set@phobos.cis.ksu.edu (Steve E Tietze ) (05/16/91)
I just unlharced newpop v4.0 to find out that it freezes my AmigaDos screen with WB 1.2 is their anything that can be done about this? this is from the readme file If you don't have WB 1.3.2+ and thus can't get Newpop to detach, then I don't feel sorry for you... Life is moving on and Newpop will most likely be 2.0 onlywithin months of the official release for Commodore... come on man this program should work on all WB's if their has been a change or if their is a way for the WB 1.2. Please Email set@phobos.cis.ksu.edu
ewilts@janus.mtroyal.ab.ca (Ed Wilts) (05/16/91)
In article <1991May15.172548.13353@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu>, set@phobos.cis.ksu.edu (Steve E Tietze ) writes: > I just unlharced newpop v4.0 to find out that it freezes my AmigaDos screen > with WB 1.2 is their anything that can be done about this? > > this is from the readme file > > If you don't have WB 1.3.2+ and thus can't get Newpop to detach, then I don't > feel sorry for you... Life is moving on and Newpop will most likely be 2.0 onlywithin months of the official release for Commodore... > > come on man this program should work on all WB's > > if their has been a change or if their is a way for the WB 1.2. > > Please Email set@phobos.cis.ksu.edu > Although I don't know why it freezes on 1.2 (Loren?), specifying a minimum release level of WB 1.3 is perfectly legitimate. The Enhancer 1.3 package has been publicly available for about 2 years, and developers are quite justified in saying that 1.3 should be a minimum. I wouldn't expect NewPop to work on AmigaDos 1.0 or 1.1, either. As a general rule, expect software developers to allow for UPWARDS compatibility, not DOWNWARDS compatibility. Something that works on 1.2 should work on 1.3, not the other way around. -- .../Ed Preferrred: Ed.Wilts@BSC.Galaxy.BCSystems.Gov.BC.CA Ed Wilts Alternate: EdWilts@BCSC02.BITNET (604) 389-3430 B.C. Systems Corp., 4000 Seymour Place, Victoria, B.C., Canada, V8X 4S8
lrg7030@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren J. Rittle) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May16.095614.8279@janus.mtroyal.ab.ca> ewilts@janus.mtroyal.ab.ca (Ed Wilts) writes: >In article <1991May15.172548.13353@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu>, set@phobos.cis.ksu.edu (Steve E Tietze ) writes: >> I just unlharced newpop v4.0 to find out that it freezes my AmigaDos screen >> with WB 1.2 is their anything that can be done about this? >> >> this is from the readme file >> >> If you don't have WB 1.3.2+ and thus can't get Newpop to detach, then I don't >> feel sorry for you... Life is moving on and Newpop will most likely be 2.0 >> only within months of the official release for Commodore... >> >> come on man this program should work on all WB's Steve, NewPop v4.0 should work fine with 1.2 (and below for that matter). If you had actually read the readme file a bit more closely, you would note that this passage refers to 'run >nil: newpop' detaching NewPop completely from the startup shell. The run command was enhanced in 1.3.2 to allow 'run >nil:' to completely detach the run program from the console window from which it was started. If you don't have 1.3.2 (the WB release, not ROM), then you may not be able to detach NewPop from a console window. This does not explain your problem though and if you would like to send me mail at l-rittle@uiuc.edu, I would be glad to help you get it up and running. Please mail your system configuration, what other background programs you run (SHOULD BE NONE, WHILE TESTING TO SEE WHY NewPop DOES NOT WORK). Also mail `.newpoprc' with your message (you did edit that before running, no?). >> if their has been a change or if their is a way for the WB 1.2. >> >> Please Email set@phobos.cis.ksu.edu Why should I? :-) You didn't mail me as per the docs! :-( >Although I don't know why it freezes on 1.2 (Loren?), specifying a minimum >release level of WB 1.3 is perfectly legitimate. The Enhancer 1.3 package has >been publicly available for about 2 years, and developers are quite justified >in saying that 1.3 should be a minimum. I wouldn't expect NewPop to work on >AmigaDos 1.0 or 1.1, either. > >As a general rule, expect software developers to allow for UPWARDS >compatibility, not DOWNWARDS compatibility. Something that works on 1.2 should >work on 1.3, not the other way around. I agree with Ed %100... Loren J. Rittle -- ``NewTek stated that the Toaster *would* *not* be made to directly support the Mac, at this point Sculley stormed out of the booth...'' --- A scene at the recent MacExpo. Gee, you wouldn't think that an Apple Exec would be so worried about one little Amiga device... Loren J. Rittle l-rittle@uiuc.edu