Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga.misc:3819 comp.sys.amiga.programmer:3775
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!ukma!widener!dsinc!bagate!cbmvax!peter
From: peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc,comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: So, how close is WB2.0 to a burn-in date?
Message-ID: <21771@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 21 May 91 16:26:07 GMT
References: <1991May20.170355.19033@coplex.uucp>
Reply-To: peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna)
Organization: Commodore-Amiga, Inc.  West Chester, PA.
Lines: 38

In article <1991May20.170355.19033@coplex.uucp> dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) writes:
>  The last I heard, someone at CA decided to add a couple of new
>features to WB.  I dont think features are what people want; what
>people want is for software to actually *work* under 2.0.  Until
>it hits ROM, major software vendors wont take 2.0 seriously enough
>to actually start *programming* under 2.0.

The perceived delay in the arrival of 2.0 has nothing to do with features.
It has to do (among other things) with stability and compatibility.
There has been a tremendous boost in both over the last few months.

Once 2.0 hits ROM, it's a little late to _begin_ to take 2.0 seriously.
You'd be impressed at the number of active developers in the Amiga
community that are working with 2.0 to ensure the best possible compatibility.
Most are not waiting for 2.0 to hit ROM to begin work.

>  And just because a piece of software is listed in the "2.0 Complaint
>Software List", it doesnt mean it actually works under 2.0.  Quite a
>few pieces of software made to "work" under 2.0, simply doesn't.  Until
>2.0 hits ROM, they simply wont take the time or effort.

I'd appreciate it if you could e-mail me a list of titles that claim
to be 2.0-compliant but aren't.  We then could see to it that any
problems are smoothed out.  Incidentally, if you're not running the
latest 2.0 version that's been released, your compatibility mileage
may vary.  A significant number of programs that won't work with 2.00
or 2.01 work fine with 2.02.  You'll see an even more impressive
improvement when 2.04 arrives.

>dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks)

     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."