breemen@rulcvx.LeidenUniv.nl (E. van Breemen) (04/22/91)
I have read about the kickstart 2.0 talk. In my opinion Commodore should give the Kickstart 2.0 free (in a disk form and their latest version) to say ab20.. In this way everyone can test it who wants to. If the final (rom-) releases are there, you can buy the official one. Commodore will then be able to control the Kickstart disease by releasing official copies and not be confronted by hacked versions. My current interest is to check if my own written software will run under 2.0. If I don't have 2.0 I can't check it, or worse I can't guarantee the proper working of my programs under 2.0. This is a situation that Commodore certainly wants to avoid if it wants people to change their kickstart from 1.2/1.3 to 2.0. An answer could be: why are you not a developer? Simply I think it is a lot of money ($75 or so) for a student just to test its sotfware. You have to pay this every year until 2.0 is released finally. I am waiting almost 1 year for 2.0. I hope I can buy 2.0 before I buy my next computer (My 500 is becoming more or less stone aged). Commodore should not delay everything so much. It should be possible to release 1 new OS every 5 years? Erwin van Breemen Orega Holland
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (04/23/91)
In article <1991Apr22.084438.1975@rulway.LeidenUniv.nl> breemen@rulcvx.LeidenUniv.nl (E. van Breemen) writes: > >I have read about the kickstart 2.0 talk. In my opinion Commodore should >give the Kickstart 2.0 free (in a disk form and their latest version) to >say ab20.. In this way everyone can test it who wants to. Here's a thought: What if some joker took it upon theirself to hack around the release a bit and possibly create an "OS-virus" of sorts? The ab20 archive is great, but FTP sites are _not_ secure. Remember there was a fake release of VirusX a while back. Something like a 2.0 release on a public access archive would be an irresistable target for one of those criminals. Besides, I still think it would hurt the professional image of Commodore to release something as important as an OS in such a haphazard way. Face it, if C='s professional image starts sinking again we're in trouble. -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic
IO91461@MAINE.BITNET (Tom Nezwek) (04/23/91)
Its pretty obvious that Commodore is draging its feet by not releasing
the New OS to 500/2000/2500 owners. This concept of "You must purchase
an Amiga 3000 to get wb2.0" just plain sucks and I'm sure 90% of the
amiga users feel the same way. If wb2.0 is stable enough to risk the
success of their premeir, top of the line Amiga 3000, then its sure the
hell stable enough to market to those users who are willing to accept its
unforeseen bugs. What will it cost to market a pre-release consisting
of a manual and three disks? Surely, they will make a profit selling
such a package for say $79.99. I sure would buy it. Commodore may
claim that this would create undo problems stemming from the need to
upgrade these disks from time to time.. But why would it be any different
from the way the 3000 owners get their upgrades.. Commodore could simply
pass along these updates to its dealers just as they do with the 3000
update versons. So we are faced with the same choices again: Buy an
Amiga 3000 or suffer.. And don't let us catch you running a developer's
version on your 500/2000/2500... I think its a real shitty the way
Commodore has with-held the new OS from its origonal supporters.. And
I'm even sicker of hearing from certain 3000 owners who love to flaunt the
fact that they have wb2.0 to users who have been patiently waiting for
over a year. They even act so 'rightous' as to preach to others that
'The only people who should be using wb2.0 on a 500/2000/2500 are the
developers and all others are immoral.' My conclusions: (1) At this point
Commodore is merely pissing off its origonal supporters by with-holding
the new OS. (We waited long enough!) (2) Amiga 3000 users shouldn't
rub in or flaunt the fact that they have the new OS in front of those
who are patiently waiting.
-Tom Nezwek
PS: can't wait for Commodore to tell me that I'm wrong, their right, and
that I have no bussiness voicing my oppinion.schweige@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) (04/23/91)
In article <91112.172405IO91461@MAINE.BITNET> IO91461@MAINE.BITNET (Tom Nezwek) writes: > > Its pretty obvious that Commodore is draging its feet by not releasing >the New OS to 500/2000/2500 owners. This concept of "You must purchase >an Amiga 3000 to get wb2.0" just plain sucks and I'm sure 90% of the >amiga users feel the same way. If wb2.0 is stable enough to risk the >success of their premeir, top of the line Amiga 3000, then its sure the >hell stable enough to market to those users who are willing to accept its >unforeseen bugs. ... > -Tom Nezwek > > PS: can't wait for Commodore to tell me that I'm wrong, their right, and > that I have no bussiness voicing my oppinion. First, I'm not from Commodore, so nothing I add here has any official basis (and probably no factual basis). Secondly, you have every right to voice your opinion. Commodore has every right to disagree with your opinion. Now, for more conjecture and opinion. I happen to agree that 2.0 should not be released until it's ready. Releasing an intermediate version of it, was, IMHO, necessary for the A3000, as otherwise some of the 3000's features, not presently part of other Amigas (ECS Denise, 2meg Agnus - although MegaChip 2000 addresses this one). I would rather wait a little while longer, and allow Commodore to get 2.0 right, than to have them get stuck supporting multiple configurations. I'm also quite happy that many of the Commodore engineers take time to participate on Usenet. They don't have to. Jeff Schweiger -- ******************************************************************************* Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645 Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil *******************************************************************************
watters@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (david r watters) (04/23/91)
In article <2133@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil> schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes: >Now, for more conjecture and opinion. I happen to agree that 2.0 should not >be released until it's ready. Releasing an intermediate version of it, was, >IMHO, necessary for the A3000, as otherwise some of the 3000's features, not >presently part of other Amigas (ECS Denise, 2meg Agnus - although MegaChip >2000 addresses this one). This is not total true. The A3000 also runs under OS1.3! It should have been released with 1.3 if 2.0 was not ready. Obviously C-A felt 2.0 was ready enough to be released in A3000's... well then, it is ready enough to ship in A500's and A2000's and should be available as a upgrade for those that already own machines. Everyone would understand that it was not the final or newest version of the OS, just as A3000 owners know this. >I would rather wait a little while longer, and allow >Commodore to get 2.0 right, than to have them get stuck supporting multiple >configurations. I'm also quite happy that many of the Commodore engineers >take time to participate on Usenet. They don't have to. I totally agree! However, I paid $3000 for a A2500/30. Two weeks later the A3000 came out with 2.0 for $2500. I can't even get A2091 ROMS that work as they should. Why shouldn't my machine also have 2.0? My Amiga Dealer is still trying to tell me that the A2500/30 is C-A's flagship until the A3000T comes out. ECS Denise is done! It's going into A3000's and Rejuvinated A1000's... I got the 1meg Agnus... Add 2.0 and I am set! So... Why can't we all get ECS Denises? Why can't we all get 2.0? It should be all or none because I just can't see any reason why I shouldn't drop an ECS Denise in my machine now, and 2.0 is -=* MORE *=- stable than 1.3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:-)!!!!!!! note: If we were talking about a couple intuition bugs being fixed or some smaller commands in the C directory it would be a different story... but 2.0 is a totally new personality and way of life and that makes this a very important issue! Dave -- "All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer by the stars. All of us do time in the gutter, dreamers turn to look at the cars!" - RUSH David watters@cis.ohio-state.edu "It's 12:35... and Michigan STILL sucks." _-_-_-__---_---_---__-_-_-____ TurboExpress : The Neo*Geo of portables _____
re0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Ronald William Ely) (04/23/91)
2.0 should have been released for the 2*00/500 a long time ago. I got my 2000 last year (2 weeks before the ed. plan started. *groan*) with the understanding that it would be easier to upgrade. I am now getting the distinct impression that the wonderful folks at commodore are intentionally holding 2.0 back from me because they want everyone to just buy 3000's. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for that, but I don't happen to have $3000 laying around. Some developers are already beginning to "take advantage of the capabilities of the new OS." In other words, they are writing software that I cannot run on my machine. Not that I blame them, I wish I had all those wonderful built in features for my programs. But until it is available to more than 3% of the user base, how can we expect good programmers to use these features in software that can actually be used? 2.0 *IS* ready or else they wouldn't be shipping it in the 3000. The only reason I can think of that they haven't released it for the rest of us is that they want to influence people to upgrade to 3000's instead of buying 3rd party gadgets to enhance their old systems. I hope this is wrong, I'd hate to think commodore would pull a sleezy marketing trick on what is probably the most loyal user base any computer company has ever enjoyed. I WANT MY 2.0!!! I WANT MY PRODUCTIVITY MODE!!! I WANT TO SEE A GREEN GURU!!! Ron Ely
schweige@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) (04/24/91)
In article <111465@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> watters@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (david r watters) writes: <In article <2133@aldebaran.cs.nps.navy.mil> schweige@cs.nps.navy.mil (Jeffrey M. Schweiger) writes: < <>Now, for more conjecture and opinion. I happen to agree that 2.0 should not <>be released until it's ready. Releasing an intermediate version of it, was, <>IMHO, necessary for the A3000, as otherwise some of the 3000's features, not <>presently part of other Amigas (ECS Denise, 2meg Agnus - although MegaChip <>2000 addresses this one). < <This is not total true. The A3000 also runs under OS1.3! It should have been <released with 1.3 if 2.0 was not ready. Obviously C-A felt 2.0 was ready <enough to be released in A3000's... well then, it is ready enough to ship in <A500's and A2000's and should be available as a upgrade for those that already <own machines. Everyone would understand that it was not the final or newest <version of the OS, just as A3000 owners know this. Yes the A3000 runs under OS1.3, but doesn't address the ECS Denise features. ECS Denise is part of the 3000, it is not presently part of the other models. <>I would rather wait a little while longer, and allow <>Commodore to get 2.0 right, than to have them get stuck supporting multiple <>configurations. I'm also quite happy that many of the Commodore engineers <>take time to participate on Usenet. They don't have to. < <I totally agree! However, I paid $3000 for a A2500/30. Two weeks later the <A3000 came out with 2.0 for $2500. I can't even get A2091 ROMS that work <as they should. Why shouldn't my machine also have 2.0? My Amiga Dealer <is still trying to tell me that the A2500/30 is C-A's flagship until the <A3000T comes out. ECS Denise is done! It's going into A3000's and Rejuvinated <A1000's... I got the 1meg Agnus... Add 2.0 and I am set! <So... Why can't we all get ECS Denises? Why can't we all get 2.0? We can't get 2.0 because Commodore says it isn't ready yet. The ECS Denise is going into the 3000. However, at present, there is an incompatibility between the ECS Denise and NewTek's Video Toaster. Until this is worked out maybe the ECS Denise should not be installed in the 500/2000. With respect to Rejuvinated 1000's: (1) this is a third-party product, not from Commodore, and (2) are you sure that they have ECS Denises? By the way, I heard somewhere that the A2091 6.6 ROMs are now released. Can anyone from Commodore confirm? <It should be all or none because I just can't see any reason why I shouldn't <drop an ECS Denise in my machine now, and 2.0 is -=* MORE *=- stable than <1.3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:-)!!!!!!! Depends on how you define "stable". < <note: If we were talking about a couple intuition bugs being fixed or some < smaller commands in the C directory it would be a different story... but < 2.0 is a totally new personality and way of life and that makes this a < very important issue! Yes it is, and that makes it even more important that it be done right. <Dave Jeff Schweiger Please note change in the newsgroup in the followup. I don't think that this discussion belongs in c.s.a.applications. -- ******************************************************************************* Jeff Schweiger Standard Disclaimer CompuServe: 74236,1645 Internet (Milnet): schweige@taurus.cs.nps.navy.mil *******************************************************************************
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (04/24/91)
[Psst. Followups to .advocacy, please.] In article <111465@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> watters@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (david r watters) writes: > >This is not total true. The A3000 also runs under OS1.3! It should have been >released with 1.3 if 2.0 was not ready. Obviously C-A felt 2.0 was ready >enough to be released in A3000's... well then, it is ready enough to ship in >A500's and A2000's and should be available as a upgrade for those that already >own machines. Everyone would understand that it was not the final or newest >version of the OS, just as A3000 owners know this. The 3000 has 1.3 because a significant amount of software wasn't written by Commodore's rules. Many programs that people would miss broke under the new OS. Many things that people could get away with before don't work the same under 2.0. Other than bug fixes, revisions have been made to work around some of these problems. In other words, 2.0 wasn't ready enough for release on its own, although that is the fault of other software developers. I have been amazed but pleased at some of the things they have done to get software to work. They have also been working with software companies in order to help them solve their problems. A 2.0 release for the other machines would have to be on disk, similar to the betas. The percentage of users who have enough memory that is in the right place for the ROM image is quite small. In addition, loading 512K from floppy at every bootup would be a pretty big pain, IMHO. Aside from the memory a lot less Amiga owners have hard drives. >I totally agree! However, I paid $3000 for a A2500/30. Two weeks later the >A3000 came out with 2.0 for $2500. I can't even get A2091 ROMS that work >as they should. Why shouldn't my machine also have 2.0? My Amiga Dealer >is still trying to tell me that the A2500/30 is C-A's flagship until the >A3000T comes out. ECS Denise is done! It's going into A3000's and Rejuvinated >A1000's... I got the 1meg Agnus... Add 2.0 and I am set! >So... Why can't we all get ECS Denises? Why can't we all get 2.0? Your dealer took you for a ride on that 2500/30 unless you are doing video work or something else that would make it a better choice than the 3000. Certainly they knew about the 3000 when they sold you the 2500, even if you didn't (you didn't say whether you did). As for the ECS Denise, I don't know why they don't sell them in the US. Someone told me (although I can't be sure) that they are available in Australia. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic
krsear02@ulkyvx.bitnet (Kendall 'Opusii' Sears) (04/24/91)
In article <91112.172405IO91461@MAINE.BITNET>, IO91461@MAINE.BITNET (Tom Nezwek) writes: > > Its pretty obvious that Commodore is draging its feet by not releasing [ Quite a bit of flaming/whining deleted ] First let's set credentials: I don't work for Commodore, but I am a developer. Now, I can say that 2.0 IS stable. I should say the newest versions are MORE stable than 1.3, but 2.0 isn't quite ready yet. Commodore is doing an ad- mirable job of holding off the urge to push something out the door, and for good reason. The "hold up" is being caused by the developers. Commodore has wisely decided that 2.0 should run as much 1.3 software as possible. To release 2.0 prematurely would have certainly caused a MAJOR stink, you know those who say "I have such and such's gadgety doo that I paid mega-bucks for and it doesn't work under 2.0!" Granted some things ARE going to break, there are no ways around it, but at least C= is trying to get the stuff to work. In summary: Be patient you'll be happy that C= took the time to get "it" right. Kendall. -- Kendall "Opusii" Sears KRSEAR02@ULKYVX.bitnet Programmer /// Child Development Unit /// Amiga Department of Pediatrics \\\/// Currently running AmigaOS 2.0 University of Louisville \XX/ And Supporting Unix Sys V Rev 4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Numbness is bliss... I can't feel a thing." -me.
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (04/24/91)
[Once again, followups to .advocacy, please. And yes, I read it. I'm not just trying to get rid of this thread, but we created a group for it...] In article <Yc54BIy00VIGNe2VAZ@andrew.cmu.edu> re0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Ronald William Ely) writes: > > 2.0 should have been released for the 2*00/500 a long time ago. >I got my 2000 last year (2 weeks before the ed. plan started. *groan*) with >the understanding that it would be easier to upgrade. I am now getting the >distinct impression that the wonderful folks at commodore are intentionally >holding 2.0 back from me because they want everyone to just buy 3000's. >Don't get me wrong, I'm all for that, but I don't happen to have $3000 >laying around. I don't want to insult you, but that's about the most outrageous thing I've ever heard. If I were not bound by a contract I signed with the good people at CATS, I could tell you plenty of legitimate reasons why 2.0 has not yet been released for machines < 3000. What I _can_ tell you is that they are not holding anything back. They are working _hard_ people. If you can't appreciate that, go buy a Macintrash. > Some developers are already beginning to "take advantage of >the capabilities of the new OS." In other words, they are writing software >that I cannot run on my machine. Not that I blame them, I wish I had >all those wonderful built in features for my programs. But until it is >available to more than 3% of the user base, how can we expect good >programmers to use these features in software that can actually be used? Actually, a number of programs will work under 1.3 but use the extra features of 2.0 when available. Other than that, most of them manage 2.0 features (like addtools). The actual number of utilities that are useful for other-than-2.0 stuff that work only under 2.0 is pretty small. > 2.0 *IS* ready or else they wouldn't be shipping it in the 3000. Ask a 3000 owner what software doesn't work under 2.02 (the latest release for the 3000). >The only reason I can think of that they haven't released it for the rest of >us is that they want to influence people to upgrade to 3000's instead of >buying 3rd party gadgets to enhance their old systems. I hope this is >wrong, I'd hate to think commodore would pull a sleezy marketing trick >on what is probably the most loyal user base any computer company >has ever enjoyed. Like I said above, that's outrageous. Commodore is not known for their marketing decisions, but that's pushing it quite a bit. Besides, they're getting much better lately. > I WANT MY 2.0!!! I WANT MY PRODUCTIVITY MODE!!! >I WANT TO SEE A GREEN GURU!!! All I can say is RSN... > Ron Ely Greg -- Greg Harp |"I was there to match my intellect on national TV, | against a plumber and an architect, both with a PhD." greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu| -- "I Lost on Jeopardy," Weird Al Yankovic
wright@etsuv2.etsu.edu (BRIAN WRIGHT) (04/24/91)
In article <Yc54BIy00VIGNe2VAZ@andrew.cmu.edu>, re0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Ronald William Ely) writes... > > Some developers are already beginning to "take advantage of >the capabilities of the new OS." In other words, they are writing software >that I cannot run on my machine. Not that I blame them, I wish I had >all those wonderful built in features for my programs. But until it is >available to more than 3% of the user base, how can we expect good >programmers to use these features in software that can actually be used? Yes, some programs do make use of 2.0's features, but most of the commercial products also work on 1.3 as well. There are some 2.0 only PD/shareware out there, but that is only a very small percentage of stuff out there. > 2.0 *IS* ready or else they wouldn't be shipping it in the 3000. I disagree totally. I have had my 3000 since July 1990. 2.0 has undergone some changes that have made it more and more useable. It still does have bugs that if put into ROM would really cause some flame wars here. I'd prefer to let Commodore work out the bugs to avoid any type arguments of that sort. Something which isn't needed and something that could work out to the detriment of 2.0 and not help it. Let's let Commodore finish it! >The only reason I can think of that they haven't released it for the rest of >us is that they want to influence people to upgrade to 3000's instead of >buying 3rd party gadgets to enhance their old systems. I hope this is >wrong, I'd hate to think commodore would pull a sleezy marketing trick >on what is probably the most loyal user base any computer company >has ever enjoyed. They aren't doing that, even though it may look like it. They are holding 2.0 as it is NOT ready yet (at least the version I am running). Who knows what their latest BETA (GAMMA?) version of the 2.0 is now. I can only assume that most of the bugs have been fixed in whatever version they are currently working on. Let's hope that it will be released soon. > I WANT MY 2.0!!! I WANT MY PRODUCTIVITY MODE!!! >I WANT TO SEE A GREEN GURU!!! I think that I would much rather see 'I WANT MY 2.0" messages than 'I can't believe this BUG I found today. I can't believe Commodore etc....' > Ron Ely -------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Wright wright%etsuvax2@ricevm1.rice.edu or wright@etsuvax2.bitnet --------------------------------------------------------------
