peter@stca77.stc.oz (Peter Jeremy) (02/01/91)
There has been a lot of smoke and heat generated in the net regarding the (lack of) WB2.0 for machines other than the A3000. One question I haven't seen asked (or answered) is why can't the existing WB2.0 be used on the A500/A1000/A2000? The only problems I can think of are: Commodore Marketing - this is the most likely. Contains 68030 specific code - Given that AmigaDOS has always supported multiple CPU's (it supported 680[012]0 from day 0), I find it difficult to believe that WB2.0 has been written specifically for the 68030. It is (barely) possible that the current version was compiled for a 680[23]0, but this is just a matter of re-compiling with a different flag specified. CATS are waiting for a real 68040 so they can test the 68040 support - this is possible, but only explains why it is still `beta' rather than a final release. WB2.0 assumes the A3000 ECS chipset - I understood that the new chips were compatible with the existing chips (and I think that the only difference between the B2000 and A3000 is Denise anyway). The code needs to start in one of the compatible modes in any case (there may not be an enhanced monitor attached). It is possible that the drivers don't have sanity checking code to ensure that programs don't request modes that are not available in the hardware, but this would only affect programs that tried to use graphics modes that weren't available. Would one of the keepers of the AmigaDOS like to comment? Anyone for `raw cold fish' :-)? -- Peter Jeremy (VK2PJ) peter@stca77.stc.oz.AU Alcatel STC Australia ...!uunet!stca77.stc.oz!peter 240 Wyndham St peter%stca77.stc.oz@uunet.UU.NET ALEXANDRIA NSW 2015
limonce@pilot.njin.net (Tom Limoncelli +1 201 408 5389) (02/01/91)
In article <1222@stca77.stc.oz> peter@stca77.stc.oz (Peter Jeremy) writes: > [Why no 2.0 for non-Amiga 3000 machines?] For a 2000 or 500 to run AmigaDOS 2.0, it must be put in ROM. They're not going to burn (make) the ROMs until it's done. ROMs aren't cheap, do you want to buy them every month until they're ready? Developers can use 2.0 if they have an MMU and use it like the 3000 does. Developers can not share this version for many, many reasons. (1) their nondisclosure agreement says so. (2) you don't want a million versions of an *unfinished* operating systems running around. (people that got beta-1.3 illegally are still posting about problems that they wouldn't have if they just upgraded to the real 1.3 release!) (3) many more. > The only problems I can think of are: > Commodore Marketing - this is the most likely. Don't blame everything on Commodore Marketing. Their concern is how to package it to the consumer... once it's done. ^^^^ > Contains 68030 specific code - Given that AmigaDOS has always supported No that's silly. C-A always planned on this running on all platforms. By the way, how would marketing influence this? Sneak in at night and re-write code that was '030 specific? :-) > CATS are waiting for a real 68040 so they can test the 68040 support - this > is possible, but only explains why it is still `beta' rather than a final > release. I doubt they have to wait. :-) Besides, the diferences between the '030 and '040 shouldn't effect the OS or any program too much. > WB2.0 assumes the A3000 ECS chipset - I understood that the new chips were This has been posted over, and over. 2.0 does *not* require the ECS chipset nor the Amiga 3000 ECS chipset. I'm not sure why you think marketing is getting in the way. When 2.0 is sanctioned as "done" I'm sure the race will be to see which happens first (1) the first batch of ROMs are done and are used on the assembly line (2) the upgrade kits and (this might be bigger) install manual and rumor squasher manual are finalized. I'd assume that (1) will take less time, which means that we'll see Amiga 500, 2x00, 3000s shipping with 2.0 in ROM a couple weeks before the upgrade kits are available. Viewing past actions of the Amiga community, I assume that if the difference is more than 2 weeks rumors of "no upgrade kits" will start to spread. I hope C-A includes a note with the Amigas that says something like: "Tell you friends to start saving their dough! Upgrade kits for Amiga 500s, 2000s, 2500s will be shipping soon!" Tom -- One thousand, one hundred, seventy five people died of AIDS last week. Did someone mention a war in Iraq?
