Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!cbmvax!peter
From: peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.applications
Subject: Re: Kickstart 2.0
Message-ID: <21070@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 29 Apr 91 21:41:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbmvax.21070
References: <1153@cbmger.UUCP> <1991Apr28.064946.27665@cinnet.com>
Reply-To: peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna)
Organization: Commodore-Amiga, Inc.  West Chester, PA.
Lines: 30

In article <1991Apr28.064946.27665@cinnet.com> kilian@cinnet.com (Kilian Jacob) writes:
>Why did Commodore release beta versions of 2.0?

2.01 and 2.02 (the two releases for the A3000) are _not_ beta releases.
The existence of betas later than 2.02 does not in any way make 2.02
a beta, any more than the existence of 1.2 makes 1.1 or 1.0 a beta.
Releases shipped to customers undergo extra testing and a stability
period, to ensure that the behavior of the software is both good
and well-understood.

2.01 is fairly reliable.  2.02 fixes almost all the serious bugs, plus
increases compatibility so that much major software runs.  I hardly
believe that either release is an embarrassment.

Of course, the next public release will be even better (more bugs
fixed, more compatibility).

Remember that on the A3000, you can update your Kickstart with a new
disk.  The other machines will require ROMs.  It's a perfectly acceptable
position to say that 2.01 and 2.02 were ready for public release on
disk, but not yet ready for the permanence that ROM provides.

>Kilian Jacob - Cincinnati, Ohio - VOICE: (513)-489-1891

     Peter
--
Peter Cherna, Operating Systems Development Group, Commodore-Amiga, Inc.
{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!peter    peter@cbmvax.commodore.com
My opinions do not necessarily represent the opinions of my employer.
"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."