dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) (05/21/91)
Well, time for the most frequently asked question as of late. Its been over two months since I've seen this thread, so I though I would ask. Does anyone at C= have *any* idea of how close Commodore is to reaching a burn=in date to commit 2.0 to ROM? 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. 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. -- dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) Copper Electronics, Inc. Louisville, Kentucky
kenny@mazurka.UUCP (Kenneth Yarnall) (05/21/91)
> Well, time for the most frequently asked question as of late. Its >been over two months since I've seen this thread, so I though I >would ask. > > Does anyone at C= have *any* idea of how close Commodore is to reaching >a burn=in date to commit 2.0 to ROM? Well, the letter that my dealer received with the 2.03 update said (paraphrased) that 2.03 was the last revision that would be shipped before the ROMS were burned and distributed, which would occur "3rd quarter 1991." The letter also stated clearly that support for structured fonts would be added to the system for the ROM release. Is that explicit enough? Hey, they mentioned the year, and everything. :-) > 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. What features? THe only thing I have heard that they are doing aside from structured font support (Which apparently is in the 2.04 release developers have) is fixing bugs. People keep making vague statements about software not working under 2.0 (except for one guy, who just listed a bunch of software that works fine), but never really backing these statements up. What doesn't work? To me, 2.03 seems to be the most stable OS ever released on the Amiga. > And just because a piece of software is listed in the "2.0 Complaint Hee. If a peice of software is labeled like this, ------^^^^^^^^^ you're right, it probably won't work... :+) >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. Like what? What are you talking about? Sounds just a bit paranoid. >dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) -- Ken Yarnall /// kenny%mazurka@opusc.csd.scarolina.EDU Math Department, USC \\\/// yarnall@usceast.cs.scarolina.EDU Columbia, S.C. 29208 \\\/ (803)777-5218 "I'm not good in groups. It's hard to work in a group when you're omnipotent." - Q
peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) (05/21/91)
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."
dannie@coplex.uucp (Dannie Gregoire) (05/22/91)
dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) writes: > Does anyone at C= have *any* idea of how close Commodore is to reaching >a burn=in date to commit 2.0 to ROM? According to our local dealer, 3rd quarter is Commodore's "official" release time for 2.0 ROMs, but that's what was said 1.5 years ago ;-) Anyone else care to elaborate?? +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Dannie J. Gregoire \\\\//// dannie@coplex | | Copper Electronics Inc. ////\\\\ !uunet!coplex!dannie | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
johns@dworkin.Amber.COM (John Silvia) (05/22/91)
> Does anyone at C= have *any* idea of how close Commodore is to reaching > a burn=in date to commit 2.0 to ROM? I heard that it was recent that they were getting close - I saw a developer version that said "This is REALLY CLOSE so if you don't report problems now, then it will be too late in three days." > 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. In the developer version that I saw, there was a new product called Fountain which allowed for scalable fonts. That worked nicely. Also, the ability yo to close a window before all the icons or information from that drive is loaded. My developer friend says that so far, all the parts of this system are 100% reliable, and has not seen a guru in a long while. The new font system will be able to use the same fonts as PageStream, so the system and the publishing packages will be able to take advantage of the same fonts. That's something that will get us into the same market that Apple has been bragging about. > > 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 do agree that not all software that runs under 2.0 uses all of it's features. Just ask the PageStream people about using SuperHires or Productivity and have the height-width ratio's look right. They never called me back and they laughed in my face at the World of Amiga. Some software will die under 2.0. That is true. Most of that software needed improvements anyway. Of the software that I run on my A3000, there is not one package that I miss using. I have found that the new productivity that I find in the 2.0 environment eclipses the need for using old software. My paint packages work, my good audio software works, my publisher kicks butt, my editors work, my utilities work, and there is more. The only complaint that people have about 2.0 is that they don't like having limitations or rules on what is done, and how it's done. Most well trained/taught programmers don't give this a second thought. It's the homebrew folks that have a steeper learning curve for programming. Keep in mind that an application to run under 2.0 and use it's abilities ot to it's best will have to not run under 1.3. Since the greater percentage of the user base for games and such is the A500, there will be a definite line drawn between power users and game players. That same line exists in the Mac and IBM worlds, and Commodore cannot have an ultra game machine and super multimedia/business platform in the same box and support them with one line of software. That would be too limiting.
dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann) (05/22/91)
Just another quick question: once C= decides they have the 2.0 they want to burn into ROM, what's the lag time before the chips are ready to ship? -- Dave Schaumann | There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool dave@cs.arizona.edu | following it. - Niven's Law # 16
jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) (05/22/91)
johns@dworkin.Amber.COM (John Silvia) writes: >Keep in mind that an application to run under 2.0 and use it's abilities ot >to it's best will have to not run under 1.3. >Since the greater percentage of the user base for games and such is the >A500, there will be a definite line drawn between power users and game >players. That same line exists in the Mac and IBM worlds, and Commodore >cannot have an ultra game machine and super multimedia/business platform in >the same box and support them with one line of software. That would be too >limiting. Programs can easily check to see what version of rom you have. If you don't have 2.0 they can still function, but you would lose a few of the nifty features that require 2.0. All it takes is a little thought on the programmers part, and a few ghosted menus (or gadgets, whatever). There is no reason not to have 2.0 on all amigas (including CDTV). The only difference between game players and power users is the hardware and software addons they buy for their machines.
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May22.145109.2627@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) writes: > >There is no reason not to have 2.0 on all amigas (including CDTV). >The only difference between game players and power users is the hardware >and software addons they buy for their machines. That's not really true. CDTV, running under a variant of 1.3, uses a 512K kickstart with special routines on it, so you can't just plug in a 2.0 kickstart. And considering that 2.0KS is already totally filled, there would be no room for the CDTV specific code. Now the world has gone to bed, Now I lay me down to sleep, Darkness won't engulf my head, Try to count electric sheep, I can see by infrared, Sweet dream wishes you can keep, How I hate the night. How I hate the night. -- Marvin
jonabbey@cs.utexas.edu (Jonathan David Abbey) (05/23/91)
In article <1991May22.161900.26502@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: | In article <1991May22.145109.2627@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> | jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) writes: | > | >There is no reason not to have 2.0 on all amigas (including CDTV). | >The only difference between game players and power users is the hardware | >and software addons they buy for their machines. | | That's not really true. CDTV, running under a variant of | 1.3, uses a 512K kickstart with special routines on it, so you | can't just plug in a 2.0 kickstart. And considering that 2.0KS is | already totally filled, there would be no room for the CDTV | specific code. Does anyone know if Commodore has made any statements to the effect that software developed for the CDTV should be 2.0 compatible? I realize that it will may be non-trivial to field upgrade CDTV's to 2.0 software ("They want us to take in our CDTV? Why? It works fine.."), but it would be nice to have 2.0 facilities (particularly fountain) in doing information retrieval, not to mention general stability. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan David Abbey \"Fortune presents gifts not according to the the university of texas at austin \ book" - Dead Can Dance "I've got to computer science/math?/psychology? \ jonabbey@cs.utexas.edu stay Awake..."
jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) (05/23/91)
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: >In article <1991May22.145109.2627@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) writes: >> >>There is no reason not to have 2.0 on all amigas (including CDTV). >>The only difference between game players and power users is the hardware >>and software addons they buy for their machines. > That's not really true. CDTV, running under a variant of >1.3, uses a 512K kickstart with special routines on it, so you >can't just plug in a 2.0 kickstart. And considering that 2.0KS is >already totally filled, there would be no room for the CDTV >specific code. Well, okay if you going to be picky about it..... I believe that the original memory map for the Amiga left space for 1 meg of roms. So even if its not immediatly physically possble, it is certainly technically possible [for CBM at least] to put KS2.0+CDTV specific stuff into roms and into CDTV's. THis is not to say that they willl, but they certainly could. Do Amiga500's and Amiga2000's have an extra ROM socket to hold 2.0 in? If not I'm sure we will soon see ROM extender hacks to allow people to put 512k 2.0ROMS in those machine. Hopefully this will happen for A1000s too, since I own one :-)
xgr39@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (05/23/91)
In article <1991May22.191722.20379@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) writes: >es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) writes: > >>In article <1991May22.145109.2627@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) writes: >>> >>>There is no reason not to have 2.0 on all amigas (including CDTV). >>>The only difference between game players and power users is the hardware >>>and software addons they buy for their machines. > >> That's not really true. CDTV, running under a variant of >>1.3, uses a 512K kickstart with special routines on it, so you >>can't just plug in a 2.0 kickstart. And considering that 2.0KS is >>already totally filled, there would be no room for the CDTV >>specific code. > >Well, okay if you going to be picky about it..... > >I believe that the original memory map for the Amiga left space for >1 meg of roms. So even if its not immediatly physically possble, >it is certainly technically possible [for CBM at least] to put >KS2.0+CDTV specific stuff into roms and into CDTV's. THis is not >to say that they willl, but they certainly could. For putting the OS 2.0 ROM into a CDTV, I have a better alternative to the idea of doing an internal upgrade. The socket for the Personal RAM/ROM cards can use cards with either 64K of RAM or 512K of ROM. So, put the 512K OS 2.0 Kickstart onto a Personal ROM Card and sell it for the CDTV. You could then just pop the OS 2.0 ROM into your CDTV without doing an internal upgrade. > >Do Amiga500's and Amiga2000's have an extra ROM socket to hold 2.0 in? >If not I'm sure we will soon see ROM extender hacks to allow people >to put 512k 2.0ROMS in those machine. Such a hack is not needed. The ROM socket in A500s and A2000s has enough address lines for a 512K ROM. With the old 256K ROM, this address line was not used. So you can just pop in the 512K ROM and it will work. > >Hopefully this will happen for A1000s too, since I own one :-) ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ ISU : The Home of the Goon / \ Who wants to Blow Up the Moon / -------------------------------------------------------
markv@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (05/23/91)
> I believe that the original memory map for the Amiga left space for > 1 meg of roms. So even if its not immediatly physically possble, > it is certainly technically possible [for CBM at least] to put > KS2.0+CDTV specific stuff into roms and into CDTV's. THis is not > to say that they willl, but they certainly could. Yes. And since they *are* Commodore, they are free to decide to use any of the remaining "reserved" space in the 24 bit address space map. > Do Amiga500's and Amiga2000's have an extra ROM socket to hold 2.0 in? > If not I'm sure we will soon see ROM extender hacks to allow people > to put 512k 2.0ROMS in those machine. The 500/2000 ROM sockets DO support 512K ROMs, but not the 1000s. The 3000 can support either 500/2000 style chips, or "wider" chips that let the 3000 ROM space be addressable 32 bits wide. (Of course 16 versus 32 bits is less an issue than the speed of the ROMs). > Hopefully this will happen for A1000s too, since I own one :-) The 1000 is a bit tricky. The 1000s address circuitry is all several discrete componants, and the WCS shows up in this space and has it's own wierdness (write protecting, etc). Also the WCS is decoded so that it repeats itself 4 times in the 1MB ROM space (ie: F0, F4, F8, and FC all map to F0 in the WCS). This is why the Rejuvinator replaces the WCS wholesale, rather than trying to hack the 1000 ROM sockets for instance. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mark Gooderum Only... \ Good Cheer !!! Academic Computing Services /// \___________________________ University of Kansas /// /| __ _ Bix: mgooderum \\\ /// /__| |\/| | | _ /_\ makes it Bitnet: MARKV@UKANVAX \/\/ / | | | | |__| / \ possible... Internet: markv@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
specter@disk.uucp (Byron Max Guernsey) (05/23/91)
>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. Was that supposed to be taken seriously? Noone is waiting for it to come out on ROM to write software for it. In fact, developers have been "writing for it" since kickstart 1.4 which was released to give developers something to go on. That was about 2 years ago. I don't think anyone will write anything exclusively for 2.0 yet...to do so would be like writing software for the NEXT. :) (point in hand: wouldnt be profitable to exploit 2.0's features yet and give up 1.3 compatibility) Byron -- Byron 'Maxwell' Guernsey | /// //\\ specter@disk.UUCP or | /// // \\ uunet!ukma!corpane!disk!specter | \\\/// //====\\ "We're not going to give you 500 dimes..." - SNL | \\\/ // \\ m i g a
rda136k@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Simon Cocking) (05/23/91)
jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) writes: >Do Amiga500's and Amiga2000's have an extra ROM socket to hold 2.0 in? >If not I'm sure we will soon see ROM extender hacks to allow people >to put 512k 2.0ROMS in those machine. >Hopefully this will happen for A1000s too, since I own one :-) This is something I've been wondering about too for a while... the A500 has no extra ROM socket, and the existing socket should be too small (ie, not enough pins) to accomodate a 512k ROM. How does C= intend for this to be done? -- /// ^^^^^ __ /// (o o) Didn't 25 years of Doctor \\\/// Simon Cocking, ^ Who teach you not to trust \XX/ rda136k@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au `-' names like Intel & Zilog?
