Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!unmvax!uokmax!drtiller From: drtiller@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Donald Richard Tillery Jr) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.applications Subject: Re: Help converting Kick2.0 for A2000 Message-ID: <1991Apr21.055446.11230@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> Date: 21 Apr 91 05:54:46 GMT References: <59XN18w164w@graphics.rent.com> <47558@ut-emx.uucp> Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK Lines: 90 In a message From: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) >In article <59XN18w164w@graphics.rent.com> bobl@graphics.rent.com > (Bob Lindabury - SysAdm) writes: >>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. > >Actually, as a few people have pointed out, 'newer' != 'less buggy.' Yes, 3000 owners know this also. >>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. >>After all, the more beta testers the better, no? > >No. More responsible beta testers is better than a random mass of beta >testers. I'm not saying that the only responsible Amiga owners are >developers. I'm saying that at least C= knows the developers are somewhat >knowledgable about the machine. They can give reasonable bug reports to the >right people. Many users couldn't give a better description than, "It crashes >when I run Amaze-A-Paint in Billo-Color mode." > >Actually, that would just make more work for the people at Commdore. Imagine >having to scan the entire comp.sys.amiga.* hierarchy for bug reports. Also, >there is an established format for providing all the needed information for a >bug report. I challenge anyone here to find a bug post that gave the exact >machine configuration, Kickstart version, Workbench version, name and version >of the program/library/etc. in question, method for producing the error, >conditions/configurations under which the error doesn't occur, and more. I agree. Bug reports should be taken from registered developers first, and general public owners later (and only when accompanied by the above mentioned information in a complete form). >Without revealing any proprietary info, let me give you an example. I sent in >an enhancement request a while back. I receieved mail the next day saying >that the feature would be added (it was rather simple). Of course, my bug >reports didn't generate responses, but I like to think that they were too busy >to reply. ;-) Gee, that's impressive. It's nice to see C= working so quickly in fixing problems and updating software. I like to hear positive feedback about C=! :-) >I couldn't expect the C= engineers to have that kind of performance if they had >to spend the time it would take to read the newsgroups in their entirety. It >would take half their time just to collect the info, and then very little of >it would be valid (this is USENET, not reality ;). I totally agree. >However, the team seems to not mind listening to the net users' rantings >anyway. ;-) Thank goodness. >>I am certainly not condoning piracy but I just don't see the harm in >>having or using WB 2.0 on your 2000 at this point in time. If you >>want it, it's readily available even on Public Domain boards. > >I certainly see the harm. With pirate copies of the OS available many users >won't purchase the release version. They will lack not only the bug fixes but >also the manuals. The OS won't appear complete or solid to potential >customers. I don't know if I agree completely with this. The fact that they don't have the "official" release and they don't have the manuals (especially the AREXX portion) would (for most of the people I know with 3000s and the two developers I know) be MORE reason to buy the ROMs. >Any board with a copy of 2.0 available for downloading is in violation of the >U.S. copyright laws. Very true. However, I concur with Mr. Lindabury that _selling_ 2.0 to 500 and 2000 users in the same way that 3000 owners can have 2.0 with their purchase is rather fair. 2000 and 500 owners with offical releases are just as deserving (if not more so for their patience) as 3000 owners. I don't think it's a problem to ask for its release to the public (not that I think C= will). If you are a developer and you are the only one with 2.0, then we don't need it. BUT, if my buddy just paid $3000 for a 3000 and has 2.0 and I spent almost $6000 on my 2000 with accellerator so I could have something comparable and I can't, I think I have VERY just cause to complain. Rick Tillery (drtiller@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu)