Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!uunet!ogicse!intelhf!anvil.intel.com!griff From: griff@anvil.intel.com (Richard Griffith) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: FACTS ABOUT WB2.0 (Was: Re:WB2.0 for non-A3000) Message-ID: <1991Feb11.171314.28498@intelhf.hf.intel.com> Date: 11 Feb 91 17:13:14 GMT References: <43921@ut-emx.uucp> <5542@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> <43860@ut-emx.uucp> <5547@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> Sender: news@intelhf.hf.intel.com (News User) Reply-To: griff@anvil.intel.com (Richard Griffith) Organization: Development Tools Operation, Intel Corp., Hillsboro OR Lines: 63 Nntp-Posting-Host: anvil.intel.com [ stuff deleted ] > 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. total agreement... > > >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.. Sure we'll sell you a `386 - tell you what - trade me a 3000 for one, dude :-). > > 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 Nah! we don't do that! (big :-) > make me laugh... You know something? I'm sitting here in leading-edge MS-DOS development land at *ntel, and we WON'T TOUCH anything beyond MSDOS 3.3. Why? 4.0 and beyond breaks too much software, MS changed so much of the file system that most development SW won't run, or crashes. > [BTW, I am a software developer with a LOT of experience on DOS machines. > I am not jsut randomly flaming DOS machines.] (BTW - I'm with the "Code Builder" team ... (sshh! don't tell..:-) > > >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. Good! get on it! and complete it (although, in all my memory, I have yet to see an absolutely bug-free program of any kind, short of "Hello World...") > > >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. good luck. :Richard E. Griffith, "griff" : iNTEL, Hillsboro Ore. :griff@anvil.hf.intel.com :SCA!: Cyrus Hammerhand, Household of the Golden Wolf, Dragons' Mist, An Tir :These are MY opinions, if iNTEL wanted them, They'd pay for `em!