xgr39@isuvax.iastate.edu (Marc Barrett) (05/23/91)
In article <1991May23.102546.19130@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, rda136k@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Simon Cocking) writes: >jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) writes: > >>Do Amiga500's and Amiga2000's have an extra ROM socket to hold 2.0 in? >>If not I'm sure we will soon see ROM extender hacks to allow people >>to put 512k 2.0ROMS in those machine. > >>Hopefully this will happen for A1000s too, since I own one :-) > >This is something I've been wondering about too for a while... the A500 has >no extra ROM socket, and the existing socket should be too small (ie, not >enough pins) to accomodate a 512k ROM. How does C= intend for this to >be done? The A500 and A2000 use exactly the same ROM socket, with enough address lines for a 512K ROM. Thus, the KS 2.0 upgrade will be a drop-in upgrade for the A500 just as it is for the A2000. The two systems are exactly the same in this regard. > >-- > /// ^^^^^ > __ /// (o o) Didn't 25 years of Doctor > \\\/// Simon Cocking, ^ Who teach you not to trust > \XX/ rda136k@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au `-' names like Intel & Zilog? ------------------------------------------------------------- / Marc Barrett -MB- | BITNET: XGR39@ISUVAX.BITNET / / ISU COM S Student | Internet: XGR39@CCVAX.IASTATE.EDU / ------------------------------------------------------------ \ ISU : The Home of the Goon / \ Who wants to Blow Up the Moon / -------------------------------------------------------
mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) (05/24/91)
In article <1991May23.063824.21429@disk.uucp> specter@disk.uucp (Byron Max Guernsey) writes:
I don't think anyone will write anything exclusively for 2.0 yet...
to do so would be like writing software for the NEXT. :)
What do you mean "yet"? There's already a fair amount of PD 2.0-only
code, and at least one commercial 2.0-specific application (though
they later came out with a 1.3 version).
I'm doing things in 2.0 that flat weren't possible in 1.x. The
resulting software is going to be 2.0-only, because those things are
critical to proper operation of the software (i.e. - you tend to guru
if they aren't there, or aren't done right). I may even be using
things that won't run under 36.#? or early 37.#? versions of the OS,
so the demo version of the software won't be released until after ROM
is available for 3000s.
<mike
--
The road is full of dangerous curves Mike Meyer
And we don't want to go too fast mwm@pa.dec.com
We may not make it first decwrl!mwm
But I know we're going to make it last.didierj@swindj.UUCP (Alain Didierjean) (05/24/91)
In article <1991May22.161900.26502@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, Ethan Solomita writes: -> In article <1991May22.145109.2627@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) writes: -> > -> >There is no reason not to have 2.0 on all amigas (including CDTV). -> >The only difference between game players and power users is the hardware -> >and software addons they buy for their machines. -> -> That's not really true. CDTV, running under a variant of -> 1.3, uses a 512K kickstart with special routines on it, so you -> can't just plug in a 2.0 kickstart. And considering that 2.0KS is -> already totally filled, there would be no room for the CDTV -> specific code. Also, I wonder what 2.0 look would become on a TV set, PAL or NTSC. I'm talking about subtle shades and highlights, specifically vertical thin ones. Anybody tested 2.0 on his home TV set yet ? Alain DIDIERJEAN tfd.com!afp!gna!swindj!didierj The Software Winery cbmvax!cbmehq!cbmfra!swindj!didierj
kilian@cinnet.com (Kilian Jacob) (05/29/91)
From article <1991May23.102546.19130@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>, by rda136k@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Simon Cocking): > jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) writes: > >>Do Amiga500's and Amiga2000's have an extra ROM socket to hold 2.0 in? >>If not I'm sure we will soon see ROM extender hacks to allow people >>to put 512k 2.0ROMS in those machine. > >>Hopefully this will happen for A1000s too, since I own one :-) > > This is something I've been wondering about too for a while... the A500 has > no extra ROM socket, and the existing socket should be too small (ie, not > enough pins) to accomodate a 512k ROM. How does C= intend for this to > be done? > > -- > /// ^^^^^ > __ /// (o o) Didn't 25 years of Doctor > \\\/// Simon Cocking, ^ Who teach you not to trust > \XX/ rda136k@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au `-' names like Intel & Zilog? It's not to small. Remember the ROM chip only supports word addressing (no byte addressing) Thus for 512kb (256 k words) you only need 18 address lines. -- /<ilian -- Kilian Jacob - Cincinnati, Ohio - VOICE: (513)-489-1891 UUCP: kilian@cinnet.com or {uceng.uc.edu, ukma!spca6, uunet!sdrc}!cinnet!kilian