Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!bruce!trlluna!rhea!aduncan
From: aduncan@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (Allan Duncan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.applications
Subject: Re:  Kickstart 2.0
Message-ID: <3473@trlluna.trl.oz>
Date: 8 May 91 21:40:51 GMT
References: <118037@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@trlluna.trl.oz
Lines: 17

From article <118037@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, by watters@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (david r watters):
> Is it me, or does 2.0 recover _A LOT_ more than 1.3?  In fact I don't remember
> every having 1.3 recover.  I hardly remember 2.0 _not_ recovering!
> This says to me that 2.0 is an order of magnatude more stable than 1.3, which
> also says that CBM _IS_ shipping an unstable OS in it's new machines that hurts
> it's image, it's called KS1.3!

There was a bug that turned the Recoverable Alerts into a guru that was
corrected in 2.0 - the program GOMF was in effect a patch for this.
Remember, 1.3 was really 1.2 patched for autoboot only.  There were _no_
bug fixes in the ROM stuff, except for the patches contained in
SetPatch.

Allan Duncan	ACSnet	 a.duncan@trl.oz
(+613) 541 6708	Internet a.duncan@trl.oz.au
		UUCP	 {uunet,hplabs,ukc}!munnari!trl.oz.au!a.duncan
Telecom Research Labs, PO Box 249, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia.