OEYO8729@TREARN.BITNET (Cem TURGAY) (03/07/91)
Hello, May be it's dummy question but, Why I can't use WB 2.0 with my 1MB. A-500 with 1.3 Rom ? Is it incompatible ? Is 2.0 for only A-3000 ? What must I do for use the 2.0 on my A-500 ? Thank you very much Cem Turgay PROHVK32@TREARN , OEYO8729@TREARN
ewout@topcat.commodore.com (Ewout Walraven) (03/07/91)
OEYO8729@TREARN.BITNET (Cem TURGAY) writes: >Hello, >May be it's dummy question but, >Why I can't use WB 2.0 with my 1MB. A-500 with 1.3 Rom ? Because a) it needs kickstart 2.0 b) it hasn't been released yet. >Is it incompatible ? Is 2.0 for only A-3000 ? >What must I do for use the 2.0 on my A-500 ? have patience. >Thank you very much >Cem Turgay PROHVK32@TREARN , OEYO8729@TREARN
dhansen@amiganet.chi.il.us (Dave Hansen) (03/14/91)
>>Is it incompatible ? Is 2.0 for only A-3000 ? >>What must I do for use the 2.0 on my A-500 ? > >have patience. > Let's go for the 64 thousand dollar question on WB_2.0 and KS_2.0: How many programs will break under KS_2.0? How can I protect my investment in software and still use WB_2.0? Will there be a kickstart for 2.0 ROM users to switch back to 1.3 ROM compatibility? Developers tell me that 1.3 ROM -> 2.0 is possible now. voice: (708)691-4747 Internet:dhansen@amiganet.chi.il.us
jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) (03/16/91)
In article <dhansen.8498@amiganet.chi.il.us> dhansen@amiganet.chi.il.us (Dave Hansen) writes: >>>Is it incompatible ? Is 2.0 for only A-3000 ? >>>What must I do for use the 2.0 on my A-500 ? >> >>have patience. >> >Let's go for the 64 thousand dollar question on WB_2.0 and KS_2.0: >How many programs will break under KS_2.0? How can I protect my investment in >software and still use WB_2.0? Will there be a kickstart for 2.0 ROM users to >switch back to 1.3 ROM compatibility? Developers tell me that 1.3 ROM -> 2.0 >is possible now. There are 3rd-party rom towers which allow easy switching between roms. People with MMUs have always been able to switch kickstart versions, given enough magic. As for compatibility, don't take currently released versions as a good indicator: almost all of our energies the last 2 months has been testing and improving compatibility. You don't want to see some of the evil tricks we played, though.... Compatibility, particularily with newer programs and productivity stuff, is quite high. Even old take-over games that are no longer published have been rescued from a well-deserved grave. A developer told me a few nights ago over dinner that he couldn't believe that we made his first Amiga game work under 2.0. The ones that work under 2.0 now _far_ outnumber the ones that don't (and a number of them have updates out/coming). -- 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") ;-)
chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch) (03/17/91)
dhansen@amiganet.chi.il.us (Dave Hansen) writes: >>>Is it incompatible ? Is 2.0 for only A-3000 ? >>>What must I do for use the 2.0 on my A-500 ? >> >>have patience. >> >Let's go for the 64 thousand dollar question on WB_2.0 and KS_2.0: >How many programs will break under KS_2.0? How can I protect my investment in >software and still use WB_2.0? Will there be a kickstart for 2.0 ROM users to >switch back to 1.3 ROM compatibility? Developers tell me that 1.3 ROM -> 2.0 >is possible now. > >voice: (708)691-4747 Internet:dhansen@amiganet.chi.il.us l Well, we don't want to get into a similar situation as with the 128, no-one will develop for 2.0 if all the machines still have 1.3 available. it just won't work. UUCP: {amdahl!tcnet, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org
brett@visix.com (Brett Bourbin) (03/19/91)
