Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!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: 2.0 ROMs advertised, not released
Message-ID: <1991May7.194507.10469@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Date: 7 May 91 19:45:07 GMT
References: <12928@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <1991May7.115901.18376@sugar.hackercorp.com> <1991May7.173832.1761@visix.com>
Sender: usenet@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (The Network News)
Reply-To: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita)
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 45
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixb.cc.columbia.edu

In article <1991May7.173832.1761@visix.com> brett@visix.com writes:
>
>I hope you are kidding.  We, developers working on products for the Amiga line,
>which includes 2.0 specific version of software, need to have documentation on
>the new functions in the 2.0 release.
>
>I have studied the 2.02 include files to find out some the functions that are 
>new for this release, but people need docs to write well-behaved applications.
>
>Now, I know this is NOT the reason for the 2.0x ROM release hold-up, but, IMHO,
>it should be.  I have never purchased a system that did not come with, or have
>available, full documentation to the programming enviornment (and managing the
>Technical Services Divison here assigns me the task of purchasing all computer
>equipment).
>
>I a company like Commodore, the documentation should be written as much as
>possible, in parallel to the software release.  If this can not be done, for
>the most part, is a result of poor design plans.
>
>I should not have to be a developer to get the only programmers docs for 2.0.
>-- 
>                                __
>  Brett Bourbin          \  / /(_  /\/   11440 Commerce Park Drive
>    ..!uunet!visix!brett  \/ / __)/ /\   Reston, Virginia 22091
>    brett@visix.com       Software Inc   (703) 758-2733

	This is really just whining. So what should Commodore
have done: not shipped 2.0 at all, even though it is quite
stable, simply because they didn't have full documentation? Bull!
I'll take my 2.0 as it is now, even without special software
support for it. If you don't like that you can boot back into
1.3.
	2.0 IS NOT FINISHED. Think of it as an added bonus to
buying an A3000. Other than 3000 owners, the only people who HAVE
2.0 are DEVELOPERS. So why do you expect CBM to ship
documentation to non-developers? Poor planning? 2.0 isn't even
released yet!
	I'll stop my ranting and raving. I should know by now not
to get inflammed by such stupid posts. If you don't want 2.0,
boot in 1.3. If you want the documentation, you have to be a
developer and then you just order the autodocs. Plain and simple.

	-- Ethan

"Brain! Brain! What is Brain?"