Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!pacbell.com!att!ucbvax!ucbvax.berkeley.edu!nj From: nj@magnolia.Berkeley.EDU (Narciso Jaramillo) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.applications Subject: Re: Help converting Kick2.0 for A2000 Message-ID: Date: 19 Apr 91 21:33:43 GMT References: <59XN18w164w@graphics.rent.com> Sender: nobody@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: Postcarcinogenic Bliss, Inc. Lines: 31 In-reply-to: bobl@graphics.rent.com's message of 19 Apr 91 18:23:03 GMT I wrote: >> [Spreading beta versions of 2.0 around is] >> unhealthy for Commodore because bugs in beta versions often cause >> rumors to spread, even if those bugs are fixed in the final release. bobl@graphics.rent.com (Bob Lindabury - SysAdm) replied: > What? This logic doesn't follow. 2.0 is already out there in > thousands of A3000 computers. It's no different than the A2000 > Developers versions except that the developers versions are *newer* > versions that what's being shipped in current A3000's. So your buggy > beta version theory doesn't wash. Newer doesn't imply less buggy. Of course, the newer versions will have fixes for bugs in the older versions. But the newer versions have *new* code in them. I expect that some of this code mucks about in fairly dangerous areas, since one of their goals in the current releases is making concessions to pre-2.0 programs that did things that weren't strictly legal, trying to prevent them from breaking. [I assume I'm not violating non-disclosure with this, since other people have mentioned it.] > I would think it would be a bit more benificial for Commodore as > Randall can just check Usenet here and hear of the gripes that people > are having with thier *pirate* WB 2.0's and maybe he can fix them. Seems to me that they already are. nj