Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!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: <5570@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk>
Date: 11 Feb 91 12:12:10 GMT
References: <44170@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <43944@ut-emx.uucp>
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Scotland.
Lines: 31

In article <43944@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes:
>
>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.

OH COME ON!! You *really* expect 512K of code to be *completely* bug free!
Wise up! It isn't going to happen!

>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_.

Oh, very clever. Release the buggy OS to the very people that won't tolerate
or know how to live with the bugs. Nice to know CBM are only thinking of us
'hackers'..

>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.

Rub it in, why don't you.


-- 
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<> 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... ><><><><><><><><><><><><><>