rodney@gitpyr.gatech.EDU (Rodney Ricks) (11/01/86)
[ Go ahead line eater, mak my d y. ]
I just heard something that kind of makes me, an avowed Amiga fanatic (and
strong critic) almost feel like getting rid of mine. The bad news
relates to 1.2. Supposedly, a lot of the software on the market for the
Amiga will not run under 1.2. Thus, Commodore/Amiga, in its infinite wisdom,
has decided to (or is at least thinking about) putting 1.1 INSTEAD of 1.2
in the new (and current) Amigas! Yes, you are reading this correctly, and
I am getting this from a reliable source.
How is 1.2 going to be used? It's going to be treated like an "add on."
An EXTRA COST add-on! They will probably only charge only $15 or so, but
the point is that 1.2 will not automatically come in Amigas, and there
will be little incentive for programmers to use its extra features.
Personally, I think it should be the other way around, with 1.2 packaged
with the new machines, and 1.1 available as an option.
Wasn't there a similar problem in upgrade compatibility with the different
versions of MS-DOS? I know that there was with the Apple II series.
I hate to start flames flying, but I think this news deserves some attention.
What do you think?
Rodney Ricks
UUCP: ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!rodney
or : !gatech!gt-oscar!rodney
Mail: 4265 Hidden Valley Dr. College Park, Ga. 30349
P.S. Please excuse the words in all capitals and the exclamation points, but
its the only way that I know of to SCREAM OVER USENET!!!!!dale@amiga.UUCP (Dale Luck) (11/03/86)
In article <2553@gitpyr.gatech.EDU> rodney@gitpyr.gatech.EDU (Rodney Ricks) writes: >Thus, Commodore/Amiga, in its infinite wisdom, >has decided to (or is at least thinking about) putting 1.1 INSTEAD of 1.2 >in the new (and current) Amigas! Yes, you are reading this correctly, and >I am getting this from a reliable source. Let's put an end to this reliable source's BS right now. I believe you have not heard the entire story here so lets not jump to conclusions. The current amigas are going out with 1.1 simply because they are already packaged that way. We have not released 1.2 even as of Oct 30. The time to get into production and unpackage all those packages of documentation and and disks is too much for cbm to bear, so we are just shipping current A1000's with stock 1.1. As the inventory of 1.1disks/manuals depletes iteself they will be replaced with 1.2. New amigas require 1.2 both for the extra features such as expansion as well as it is the only rommed version of the software. So back off jack 8-) until you get your facts straight. Maybe a call to amiga-commodore would help calm your fears. > >How is 1.2 going to be used? It's going to be treated like an "add on." >An EXTRA COST add-on! They will probably only charge only $15 or so, but >the point is that 1.2 will not automatically come in Amigas, and there >will be little incentive for programmers to use its extra features. > I beg, cbm will would be stupid to treat 1.2 as an add on (my opinion) and should asap move 1.2 into production to go out with new and current amigas. The extra cost add on $15 bucks, bfd. If you think that those people that have already spent $1k and up $(big number) will balk at $15 well I guess we placed the A1000 in the wrong market. Are you trying to tell me that the only incentive for programmers to use the grand and wonderfull new features of 1.2 is because it will standard on all amigas? What about the fact that many new programs cannot do without 1.2 as well as many hardware addons. 1.2 is here to stay, ( as soon as it gets here :) as well as until it is replaced by 1.3 (currently in planning stages :) >I hate to start flames flying, but I think this news deserves some attention. Your right I think it does deserve some attention, I hope I have given it all the attention it deserves and there will be no more said about this. Please mail to me the source of misinformation/misinterpretation so you and I can get this straightened out and everyone can get on with their 1.2 programming. hear! hear! I'll drink to that. > >P.S. Please excuse the words in all capitals and the exclamation points, but >its the only way that I know of to SCREAM OVER USENET!!!!! I heard you all the way to the west coast so I hope this catches up with you flame before there is too much more flaming done. Dale Luck (Duck) Back from my sabbatical and working hard. My opinions do not necessarily match my employers (CBM) but if they don't, sparks will fly. 8*(
dale@amiga.UUCP (Dale Luck) (11/03/86)
In article <1597@amiga.amiga.UUCP> dale@tooter.UUCP (Dale Luck) writes:
Another reason that may be even more improtant than the ones I have
already flamed about (sorry folks). Is this:
There are many programs out there that due to problems in application
software will not run under 1.2 The reasons to this are myriad.
We didn't know there was a differnce in chip/fast memory.
We thought that we could just hard code constants for addresses of routines
since you promised to be upward compatible.
We didn't know the program was freeing 200 bytes at location 0.
Gee I forgot to initialize the message port in that IO block.
Ya I know it was 'reserved' so I thought I could use that offset into
the structure.
All kinds of reasons that 1.2 now dislikes the above programs as well
as many other programming booboo's. Turns out almost everyone of the
3rd party software developers are busy fixing those problems and new ones
will be introduced to replace the old stuff. But these software developers
have lead time to contend with, there is product already in the pipline.
Going out with 'ONLY 1.1' will only cause confusion and disatisfied
customers. As th3e 3rd party developers catch up to 1.2 and release their
now 'bug free' :) programs then 1.2 will become the standard os. Until
then everyone will have two different versions of the os. Which may be an
even bigger confusion, but I'm hoping the dealers can explain the true
facts and not blame us on releasing an incompatible version of the software
because the transformer does not work (They did the hardcoded scam'
Dale Luck
Disclaimer just like my previous posting.dale@amiga.UUCP (Dale Luck) (11/03/86)
Sorry another, followup to my first followup to that article about 1.1/1.2 I meant to say if the only go out with '1.2' that would be notgood. Also note, we are not preventing duplication of 1.2 disks, you can make as many copies as you want,10/20 no three hundred thousand, ya thats it give em away as gifts. Dale
rj@amiga.UUCP (Robert J. Mical) (11/03/86)
In article <2553@gitpyr.gatech.EDU> rodney@gitpyr.gatech.EDU (Rodney Ricks) writes: > Supposedly, a lot of the software on the market for the >Amiga will not run under 1.2. Not true. This *was* true under beta versions of 1.2, but very few software packages out there won't work under 1.2. And, sadly, most of the programs that won't work don't work because the programmer made some error or cheated in some way that 1.2 rejects. >Personally, I think it should be the other way around, with 1.2 packaged >with the new machines, and 1.1 available as an option. I hope so too. In fact, I believe that as soon as 1.2 is available, they'll start putting 1.2 into the boxes. As for the boxes that are already sealed and sitting in some warehouse ... I say leave them be. I'm willing to put up with a lot of Commodore's "economy measures" if it means that Commodore can then stay afloat and continue to pump Amigas out the door. Don't you agree? Look for 1.2, gang. It's killer. I would like to extend my own thanks to the many developers who acted as the Amiga QA group during the end-run of 1.2 RJ Mical >:-{)*
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.COM (Dave Haynie) (11/03/86)
> Keywords: 1.2 news > > [ Go ahead line eater, mak my d y. ] > > I just heard something that kind of makes me, an avowed Amiga fanatic (and > strong critic) almost feel like getting rid of mine. The bad news > relates to 1.2. Supposedly, a lot of the software on the market for the > Amiga will not run under 1.2. Some won't, but most of it will. Any program that breaks any rules, as outlined in the Rom Kernal Manuals, might not work under 1.2. And guess what -- the Rom Kernal Manual, since the days of the read and white version used before the Amiga was released, specifically stated that breaking any of these programming rules might result in the offending program becoming obselete in future releases of the OS. I'd expect the 1.2 system to be much more compatible with 1.1 than similar upgrades in other computer systems (MS-DOS, for example). > Thus, Commodore/Amiga, in its infinite wisdom, > has decided to (or is at least thinking about) putting 1.1 INSTEAD of 1.2 > in the new (and current) Amigas! Yes, you are reading this correctly, and > I am getting this from a reliable source. Mind revealing the source (mail is OK if you're shy about it). I don't know if Commodore-Amiga has an official date to switch over shipping 1.2 instead of 1.1; of course, since 1.2 hasn't been officially released yet, you wouldn't expect it to be included in the Amiga box you buy today. But 1.2 will DEFINATELY be included at some point (like I said, I've got no official date, but I know this to be true) with Amiga systems. > How is 1.2 going to be used? It's going to be treated like an "add on." > An EXTRA COST add-on! They will probably only charge only $15 or so, but > the point is that 1.2 will not automatically come in Amigas, and there > will be little incentive for programmers to use its extra features. I don't know if they've set the policy yet or not; they were first talking about mailing 1.2 out free, just like 1.1, then they were talking about charging a small fee for the upgrade. I repeat, UPGRADE! There'd be no point in any of the enhancements of 1.2 if it weren't going to be the supported release of the Amiga OS. These things cost lots of programmer $$$$, they're not free. And a price of $10 or $15 wouldn't be outrageous for an OS upgrade package; have you priced Lotus 1-2-3 or Mac ROM upgrades lately? And they make you give back your old disks/ROMs! > Personally, I think it should be the other way around, with 1.2 packaged > with the new machines, and 1.1 available as an option. I see little reason for 1.1 remaining out at all. Any programs that don't work under 1.2 can be debugged and upgraded by their manufacturers (who've more than likely had Beta copies of 1.2 all summer, at the least), and in the interim all current Amiga owners will still have their 1.1 disk around (I know I've got mine somewhere). But user's of 1.2 will be a growing majority once its released, and any software company that has code which specifically counts on undocumented things in 1.1 would be foolish not to upgrade to 1.2. How many PC users out there still use MS-DOS 1.0? > Wasn't there a similar problem in upgrade compatibility with the different > versions of MS-DOS? I know that there was with the Apple II series. There's often a problem in compatibility from version to version of an operating system. I think MS-DOS changed so much from 1.0 to 2.0 that very little would run that well on 2.0. This can come from a poor OS design (having to be redesigned), or it can come from programmers bypassing the OS. In the C64 (and probably the Apple II), programmers got in the habit of jumping to ROM subroutines regardless of whether or not these were listed as supported (i.e. they stay the same) or not supported (i.e. they change completely around). Because of this, it was impossible to fix bugs or add features to the C64 Kernal. The Amiga development books told developers from the beginning what they'd have to do to remain 100% compatible with future releases of the OS. And they meant it. The Amiga's OS provides nearly anything you'd ever want in the way of capabilities, all in a very transparent (from OS to OS release) way. There's actually just 1 fixed address in all of the machine's operating system. If a programmer decided to disreguard these warnings, don't blame it on the Amiga. > I hate to start flames flying, but I think this news deserves some attention. > > What do you think? > > Rodney Ricks > -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Haynie {caip,ihnp4,allegra,seismo}!cbmvax!daveh HAPPY NEW YEAR! "Laws to supress tend to strengthen what they would prohibit. This is the fine point on which all the legal professions of history have based their job security." -Bene Gesserit Coda These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they may be yours too. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
cmcmanis@sun.uucp (Chuck McManis) (11/04/86)
Rodney Ricks writes : > I just heard something that kind of makes me, an avowed Amiga fanatic (and > strong critic) almost feel like getting rid of mine. The bad news > relates to 1.2. Supposedly, a lot of the software on the market for the > Amiga will not run under 1.2. Thus, Commodore/Amiga, in its infinite wisdom, > has decided to (or is at least thinking about) putting 1.1 INSTEAD of 1.2 > in the new (and current) Amigas! Yes, you are reading this correctly, and > I am getting this from a reliable source. > > Rodney Ricks Get a new source Rodney. Almost all of the problems in 1.2 compatible programs have been fixed. There are some games from EA that still won't work an EA refuses to upgrade their software. I heartily suggest you call EA and tell them that you really want 1.2 compatible software and don;t care if you have to pay extra to get it. The problem is that some of EA's stuff doesn't run under 1.2 and they (EA) are putting pressure on Commodore to recode the routines to work they expect them to. Sometimes this makes sense, sometimes it doesn't, it can be argued from either side. Last week I had heard of an interesting way to get around the issue with the ROM based machines. Let's wait till next week shall we and see what speculations bear fruit? -- --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.