Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.applications
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cunixb.cc.columbia.edu!es1
From: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita)
Subject: Re: Kickstart 2.0
Message-ID: <1991Apr29.190432.1382@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Sender: usenet@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (The Network News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Reply-To: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita)
Organization: Columbia University
References: <1153@cbmger.UUCP> <1991Apr28.064946.27665@cinnet.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1991 19:04:32 GMT

In article <1991Apr28.064946.27665@cinnet.com> kilian@cinnet.com (Kilian Jacob) writes:
>From article <1153@cbmger.UUCP>, by peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY):
>> Perhaps you also should see it from this view: In the past, the Amiga
>> has got the reputation of a not solid OS. Though this is really wrong,
>> the rumors are existing. Now engineering does all it is capable to
>> prove the contrary. They don't want to risk anything. I find this
>> understandable and simply right.
>>
>
>Why did Commodore release beta versions of 2.0? I think this is really a bad
>marketing strategy. If the developpers need more time, fine. But one shouldn't
>annouce a product before it is finished. What Commodore does really hurts its
>immage.
>
>-- /<ilian
> 
>-- 
>Kilian Jacob - Cincinnati, Ohio - VOICE: (513)-489-1891
>UUCP: kilian@cinnet.com (or {uceng.uc.edu, ukma!spca6, uunet!sdrc}!cinnet!kilian

	It would hurt far worse to try to sell the Amiga while
using WorkBench 1.3's look. Besides, Commodore has said from the
beginning that 2.0 is beta. It is also very stable. You're being
very judgemental, and I doubt you'll find many supporters around
here. 2.0 is too good for them to keep to themselves.
	-- Ethan

"Brain! Brain! What is Brain?"