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: <44056@ut-emx.uucp> Date: 12 Feb 91 08:41:21 GMT References: <44170@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <43944@ut-emx.uucp> <5570@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp Reply-To: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Organization: The University of Texas at Austin Lines: 64 This has gone on long enough that I'm setting the Followup-To line to c.s.a.advocacy. Please respect it. In article <5570@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> bsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk (Brian J Syme IE88) writes: >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! I said I'd _prefer_ it that way. I don't think I'm being unrealistic in saying that it will be _very_ close to bug-free. There is always the change of something slipping through, but this version of the OS has seen quite a large number of people _trying_ to make it break. It's possible that a small bug could be discovered somewhere between the ROM masking date and the release date, but I wouldn't be surprised in seeing 2.0 out without a SetPatch. I can't speculate on if they will intentionally leave some bug fix out for some reason or another, though. >>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'.. C'mon. Have you checked into how the 3000's ROMs are set up? It only has a bootstrap in actual ROM. The Kickstart image is loaded into memory and jumped to by that bootstrap. The people who bought 3000s in this setup were aware of this. When the ROMs are ready, they go right into the machine. And before you say something about why they didn't do that for the other machines, it's because the 3000 is the only machine on which that is feasible to do. They knew that every 3000 sold would have memory in the same place, so they could plan on it being there to hold the ROM image. Customers are made aware of this before they buy, so they can know what to expect. Until then, every release version of the OS (I believe they now have released 2.02 for the 3000) has been distributed to the customers through their dealer. >>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. Hey, you're not totally incapable of getting to a machine running 2.0, you know. You can buy a 3000. You can become a developer (although I question the morality of becoming a developer just for the benefits). If you're so impatient then do something about it. Greg -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "I don't know what it is I like about you, but I like it a lot." -- Led Zeppelin, Communication Breakdown -------Greg-Harp-------greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu-------s609@cs.utexas.edu-------