Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!gatech!udel!mmdf
From: GKZ117@uriacc.uri.edu (F. Michael Theilig)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: Re: FACTS ABOUT WB2.0 (Was: Re:WB2.0 for non-A3000)
Message-ID: <44170@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Date: 9 Feb 91 05:33:54 GMT
Sender: mmdf@ee.udel.edu
Lines: 52

On 8 Feb 91 23:44:22 GMT Greg Harp said:
>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. ...

 [Chomp, chomp ...]

     I've heard from a number of people that they'd rather have a buggy
 version of 2.0 than wait.  This is mostly frustration, but I can't say I
 don't feel the same way myself sometimes.

     One thought would be for Commodore to releast the ROMs on disk
 ala A1000 along with a way to boot back to kickstart for people who
 really want to bother with it.  I realize that there are a lot of
 problems with doing that, but it is food for thought.
>
>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.
>
     I don't feel that bug patches like SetPatch are all that unprofessional,
 as long as the ROM is reasonably solid to begin with.
>
>>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.
>
     Sometimes I wonder if they will lose a large chunk of the market because
 of waiting.  Then again, they did get a bad reputation for putting out 1.0
 and 1.1 when it wasn't bug free.  I still feel that Workbench should have
 been (If you'll forgive the phrasing) jazzed up for 1.3.  Just Workbench.
 It's basically useless and is estetically unattractive.

--------
     F. Michael Theilig  -  The University of Rhode Island at Little Rest
                            GKZ117 at URIACC.Bitnet
                            GKZ117 at URIACC.URI.edu

                                               Though you'd like to know.