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (02/02/91)
In article <1222@stca77.stc.oz> peter@stca77.stc.oz (Peter Jeremy) writes: >There has been a lot of smoke and heat generated in the net regarding the >(lack of) WB2.0 for machines other than the A3000. One question I haven't >seen asked (or answered) is why can't the existing WB2.0 be used on the >A500/A1000/A2000? It actually DOES run on any Amiga. The only thing currently needed is Fast RAM as first autoconfigured device plus a utility program only available for registered developers and not for the public. But when it is in ROM, then every machine should work with it. >Contains 68030 specific code Not true. >CATS are waiting for a real 68040 so they can test the 68040 support - this >is possible, but only explains why it is still `beta' rather than a final >release. Not true. >WB2.0 assumes the A3000 ECS chipset Not true. It's simply debugging. When all bugs have been removed, then it can go into ROMs and hopefully also onto the other machines. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
johnhlee@viola.cs.cornell.edu (John H. Lee) (02/02/91)
In article <1222@stca77.stc.oz> peter@stca77.stc.oz (Peter Jeremy) writes: >There has been a lot of smoke and heat generated in the net regarding the >(lack of) WB2.0 for machines other than the A3000. One question I haven't >seen asked (or answered) is why can't the existing WB2.0 be used on the >A500/A1000/A2000? > >The only problems I can think of are: >Commodore Marketing - this is the most likely. > >Contains 68030 specific code - Given that AmigaDOS has always supported [...] >WB2.0 assumes the A3000 ECS chipset - I understood that the new chips were [...] I believe that it has been stated publicly (by Commodore personnel and others, but not officially) that WB2.0 does not contain 68030/020-specific code, does not it require the ECS chipset, and in fact *will* run on A500s and A2000s. A stock A1000 cannot run release WB2.0 because the motherboard does not support the new 512K ROMs. Developers *are* currently beta-testing WB2.0 on A500s, A1000s, A2000s, and A3000s because Kickstart is loaded into RAM and executed from there. So why is WB2.0 not out for A500s, A1000s, and A3000s? Because it has not completed beta-testing yet, and Commodore will not make a vapor-ware announcement. Current A3000 owners have a *pre-release* version of WB2.0. Patience can be difficult (for me, most definitely), but we all must wait a bit more. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Deadly rumors spread unchecked! Next time on AmigaDos: The Next Generation. John Lee Internet: johnhlee@cs.cornell.edu The above opinions of those of the user, and not of this machine.
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (02/04/91)
peter@stca77.stc.oz (Peter Jeremy) writes: >There has been a lot of smoke and heat generated in the net regarding the >(lack of) WB2.0 for machines other than the A3000. One question I haven't >seen asked (or answered) is why can't the existing WB2.0 be used on the >A500/A1000/A2000? > >The only problems I can think of are: >Commodore Marketing - this is the most likely. > >Contains 68030 specific code - Given that AmigaDOS has always supported >multiple CPU's (it supported 680[012]0 from day 0), I find it difficult to >believe that WB2.0 has been written specifically for the 68030. It is >(barely) possible that the current version was compiled for a 680[23]0, >but this is just a matter of re-compiling with a different flag specified. > >CATS are waiting for a real 68040 so they can test the 68040 support - this >is possible, but only explains why it is still `beta' rather than a final >release. > >WB2.0 assumes the A3000 ECS chipset - I understood that the new chips were >compatible with the existing chips (and I think that the only difference >between the B2000 and A3000 is Denise anyway). The code needs to start in >one of the compatible modes in any case (there may not be an enhanced >monitor attached). It is possible that the drivers don't have sanity checking >code to ensure that programs don't request modes that are not available in >the hardware, but this would only affect programs that tried to use graphics >modes that weren't available. > >Would one of the keepers of the AmigaDOS like to comment? > >Anyone for `raw cold fish' :-)? Hmm.. I don't know where you get your info from but commodore has always said that 2.0 would be available for 2000's when it is finally released to ROM. As for 500's well, from what i understand it is still up in the air if it will even be available for 500's. marketing? i don't know. possibly since keeping the 500 1.3 compatible would make it much more compatible for games, which is what most 500 owners do the most of. but rest assured the 2.0 will be available for 2000 owners. >-- >Peter Jeremy (VK2PJ) peter@stca77.stc.oz.AU >Alcatel STC Australia ...!uunet!stca77.stc.oz!peter >240 Wyndham St peter%stca77.stc.oz@uunet.UU.NET >ALEXANDRIA NSW 2015 UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org
