Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!auvm!giampal From: GIAMPAL@auvm.auvm.edu Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: Question about WB 2.0 Message-ID: <91079.091210GIAMPAL@auvm.auvm.edu> Date: 20 Mar 91 14:12:10 GMT References: <19606@cbmvax.commodore.com> <19929@cbmvax.commodore.com> <1991Mar18.173012.4018@visix.com> <19955@cbmvax.commodore.com> Organization: The American University - University Computing Center Lines: 20 In article <19955@cbmvax.commodore.com>, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) says: > >In article <1991Mar18.173012.4018@visix.com> brett@visix.com (Brett Bourbin) >writes: >>and I still have OS 2.0. I asked my dealer about the 2.02 upgrade and he >said >>that Commodore told them not to install it on end-users machines because it >>contained more bugs. I don't see how this can be true, and if it was, why > >36.207 is 2.02. BTW, did the dealer say who at Commodore is supposed to have >said that? Perhaps he just didn't want to be bothered with letting people I too have had this same problem with my local dealer. Something is wrong here (two independant reports of dealers saying C= told them 2.02 had bugs). While I realize Randell Jessup is a techie and not really in charge of this sort of thing, perhaps it could be forwarded to the appropriate folks and checked out (for us, not having 2.02 means that the C= TCP/IP software doesn't work 100% (NFS mounted partitions act weird), and that's a problem). --dominic