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (04/24/91)
In article <Yc54BIy00VIGNe2VAZ@andrew.cmu.edu> re0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Ronald William Ely) writes: > > 2.0 should have been released for the 2*00/500 a long time ago. >I got my 2000 last year (2 weeks before the ed. plan started. *groan*) with >the understanding that it would be easier to upgrade. I am now getting the >distinct impression that the wonderful folks at commodore are intentionally >holding 2.0 back from me because they want everyone to just buy 3000's. TOTALLY WRONG. I can ensure you, it's different. They really want to do it RIGHT. Perhaps you also should see it from this view: In the past, the Amiga has got the reputation of a not solid OS. Though this is really wrong, the rumors are existing. Now engineering does all it is capable to prove the contrary. They don't want to risk anything. I find this understandable and simply right. -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) (04/25/91)
In article <1991Apr22.084438.1975@rulway.LeidenUniv.nl>, breemen@rulcvx.LeidenUniv.nl (E. van Breemen) writes: > I have read about the kickstart 2.0 talk. In my opinion Commodore should > give the Kickstart 2.0 free (in a disk form and their latest version) to > say ab20.. In this way everyone can test it who wants to. If the final hahahahahaha... You have got to be kidding? Sigh... I see that you are not. > (rom-) releases are there, you can buy the official one. Commodore > will then be able to control the Kickstart disease by releasing > official copies and not be confronted by hacked versions. My current > interest is to check if my own written software will run under 2.0. If Send $75 to Commodore and you too can become a registered developer. > I don't have 2.0 I can't check it, or worse I can't guarantee the proper > working of my programs under 2.0. This is a situation that Commodore > certainly wants to avoid if it wants people to change their kickstart from > 1.2/1.3 to 2.0. An answer could be: why are you not a developer? Simply > I think it is a lot of money ($75 or so) for a student just to test its > sotfware. You have to pay this every year until 2.0 is released finally. If it is too much money then I guess you will have to do without. I know that you may not believe this, but Commodore is a _business_. A business costs money to operate. Operating System maintenance and support (and enhancing!) is not _free_. Why should you get it for free?? > I am waiting almost 1 year for 2.0. I hope I can buy 2.0 before I buy > my next computer (My 500 is becoming more or less stone aged). > Commodore should not delay everything so much. It should be possible to > release 1 new OS every 5 years? Why do a lot of A500 owners sound like you? > > Erwin van Breemen > Orega Holland -mark= +--------+ ================================================== | \/ | Mark D. Manes "Mr. AmigaVision, The 32 bit guy" | /\ \/ | manes@vger.nsu.edu | / | (804) 683-2532 "Make up your own mind! - AMIGA" +--------+ ==================================================
chem194@csc.canterbury.ac.nz (John Davis) (04/26/91)
In article <47663@ut-emx.uucp>, greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > Here's a thought: What if some joker took it upon theirself to hack around > the release a bit and possibly create an "OS-virus" of sorts? The ab20 > archive is great, but FTP sites are _not_ secure. Once the OS was on ab20, it'd be simple enough for the site administrator to change the protection on the file to read-only, stopping any attempts to put up a changed version in it's place. Of course there are other reasons CBM may not wish to do this (one of them would be the issue of how they release the documentation - without the manuals the OS is useless, also there's the question of what happens once the OS is _off_ that controlled site and on public BBS's) > Besides, I still think it would hurt the professional image of Commodore to > release something as important as an OS in such a haphazard way. Face it, > if C='s professional image starts sinking again we're in trouble. Releasing upgrades via ftp doesn't seem to worry Apple, and I wouldn't call them 'non-professional' (I've got _much_ better adjectives reserved for them:-). Having the latest release of the OS readily available is a very good idea after all, as it helps avoid people complaining about the machine crashing due to running old (buggy) releases, if anything it _improves_ their professional image (as they're seen to be dedicated to providing the best possible support to their users). ----------------------------------------------------------- | o John Davis - CHEM194@canterbury.ac.nz o | | o (Depart)mental Programmer,Chemistry Department o | | o University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand o |
wasp@chumly.ka.sub.org (Walter Mildenberger) (04/26/91)
In article <1991Apr22.084438.1975@rulway.LeidenUniv.nl>, breemen@rulcvx.LeidenUniv.nl (E. van Breemen) writes: ->[...] -> I am waiting almost 1 year for 2.0. I hope I can buy 2.0 before I buy -> my next computer (My 500 is becoming more or less stone aged). ^^^^ Your NeXT computer ? Sorry, couldn't resist :-) Regards ___ Walter Mildenberger, Morgenstr. 55, W-7500 Karlsruhe 1,FRG, (0721)385090 <*,-> UseNet/SubNet: wasp@chumly.ka.sub.org | Bitnet: sorry, no time to handle [`-'] * #include <stddiscl.h> /* Nobody cares 'bout what I say, so what ? */ -"-"- ...fortune has been expired...