kelson@ais.org (David Lewis) (02/06/91)
> >> the 500 1.3 compatible would make it much more compatible for games, which is >> what most 500 owners do the most of. but rest assured the 2.0 will be >> available for 2000 owners. >Well here's my 2c worth. I have an A500 because I can't afford the extra >money needed for a 2000/3000. (Big investment for a PC) >I also have 220MB of hard disk and 2MB of memory. Lattice C and many utilities. >I only use my _GAMES MACHINE_ for games about 1% or less of the time. >Peter Kerney. Silicon Graphics, Sydney, Australia. (peterk@syd.sgi.oz.au) > I agree with that 100% I mainly bought the amiga 500 because I coulldnt afford the extra for the 2000/3000. I RARELY use my amiga for a games.. I know a lot of 500 owners that are hopeing to see the wb2.0 and all those goodies comes to the 500 as well... -- Internet: Kelson@ais.org
jms@vanth.UUCP (Jim Shaffer) (02/06/91)
In article <3987@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >Hmm.. I don't know where you get your info from but commodore has always said >that 2.0 would be available for 2000's when it is finally released to ROM. As >for 500's well, from what i understand it is still up in the air if it will >even be available for 500's. marketing? i don't know. possibly since keeping >the 500 1.3 compatible would make it much more compatible for games, which is >what most 500 owners do the most of. but rest assured the 2.0 will be >available for 2000 owners. So you seem to be saying that ROMs for a 2000 wouldn't work in a 500. Why not? -- ~ From the disk of: | jms@vanth.uucp | "Glittering prizes and Jim Shaffer, Jr. | amix.commodore.com!vanth!jms | endless compromises 37 Brook Street | 72750.2335@compuserve.com | shatter the illusion of Montgomery, PA 17752 | (CompuServe as a last resort)| integrity!" (Rush)
nfs1675@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil ( Michael S Figg) (02/06/91)
In article <3987@orbit.cts.com>, chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: > > > Hmm.. I don't know where you get your info from but commodore has always said > that 2.0 would be available for 2000's when it is finally released to ROM. And Commodore also said it would be available in September, 1990. I don't know if they are still saying that or not. Personally, I wouldn't believe them anyway. ---Mike -- -------- o A herd of bagels | Michael Figg DSAC-FSD | | -- oo o o escaping from a deli. | DLA Systems Automation Center | | -- ooo oo Looking for Lox in | Cols, Ohio mfigg@dsac.dla.mil -------- o o all the wrong places | CIS: 73777,360
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (02/07/91)
kelson@ais.org (David Lewis) writes: >> >>> the 500 1.3 compatible would make it much more compatible for games, which is >>> what most 500 owners do the most of. but rest assured the 2.0 will be >>> available for 2000 owners. > >>Well here's my 2c worth. I have an A500 because I can't afford the extra >>money needed for a 2000/3000. (Big investment for a PC) >>I also have 220MB of hard disk and 2MB of memory. Lattice C and many utilities. >>I only use my _GAMES MACHINE_ for games about 1% or less of the time. > >>Peter Kerney. Silicon Graphics, Sydney, Australia. (peterk@syd.sgi.oz.au) >> > > I agree with that 100% I mainly bought the amiga 500 because I >coulldnt afford the extra for the 2000/3000. I RARELY use my amiga >for a games.. I know a lot of 500 owners that are hopeing to >see the wb2.0 and all those goodies comes to the 500 as well... > >-- > >Internet: Kelson@ais.org well, I can't speak for commodore but it sure would be useful to have 2.0 availble for an upgrade on the 500 but not to be sold with it. like i said the majority of 500 users use it for games most of the time. i'm not saying that a majority on this network, since this is hardly a even sampling. UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org
dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) (02/07/91)
In article <4033@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >like i said >the majority of 500 users use it for games most of the time. i'm not saying >that a majority on this network, since this is hardly a even sampling. So, you've taken a survey? How big was your sample? If you're going to make broad, sweeping generalizations like this, you should really provide some hard facts to back it up. Please note the followup-to line! >UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks >ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil >INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org Dave Schaumann dave@cs.arizona.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: *** DANGER *** Access hole may tear easily. Use of the access holes for lifting or carrying may result in damage to the carton and subsequent injury to the user.
