ukc!strath-cs!bsyme From: bsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk (Brian J Syme IE88) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: FACTS ABOUT WB2.0 (Was: Re:WB2.0 for non-A3000) Message-ID: <5547@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> Date: 8 Feb 91 11:30:37 GMT References: <5542@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> <43860@ut-emx.uucp> Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Scotland. Lines: 28 Yes, I *WOULD* rather have 2.0 NOW bugs and all! People have been wittering on about 1.3 bugs for years, and I don't doubt that they exist, but as far as I know I've never been bitten by one! [don't bother replying with *aha!*'s about that comment, I can think of them myself] Bugs will be located pretty damm fast by the user community, and the Amiga's OS seems pretty happy to accept patches. How long between 1.3 and 2.0? How long has SVR4 been in development? Unix is now on public release! After five years writing for this machine, I've just about had it - a nice fast 386 with unix looks like a damm good buy next to even the A3000 now. Even the PD market for the machine is starting to rely on 2.0 - do you think all the companies with serious applications are going to wait forever - Windows/M must be looking good to many.. The only conclusion I can draw is that 2.0 is SERIOUSLY bug-ridden with some deep problems, or that CBM are restricting it's availability for non-tech reasons. Get a move on. And get the manuals and autodocs out on public release on the same day. -- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <> Brian Syme <> Why make things difficult, when with just a <> <> bsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk <> little more effort you could make them <> <> <> impossible. <> <><><><><> *WARNING* Signature dying of old age... ><><><><><><><><><><><><><>