Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu From: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: FACTS ABOUT WB2.0 (Was: Re:WB2.0 for non-A3000) Message-ID: <43921@ut-emx.uucp> Date: 8 Feb 91 23:44:22 GMT References: <5542@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> <43860@ut-emx.uucp> <5547@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp Reply-To: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) Organization: The University of Texas at Austin Lines: 60 In article <5547@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> bsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk (Brian J Syme IE88) writes: >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. That's _really_ a bad idea. I personally have been bitten by 1.3 bugs quite a bit. You may not notice anymore. The screen-flipping bug I mentioned was one of the worst. (Use 3 screens, one of them interlaced and the others not. Flip between them for a while and the interlaced one will die.) Most people have not even _heard_ of updates to 1.3. How many of you have _heard_ about version 1.3.3? Do you realize that you've had a program around called Setpatch to patch the bugs in the 1.3 ROM? I look forward to the day that I can pop a 2.0 ROM into my Amiga, but I don't want to have to replace that ROM because some major bug slipped through. Bug patches make the OS look flawed and unprofessional. >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.. You're very welcome to buy that 386. You'll realize what kinds of things you have to deal with when developers don't properly test and retest their software. You can't use Windows 3.0 for 4 hours straight without a crash. Intel themselves has a habit of releasing buggy chips. MSDOS 5.0? Don't make me laugh... [BTW, I am a software developer with a LOT of experience on DOS machines. I am not jsut randomly flaming DOS machines.] >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. CBM's reasoning is neither of the above two wild suggestions. They want a bugless release. _Every_ little detail is being checked and double-checked. 2.0, when released, will be one of the most solid OSes around. >Get a move on. And get the manuals and autodocs out on public release on the >same day. These people are working _hard_. Unfortunately, Commodore doesn't have a workforce the size of Microsoft. However, compared to Microsoft's credibility so far, I think our friends in West Chester, PA and developers all over the world are doing a tremendous job! Honestly, if you think you can get better results with DOS machines or whatever else, feel free to give them a try. You're in for a _big_ disappointment. Greg -- -------Greg-Harp-------greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu-------s609@cs.utexas.edu------- "Confutatis maledictus "When the accursed have been counfounded Flammis acribus addictis, == And given over to the bitter flames, Voca me cum benedictis." -- Mozart Call me with the blessed."