231b3678@fergvax.unl.edu (Phil Dietz) (02/07/91)
In article <4033@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >kelson@ais.org (David Lewis) writes: >>> >>>> the 500 1.3 compatible would make it much more compatible for games, which is >>>> what most 500 owners do the most of. but rest assured the 2.0 will be >>>> available for 2000 owners. >> >>>Well here's my 2c worth. I have an A500 because I can't afford the extra >>>money needed for a 2000/3000. (Big investment for a PC) >>>I also have 220MB of hard disk and 2MB of memory. Lattice C and many utilities. >>>I only use my _GAMES MACHINE_ for games about 1% or less of the time. >> >>>Peter Kerney. Silicon Graphics, Sydney, Australia. (peterk@syd.sgi.oz.au) >>> >> >> I agree with that 100% I mainly bought the amiga 500 because I >>coulldnt afford the extra for the 2000/3000. I RARELY use my amiga >>for a games.. I know a lot of 500 owners that are hopeing to >>see the wb2.0 and all those goodies comes to the 500 as well... >> >>-- >> >>Internet: Kelson@ais.org > > >well, I can't speak for commodore but it sure would be useful to have 2.0 >availble for an upgrade on the 500 but not to be sold with it. like i said >the majority of 500 users use it for games most of the time. i'm not saying >that a majority on this network, since this is hardly a even sampling. > > >UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks >ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil >INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org Actually!! I bet my life that there are more GAMES sold to A2000's then A500s! The life of an A500 is very frugal. Anything that the A500 owner buys is usually something needed (like CED, Lattice, Word Perfect). The A2000 owner on the other hand has his 60 grand a year job, so he buys everything his heart desires (a Video toaster, a 5th hard drive, an optical mouse). An A2000 owner is like the Beverly Hills dude that has EVERYTHING. If it's new, he has to have it. I personally know people like that, that go and buy $200 of games and stuff every weekend, and not even open all of them up! Wasted games, but they don't mind. Now to say that the A500 is a GAMES machine because it's cheaper, is like comparing two weekend golfers (one with a cheap set and the other with a 1000 set--yet they both play the same) It's also like saying people with BIG heads are smarter than normal people. I personally feel that they just have a BIG fat head...... Apples are apples and oranges are oranges. The a500 is an a1000 is an a2000 is an a3000. We ALL should have WB2.0 available! Segragating their computers would make commodore a lamer company like them MSDOS ones (you know them...so and so memory card ONLY works on so and so version of so and so BRAND computer.) later Phil Dietz --- University of Nebraska Phil Dietz // Computer Science 231b3678@fergvax.unl.edu \\// out the 235b4271@fergvax.unl.edu \/ Amiga!
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (02/07/91)
In article <2916@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil> nfs1675@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil ( Michael S Figg) writes: >In article <3987@orbit.cts.com>, chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >> > >> Hmm.. I don't know where you get your info from but commodore has always said >> that 2.0 would be available for 2000's when it is finally released to ROM. > >And Commodore also said it would be available in September, 1990. I don't ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >know if they are still saying that or not. Personally, I wouldn't believe >them anyway. I don't know who really told you this. But we at Commodore all know from personal experience over the years that speculating about final release dates is one of the extremely risky things. So I also never saw such an announcement here on the net. So, don't blame "them" (Commodore) for one "Commodore" (really?) person who obviously promised something he/she shouldn't have. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (02/09/91)
