Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!hapuna!michael From: michael@hapuna.cs.ucla.edu (michael gersten) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Kickstart 2.0 Message-ID: Date: 25 Apr 91 23:46:36 GMT References: <1991Apr22.084438.1975@rulway.LeidenUniv.nl> <91112.172405IO91461@MAINE.BITNET> <2133@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil> <111465@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <47722@ut-emx.uucp> Sender: usenet@cs.ucla.edu (Mr. News Himself) Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department Lines: 49 Nntp-Posting-Host: hapuna.cs.ucla.edu greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: >A 2.0 release for the other machines would have to be on disk, similar to >the betas. The percentage of users who have enough memory that is in the >right place for the ROM image is quite small. In addition, loading 512K >from floppy at every bootup would be a pretty big pain, IMHO. Aside from >the memory a lot less Amiga owners have hard drives. Well, gee, let me put my 2 cents in. I've got a 2000, with an 8 meg memory board in the first slot. One of the big feautures of 1.3 as I heard it was that the RomTag system would allow replacement of any of the system libraries, including exec. So it should be possible to load in a copy of the rom code compiled for *normal amigados file output* (this should just be a flag to the linker, and require no changes to the code), and link it in the RomTag list. Presto! Now come on. RAD: does this, and reloads without any disk activity. Why not a RomTag for the new libraries? You'd only have to reload it at powerup, not at reboots; some of us have computers on 24 hours, so this would be less often than you might think. (My vd0: has never failed to recover even when my clock has been clobbered. If I used RAD:, it would probably be similar. But some software doesn't work with 1.3 RAD, and I never got 1.3.2 to check out its RAD:.) My next comment is that now that there are software kickstarters for the 500/2000 that just require an autoconfig board, there is even less reason for commodore to hold 2.0 back. I see your complaint now. "The last time C=A released beta copies without restriction, people complained that a buggy operating system was put out". Fine. Exactly. This is just what the O/S SHOULD SAY. Right now the system says "Release 1.3" when you reboot. How about saying "Warning -- This is a known buggy prerelease of 2.0 that should only be used by people willing to lose work while encountering bugs" instead? The benefits: 1. No one will use it thinking it is the real thing. 2. People who don't know what "beta" means ("Obviously, its a misspelling of `better') won't use it without realizing it. 3. The die hards can get it and play with it (and lose data) 4. If you put a date stamp in the message, and a date checker in the code, you can make sure that no one uses it for more than (say) 3 months -- tell them that it is now obsolete and they should get a new one. This would rely on the real time clock of the 500/2000 So what is C=A's reason for not releasing it? I don't know. Michael