jc@crosfield.co.uk (jerry cullingford) (06/18/91)
In article <1075.2858ce37@vger.nsu.edu> manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) writes: >In article <7893@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM>, boblu@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM (Robert Luneski) writes: BOB> Wrong, "When, is the question" In our lifetime? It is now in excess of BOB> a year since the introduction of the 3000 and there is still no romable BOB> code and no sign whatsoever of WB2.0 on A500/A2000. So when WILL we BOB> actually see God's gift to operating systems? MARK>It runs fine on my A2000... I guess you will have it when 'it's ready'. MARK>I hate messages like yours. Sorry, but I find Mark's message more annoying than Bob's. I have nothing (much :-) against long development trials, since they remove more bugs, but surely the point is that 2.0 was ready for NON-DEVELOPERS when the 3000 was launched. Given that, and reinforced by Mark's statement that his (presumably developer) version runs fine on a 2000, people are entitled to ask "why is it taking so long?". There may well be good reasons - but taking the attitude, as Mark seems to be doing, that "I've got a copy that works so the rest of you should be happy to wait for years" really irritates me. Explaining the delays would have been constructive - sneering at someone expressing a reasonable concern given available information, even if they do so in a less than tactful way, doesn't help. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ | | Jerry Cullingford #include <std.disclaimer> +44 442 230000 | ,-|-- | jc@crosfield.co.uk (was jc@cel.co.uk) or jc@cel.uucp x3203 | \_|__ +-----------------------------------------------------------------+ \___/
doconnor@srg.UUCP (Dennis O'Connor x4982 room 6-230N) (06/19/91)
People with 2000s and 500s waiting for 2.0x should already understand why the 3000 has 2.0 and they don't yet : the 3000 "kickstarts" from disk, while 2000s and 500s "kickstart" from ROM. Since it's much easier to upgrade the contents of a disk than it is to upgrade the contents of a ROM, is it any surprise that C/A is not as quick to release 2.0 in ROM as it is to release it on disk ? When the ROM-ready version of 2.0 comes out, I'll get the floppy disk for my 3000 and just install the new version. I'll have to buy the ROM for my 500, probably more expensive, definately more work. If the ROM 2.0 is buggy, it will REALLY cheese me off to have to get and install another set of ROMs for my A500. Another floppy for my A3000 would be no big deal, unless I got gouged for it. -- -- Dennis O'Connor, uunet!srg!titania!doconnor non-representative.
jdickson@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Jeff Dickson) (06/20/91)
The gross delay in ROMing 2.x bothers me too, but at the same time
I appreciate the fact that C= is really cleaning up the code. ROMing can be
expensive and the thought of having to change the ROMs in my A2000 more than
once doesn't really grab me. V2.04 does run great, but its a pain to use on
a full time basis, because I have to load the 2.0 kickstart image into memory
first. This means a lengthier boot time and I'm totally against that. Me and
the GURU are on a first name basis! So while Mark taunted us with the state-
ment:
>MARK>It runs fine on my A2000... I guess you will have it when 'it's ready'.
...it's a mixed blessing (IMHO).
-jeffcactus@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu (Todd Masco) (06/21/91)
In article <DOCONNOR.91Jun19102627@titania.srg.UUCP> doconnor@srg.UUCP (Dennis O'Connor x4982 room 6-230N) writes: >When the ROM-ready version of 2.0 comes out, I'll get the floppy disk for >my 3000 and just install the new version. I'll have to buy the ROM for >my 500, probably more expensive, definately more work. I'm kind of curious -- what are the wins and losses (other than the 1/2 Meg of RAM) of simply continuing to load the Kickstart from disk? I'd expect a speed increase, of course. Perhaps this is one of the reasons software breaks on the A3000? -- Todd L. Masco - CMU Physics | "Free speech is the right to shout cactus@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu | 'theatre' in a crowded fire."
jdickson@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Jeff Dickson) (06/21/91)
In article <1991Jun20.180619.2049@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu> cactus@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu (Todd Masco) writes: >In article <DOCONNOR.91Jun19102627@titania.srg.UUCP> doconnor@srg.UUCP (Dennis O'Connor x4982 room 6-230N) writes: >>When the ROM-ready version of 2.0 comes out, I'll get the floppy disk for >>my 3000 and just install the new version. I'll have to buy the ROM for >>my 500, probably more expensive, definately more work. > >I'm kind of curious -- what are the wins and losses (other than the 1/2 >Meg of RAM) of simply continuing to load the Kickstart from disk? I'd >expect a speed increase, of course. Perhaps this is one of the >reasons software breaks on the A3000? >-- >Todd L. Masco - CMU Physics | "Free speech is the right to shout >cactus@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu | 'theatre' in a crowded fire." The speed difference between ROM and FAST RAM is not great enough to justify having to load kickstart each time the blasted thing crashes, This of course, depends on how you use your Amiga. The way I use it - it's a royal pain in the ass! I only have 3 megabytes of memory on my A2000. I could add relatively inexpensively another 6 megs to my A2058, but I don't need to. Three megs is enough. The idea of a 1/2 megabyte of RAM being eaten up, doesn't tickle me silly and I strongly doubt would it owners of Amigas with less memory. IMHO, there are no wins, just losses. -jeff
GUTEST8@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be (Ives Aerts) (06/21/91)
> The speed difference between ROM and FAST RAM is not great enough >to justify having to load kickstart each time the blasted thing crashes, >This of course, depends on how you use your Amiga. The way I use it - it's >a royal pain in the ass! On the Amiga 3000 it is very rare to have a crash that removes the kickstart from memory. The kickstart loaded in ram is protected with the MMU. You can not simply write there. To overwrite this memory you will have to trash the mmu tables and these are not so big. Also the loading of the kickstart on a 3000 takes only about 2 seconds. Hardly noticable in my opinion.