jms@vanth.UUCP (Jim Shaffer) writes: >In article <3987@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >>Hmm.. I don't know where you get your info from but commodore has always said >>that 2.0 would be available for 2000's when it is finally released to ROM. As >>for 500's well, from what i understand it is still up in the air if it will >>even be available for 500's. marketing? i don't know. possibly since keeping >>the 500 1.3 compatible would make it much more compatible for games, which is >>what most 500 owners do the most of. but rest assured the 2.0 will be >>available for 2000 owners. > >So you seem to be saying that ROMs for a 2000 wouldn't work in a 500. Why >not? Well, i don't know if they will be compatible or not, i just meant that it may not be supported to have 2.0 in a 500, i don't know for sure or not. > >-- >~ From the disk of: | jms@vanth.uucp | "Glittering prizes and >Jim Shaffer, Jr. | amix.commodore.com!vanth!jms | endless compromises >37 Brook Street | 72750.2335@compuserve.com | shatter the illusion of >Montgomery, PA 17752 | (CompuServe as a last resort)| integrity!" (Rush) UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org
hastoerm@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Moriland) (02/09/91)
In article <1991Feb07.052626.28665@hoss.unl.edu> 231b3678@fergvax.unl.edu (Phil Dietz) writes: [....lots of boring stuff deleted....] } }Actually!! } }I bet my life that there are more GAMES sold to A2000's then A500s! }The life of an A500 is very frugal. Anything that the A500 owner buys is }usually something needed (like CED, Lattice, Word Perfect). The A2000 }owner on the other hand has his 60 grand a year job, so he buys everything }his heart desires (a Video toaster, a 5th hard drive, an optical mouse). }An A2000 owner is like the Beverly Hills dude that has EVERYTHING. If }it's new, he has to have it. What total BS. If thats true, then me and a lot of other A2000 owners are missing out someplace. I don't know a SINGLE A2000 or even A3000 owner who fits the mold you just described. I own an A2000 and I barely make $12000 a year! Where the hell is my 60 grand a year job? } }I personally know people like that, that go and buy $200 of games }and stuff every weekend, and not even open all of them up! Wasted }games, but they don't mind. Again, don't know anyone like that. } }Now to say that the A500 is a GAMES machine because it's cheaper, is like }comparing two weekend golfers (one with a cheap set and the other with }a 1000 set--yet they both play the same) It's also like saying people }with BIG heads are smarter than normal people. I personally feel }that they just have a BIG fat head...... } }Apples are apples and oranges are oranges. The a500 is an a1000 is an }a2000 is an a3000. We ALL should have WB2.0 available! Segragating }their computers would make commodore a lamer company like them MSDOS ones }(you know them...so and so memory card ONLY works on so and so version }of so and so BRAND computer.) } }later }Phil Dietz Chill out man. You need a vacation or something. --Moriland -- | hastoerm@vela.acs.oakland.edu | __ | | | __/// Viva Amiga! | | Founder Of: Evil Young | \XX/ | | Mutants For A Better Tomorrow | "Single Tasking: JUST SAY NO!" |
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (02/09/91)
In article <4056@orbit.cts.com> chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: >[Re: 2.0 available for the 500] >Well, i don't know if they will be compatible or not, i just meant that it may >not be supported to have 2.0 in a 500, i don't know for sure or not. 2.0 _will_ be available on the 500. It is possible that Commodore would not support such an addition, but I wouldn't worry about it. There are no really good reasons to do such a thing. Besides, they don't support more than one external drive, but many people have them. Given that the 2000 and 500 are very similar, there _can't_ be any problems with simply popping your "A2000 2.0/ECS Expansion Kit" into an A500. Greg -- -------Greg-Harp-------greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu-------s609@cs.utexas.edu------- "Confutatis maledictus "When the accursed have been counfounded Flammis acribus addictis, == And given over to the bitter flames, Voca me cum benedictis." -- Mozart Call me with the blessed."
