Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!sdd.hp.com!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: <43944@ut-emx.uucp> Date: 9 Feb 91 07:34:38 GMT References: <44170@nigel.ee.udel.edu> Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp Reply-To: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) Organization: The University of Texas at Austin Lines: 66 In article <44170@nigel.ee.udel.edu> GKZ117@uriacc.uri.edu (F. Michael Theilig) writes: >On 8 Feb 91 23:44:22 GMT Greg Harp said: >>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. Like I said (gee, right below here :) I'd love to have 2.0 in ROM right now, but I understand why it's still not out. > 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. Hmmm... Other than the current way the developer version is done (I ain't tellin'. :), which is very hardware-specific and the 3000 way of doing it, which is not only hardware-specific but also uses a bootstrap ROM, I don't see a feasible way to distribute the ROMs on disk. Nice idea, but you're right -- too many problems. >>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. Well, Setpatch may end up being used under 2.0 (speculation -- not developer knowledge, mind you) to pick up a couple of last-minute bugs, I'd prefer it to be completely solid. Commodore has taken a strict stance lately about buggy releases of their products, and I don't think they should break down now. The beta-testing is very wide-spread and thorough. I think you may appreciate it more when the ROMs hit the market. >>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. Exactly. I don't see a large loss of the market, since most users buying them for personal reasons will likely be willing to upgrade. Businesses will likely be buying 3000s anyway, so they'll get 2.0 _now_. BTW, have you spent an extended period of time using the 2.0 Workbench? It's very nicely done, and quite useful. Under 1.3, I hardly use the Workbench at all (in fact, I use Jazzbench and _only_ when I need to). You're hearing from a strict CLI-user who loves the new Workbench. 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."