cactus@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu (Todd Masco) (06/21/91)
In article <1991Jun20.223220.19325@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> jdickson@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Jeff Dickson) writes: > The speed difference between ROM and FAST RAM is not great enough >to justify having to load kickstart each time the blasted thing crashes, At what speed are the ROMs accessed? I'd expect them to be 7MHz, which would show a clear loss against my 25MHz SCRAM. Also, I don't have to reload kickstart at any time other than when the system powers up. > I only have 3 megabytes of memory on my A2000. I could add relatively >inexpensively another 6 megs to my A2058, but I don't need to. Three megs is >enough. The idea of a 1/2 megabyte of RAM being eaten up, doesn't tickle me >silly and I strongly doubt would it owners of Amigas with less memory. > > IMHO, there are no wins, just losses. Hm. I've got an A3000 with 6 Megs, and there are times when I'd like to be able to jump from version 1.3 to version 2.0. Am I correct in thinking that this is more difficult with the ROM? (Currently, I hold down the mouse buttons while the system starts out, and select the OS version). I still wonder what, if any, wins I'd see with getting the ROM. The memory consumptions isn't a problem (it would be if it were chip -- 2 Megs chip is sometimes limiting -- I like many multiple screens). Note the followup header... -- Todd L. Masco - CMU Physics | "Free speech is the right to shout cactus@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu | 'theatre' in a crowded fire."
jdickson@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Jeff Dickson) (06/22/91)
In article <91172.104244GUTEST8@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be> GUTEST8@cc1.kuleuven.ac.be (Ives Aerts) writes: >> The speed difference between ROM and FAST RAM is not great enough >>to justify having to load kickstart each time the blasted thing crashes, >>This of course, depends on how you use your Amiga. The way I use it - it's >>a royal pain in the ass! > >On the Amiga 3000 it is very rare to have a crash that removes the kickstart >from memory. The kickstart loaded in ram is protected with the MMU. You >can not simply write there. To overwrite this memory you will have to trash >the mmu tables and these are not so big. Ok, I will clarify. This wouldn't really apply to A3000s, because they have an MMU to protect kickstart. But this would apply to older systems that didn't have the luxury of an MMU (like moi). So far I've only received rebuttals from A3000 owners. How about comments from owners of more lowly models? >Also the loading of the kickstart on a 3000 takes only about 2 seconds. >Hardly noticable in my opinion. The whole Amiga community is NOT just made up of A3000s! Back in my A1000 days, all I had were floppy drives. The initial loading of the os seemed like a drawn out process. Imagine compounding that with the time required to load a kickstart image. Furthermore, the WorkBench disk is usu- ally too full to accomodate a kickstart image as well. What do you suggest for them? A multidisk set? -jeff
consp03@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Kriston J. Rehberg) (06/23/91)
In article <1991Jun21.172230.1987@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>, jdickson@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Jeff Dickson) writes: |> Ok, I will clarify. This wouldn't really apply to A3000s, because |>they have an MMU to protect kickstart. But this would apply to older systems |>that didn't have the luxury of an MMU (like moi). So far I've only received |>rebuttals from A3000 owners. How about comments from owners of more lowly |>models? I have an Amiga 2500 '020 with an MMU. I tried my girlfriend's kickstart loader on my computer, and it works fine. If you're using ZKICK or something else that loads the kickstart, you are doing something that's not supposed to be done, so that's why you have your problems. Wait for the ROMs (and if you're not a registered developer or Amiga 3000 owner, you better NOT have kickstart 2.x in your possession! That's illegal! 'Nuff said.) |>>Also the loading of the kickstart on a 3000 takes only about 2 seconds. |>>Hardly noticable in my opinion. |> |> The whole Amiga community is NOT just made up of A3000s! Back in my |>A1000 days, all I had were floppy drives. The initial loading of the os |>seemed like a drawn out process. Imagine compounding that with the time |>required to load a kickstart image. Furthermore, the WorkBench disk is usu- |>ally too full to accomodate a kickstart image as well. What do you suggest |>for them? A multidisk set? Like I said, you needn't worry, because you shouldn't even have a copy of kickstart 2.x unless you're a developer or an Amiga 3000 owner. When the ROMs come out you have no worries, and booting up is lickedy-split. Read CBM's licensing agreement before you post here - Commodore is watching! |>-jeff -Kris +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Kriston J. Rehberg, Consultant, SUNY-Binghamton Computer Services | | <consp03@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu> or <consp03@BINGVAXA.BITnet> | | #include <stddiscl.h> "Hackito ergo sum" - old Latin proverb | +-------------------------------------------------------------- ;-b --+
specter@disk.uucp (Byron Max Guernsey) (06/23/91)
I was participating on a local bbs discussion about kickstart 2.0 and the amiga 500 and I got mail from someone claiming they have it on their amiga 500 and that it runs fine. I'm assuming they illegally duplicated it, or is it possible that they could legitimately at this time for the 500? 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