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) (02/10/91)
In article <824@cbmger.UUCP> peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) writes: |In article <1222@stca77.stc.oz> peter@stca77.stc.oz (Peter Jeremy) writes: |>There has been a lot of smoke and heat generated in the net regarding the |>(lack of) WB2.0 for machines other than the A3000. One question I haven't |>seen asked (or answered) is why can't the existing WB2.0 be used on the |>A500/A1000/A2000? | |It actually DOES run on any Amiga. The only thing currently needed is Fast |RAM as first autoconfigured device plus a utility program only available |for registered developers and not for the public. But when it is in ROM, |then every machine should work with it. I had the notion that the Kickstart 2.0 image needed to load at address 0x200000. There was once a version that could load at 0xF00000, but that doesn't seem to have been continued. I'd love to get a version of zkick/Kickstart which could load at an arbitrary address. Several people I know have added memory at 0xC00000, which would be handy to use. An acquaintance has managed to get Kickstart loaded into a non-autoconfig memory board, and then rebooting to jump into it. Also, ROMs won't be much use for an A1000. In addition, they only have 256K of memory for Kickstart loading, so there are some interesting problems to be solved. -- ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario a /i/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `\o\-e UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb _< /_ "Que es mas macho: moral fiber, o oat bran?" - lala
jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) (02/11/91)
In article <71748@becker.UUCP> bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce D. Becker) writes: >|It actually DOES run on any Amiga. The only thing currently needed is Fast >|RAM as first autoconfigured device plus a utility program only available >|for registered developers and not for the public. But when it is in ROM, >|then every machine should work with it. > > I had the notion that the Kickstart 2.0 > image needed to load at address 0x200000. > There was once a version that could load > at 0xF00000, but that doesn't seem to have > been continued. All current non-A3000 versions of 2.0 are beta copies for developers only. They are not meant to be final consumer-usable versions (particularily in how they are loaded - ROMs are needed for consumer versions). F00000 versions are internal-only, and require a special memory board. > I'd love to get a version of zkick/Kickstart > which could load at an arbitrary address. > Several people I know have added memory at > 0xC00000, which would be handy to use. This will not happen - the code is relocated for a specific address. Close to all developers have access to at least one machine that can run current 2.0 beta releases, and if they don't they can get one easily. #include <std_2.0_beta_&_non-developers.flame> -- Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering. {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com BIX: rjesup The compiler runs Like a swift-flowing river I wait in silence. (From "The Zen of Programming") ;-)
nfs1675@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil ( Michael S Figg) (02/11/91)
In article <866@cbmger.UUCP>, peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) writes: > In article <2916@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil> nfs1675@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil ( Michael S Figg) writes: > >In article <3987@orbit.cts.com>, chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) writes: > >> > > >> Hmm.. I don't know where you get your info from but commodore has always said > >> that 2.0 would be available for 2000's when it is finally released to ROM. > > > >And Commodore also said it would be available in September, 1990. I don't > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >know if they are still saying that or not. Personally, I wouldn't believe > >them anyway. > > I don't know who really told you this. But we at Commodore all know > from personal experience over the years that speculating about > final release dates is one of the extremely risky things. So I also > never saw such an announcement here on the net. So, don't blame "them" > (Commodore) for one "Commodore" (really?) person who obviously promised > something he/she shouldn't have. > -- > Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Peter, It wasn't "one person" at Commodore, it was THE A3000 press release that was posted here (where I remembered it from), CompuServe (where I found it Yesterday, file 3000.txt, lib 4 - amigauser forum) and was also seen in Amazing Computing. Here is an excerpt from that release: ***************************************************************************** FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE EXPECTED SHIP DATE: JULY 1990 COMMODORE EXTENDS POPULAR AMIGA PRODUCT LINE; INTRODUCES TALENTED AMIGA 3000 AT "MULTIMEDIA LIVE" NEW YORK, NY -- April 24, 1990 -- Commodore Business Machines President Harold Copperman and his aggressive management team today dramatically defined multimedia as the company introduced the latest in its popular line of Amiga personal computers at a live multimedia demonstration at the Palladium. The powerful and elegant new Amiga (R) 3000 brings enhanced performance capabilities and a new AmigaDOS (TM) 2.0 operating system to the company's line of multimedia products. . . . Commodore further announced an AmigaDOS 2.0 enhancer kit for A2000 series machines to be available in September. Availability of a 2.0 enhancer kit for A500 series machines will be announced at a future date. ***************************************************************************** Okay, Okay, I know. I said September, 1990, and Commodore only said 1990. ;-) And I firmly believe that Commodore will have WB2.0 out for the 2000 platform by some September. Maybe you should catch up on the press releases. All said and done, I agree with most users in that I don't want to see it until it is really ready. ---Mike,
nfs1675@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil ( Michael S Figg) (02/12/91)
In article <2926@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil>, nfs1675@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil ( Michael S Figg) writes: > > Okay, Okay, I know. I said September, 1990, and Commodore only said 1990. ;-) ^^^^^ This should have said Sept. not 1990. > And I firmly believe that Commodore will have WB2.0 out for the 2000 platform > by some September. Maybe you should catch up on the press releases. > > All said and done, I agree with most users in that I don't want to see it > until it is really ready. > > ---Mike, ---Mike, again