Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!bobsbox!graphics!bobl From: bobl@graphics.rent.com (Bob Lindabury - SysAdm) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.applications Subject: Re: Help converting Kick2.0 for A2000 Message-ID: Date: 21 Apr 91 19:14:51 GMT References: <1292@screamer.csee.usf.edu> Organization: The Graphics BBS (2D,3D,GIF,Animation) +1 908/469-0049 Lines: 53 stelmack@screamer.csee.usf.edu (Gregory M. Stelmack) writes: > My one comment on this is: Don't lots of NON-developers already have 2.0 > through their purchase of a 3000? If Commodore is hurt by pre-releases of 2.0 > why did they release it to 3000 owners? It seems like once it was released to > one set of owners, it could have been released to all of us. That's my only > complaint -- it's probably better that I don't have 2.0 yet, 'cause if I did > would be spending too much time figuring out how to program it and not enough > time doing stuff I'm SUPPOSED to be doing. This is basically my same opinion. I am running 2.0 on my A2000 and I love it. I'm not a developer so I guess I'm a naughty boy. However, I plan on purchasing or whatever Commodore wants us to do when the "official" version comes out but I am glad that I am getting use to it now and I am conforming my system *NOW* to be fully 2.0 compliant. After all, there are alot of things to change when you switch to 2.0. If it was released for the 3000, it should have been released at the same time for A500 and A2000 owners. I can't see how anyone can justify it NOT being released to the others at the same time since the 3000 just loads the image from disk anyway. It just goes to show you that Commodore doesn't do things like the other companies. I don't know if this is good or bad however. If it was good enough to release in 3000's, why wasn't it good enough to release to the others? > I understand Commodore wanting to wait to release a very stable version, but > once they released a version they shouldn't have made most of us wait. Exactly. There wouldn't be any Pirated versions of the OS around if C= had released all versions at the same time on disk. There would have been *one* version out..the official version. They could then release more versions to the developers and also get feedback from users with the one *official* version. > Anyway, I think I know how 1000 owners often feel :( Yeah...yech! Ah..BTW, I am the sole user of my WB2.0 on my machine. It hasn't left my abode. Some may poo-poo me for having a version of WB but I wanted to get use to the OS and I feel I am hurting nobody if I quietly use the OS in the privacy of my own home and don't hand it out to every Tom Dick and Harry like some people do. > -- Greg Stelmack (stelmack@sol.csee.usf.edu) -- Bob The Graphics BBS 908/469-0049 "It's better than a sharp stick in the eye!" ============================================================================ InterNet: bobl@graphics.rent.com | Raven Enterprises UUCP: ...rutgers!bobsbox!graphics!bobl | 25 Raven Avenue BitNet: bobl%graphics.rent.com@pucc | Piscataway, NJ 08854 Home #: 908/560-7353 | 908/271-8878