In article <19929@cbmvax.commodore.com> jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) writes: >In article <dhansen.8498@amiganet.chi.il.us> dhansen@amiganet.chi.il.us (Dave Hansen) writes: > > As for compatibility, don't take currently released versions as a >good indicator: almost all of our energies the last 2 months has been >testing and improving compatibility. You don't want to see some of the >evil tricks we played, though.... Ok, now the question everyone want to know; When will this version of the OS be released to us A3000 owners? I have had a A3000 for 2 and a half months now and I still have OS 2.0. I asked my dealer about the 2.02 upgrade and he said that Commodore told them not to install it on end-users machines because it contained more bugs. I don't see how this can be true, and if it was, why would Commodore release it? The end result is that I have a version of the OS that has bugs. Somw windows when they scroll, scroll some the border graphics, fonts overlap each other on some windows, the shell will not allow certain types of redirection because of some bug, etc. Now I really like the A3000 and all it has to offer, (I use the non-interlaced hi-res screen for my workbench without a hitch) but would like to know when I can update the OS so I can continue doing by Amiga development. I am not looking for the 2.x ROMs, (I would prefer to keep the OS on the harddrive if I had the choice) but a newer version to put on my system. >Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering. -- __ Brett Bourbin \ / /(_ /\/ 11440 Commerce Park Drive ..!uunet!visix!brett \/ / __)/ /\ Reston, Virginia 22091 brett@visix.com Software Inc (703) 758-2733
jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) (03/19/91)
In article <1991Mar18.173012.4018@visix.com> brett@visix.com (Brett Bourbin) writes: >Ok, now the question everyone want to know; When will this version of the OS >be released to us A3000 owners? I have had a A3000 for 2 and a half months now >and I still have OS 2.0. I asked my dealer about the 2.02 upgrade and he said >that Commodore told them not to install it on end-users machines because it >contained more bugs. I don't see how this can be true, and if it was, why >would Commodore release it? 2.02 is far better than 2.00/2.01. You can find out what version you have with the version command (or from WB). 36.141/143 is 2.00/2.01, and 36.207 is 2.02. BTW, did the dealer say who at Commodore is supposed to have said that? Perhaps he just didn't want to be bothered with letting people copy it. The current beta is far better than 2.02, of course. I can't say anything specific about dates, of course, but it shouldn't be too long now. -- 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") ;-)
GIAMPAL@auvm.auvm.edu (03/20/91)
In article <19955@cbmvax.commodore.com>, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) says: > >In article <1991Mar18.173012.4018@visix.com> brett@visix.com (Brett Bourbin) >writes: >>and I still have OS 2.0. I asked my dealer about the 2.02 upgrade and he >said >>that Commodore told them not to install it on end-users machines because it >>contained more bugs. I don't see how this can be true, and if it was, why > >36.207 is 2.02. BTW, did the dealer say who at Commodore is supposed to have >said that? Perhaps he just didn't want to be bothered with letting people I too have had this same problem with my local dealer. Something is wrong here (two independant reports of dealers saying C= told them 2.02 had bugs). While I realize Randell Jessup is a techie and not really in charge of this sort of thing, perhaps it could be forwarded to the appropriate folks and checked out (for us, not having 2.02 means that the C= TCP/IP software doesn't work 100% (NFS mounted partitions act weird), and that's a problem). --dominic
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (03/21/91)
In article <91079.091210GIAMPAL@auvm.auvm.edu> GIAMPAL@auvm.auvm.edu writes: >I too have had this same problem with my local dealer. Something is wrong >here (two independant reports of dealers saying C= told them 2.02 had bugs). Oh boy, _every_software_has_bugs_ (as long as it is >1000 lines code). But 2.02 is a _real_improvement_ over any predecessor! You really should struggle to get it. Another issue is that there exist even newer beta versions (some call it 2.07), but these are restricted to developers, it's NOT a user's release. (Yet.) -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk