Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!dali.cs.montana.edu!caen!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cunixb.cc.columbia.edu!es1
From: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc
Subject: Re: AmigaDOS v2.03
Message-ID: <1991May1.072631.28250@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Date: 1 May 91 07:26:31 GMT
References: <8950@crash.cts.com> <2178@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil>
Sender: usenet@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (The Network News)
Reply-To: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita)
Distribution: na
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 30
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu

In article <2178@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil> schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes:
>In article <8950@crash.cts.com> seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes:
>>
>> 
>>Just picked up the latest version of the OS.  It's supposed to be the last
>>version of AmigaDOS that is released before the ROMs come out.
> 
>>V2.03 is supposed to be VERY stable, though I have had no crash problems
>>under v2.02.
>> 
>>Sean
>
>The CBM Customer Relations representative on CompuServe confirmed the existence
>of 2.03 on 30 April.  He stated that it was being shipped to dealers to enable
>them to update their customers.  Nothing was said regarding which versions
>of Kickstart and Workbench 2.03 includes.  It is supposed to be the last
>general release of 2.0 prior to going to ROM.
>
>
	My apologies to Sean. Although you did phrase it a little
wierd ("Just picked up the LATEST version, as opposed to latest
RELEASED version") what you said was correct. Also, the numbering
2.03 sounded wierd since I'm pretty sure even CBM called it 2.04
to us devs. Sorry once again. I just get very frustrated when
people post information that is false, and they shouldn't have
even had in the first place. 8)

	-- Ethan

"Brain! Brain! What is Brain?"