peter@cutmcvax.cs.curtin.edu.au (Peter Wemm) (04/27/91)
wright@etsuv2.etsu.edu (BRIAN WRIGHT) writes: >In article <Yc54BIy00VIGNe2VAZ@andrew.cmu.edu>, re0t+@andrew.cmu.edu >(Ronald William Ely) writes... >> [... lots deleted ...] >> I WANT MY 2.0!!! I WANT MY PRODUCTIVITY MODE!!! >>I WANT TO SEE A GREEN GURU!!! >I think that I would much rather see 'I WANT MY 2.0" messages than 'I can't >believe this BUG I found today. I can't believe Commodore etc....' I suppose you are right, but I would like to be able to walk down to our local cbm dealer and get hold of the latest "intermediate" version - even if it means signing a "I know it's not ready" declaration - instead of being tempted by the various older beta test versions that go around every now and then.. >> Ron Ely >-------------------------------------------------------------- >Brian Wright >wright%etsuvax2@ricevm1.rice.edu or wright@etsuvax2.bitnet >-------------------------------------------------------------- -- Peter Wemm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ peter@cs.curtin.edu.au (Home) +61-9-450-5243 Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia. Amiga... Because life is too short for boring computers. (Dan Zerkle)
michael@hapuna.cs.ucla.edu (michael gersten) (04/27/91)
wasp@chumly.ka.sub.org (Walter Mildenberger) writes: >In article <1991Apr22.084438.1975@rulway.LeidenUniv.nl>, >-> I am waiting almost 1 year for 2.0. I hope I can buy 2.0 before I buy >-> my next computer (My 500 is becoming more or less stone aged). > Your NeXT computer ? Well, in my case, yes; I'm looking at grabbing a NeXT with a student discount if I can convince someone that I am a student. (After 9 years of full time student ship, my first (and only) quarter of thesis work and I'm not considered a student unless I can do some haggling with the department. Go figure.)
Michael.Witbrock@cs.cmu.edu (04/27/91)
> Excerpts from netnews.comp.sys.amiga.applications: 26-Apr-91 Re: > Kickstart 2.0 John Davis@csc.canterbur (1708) > Releasing upgrades via ftp doesn't seem to worry Apple, and I wouldn't > call them 'non-professional' (I've got _much_ better adjectives reserved > for > them:-). I recently had the misfortune to have to do something on a mac under 6.x.y.z. (try to compile a program using the latest version of think c)... Kaboom, kaboom, KABOOM. I'd call apple unprofessional. But that's not all I'd call them. I want 2.0 as much as the next person, but I'm not sure I wouldn't rather wait that have my amiga act like mac. But not too long. michael
kilian@cinnet.com (Kilian Jacob) (04/28/91)
From article <1153@cbmger.UUCP>, by peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY): > Perhaps you also should see it from this view: In the past, the Amiga > has got the reputation of a not solid OS. Though this is really wrong, > the rumors are existing. Now engineering does all it is capable to > prove the contrary. They don't want to risk anything. I find this > understandable and simply right. > Why did Commodore release beta versions of 2.0? I think this is really a bad marketing strategy. If the developpers need more time, fine. But one shouldn't annouce a product before it is finished. What Commodore does really hurts its immage. -- /<ilian -- Kilian Jacob - Cincinnati, Ohio - VOICE: (513)-489-1891 UUCP: kilian@cinnet.com (or {uceng.uc.edu, ukma!spca6, uunet!sdrc}!cinnet!kilian
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (04/30/91)
In article <1991Apr28.064946.27665@cinnet.com> kilian@cinnet.com (Kilian Jacob) writes: >From article <1153@cbmger.UUCP>, by peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY): >> Perhaps you also should see it from this view: In the past, the Amiga >> has got the reputation of a not solid OS. Though this is really wrong, >> the rumors are existing. Now engineering does all it is capable to >> prove the contrary. They don't want to risk anything. I find this >> understandable and simply right. >> > >Why did Commodore release beta versions of 2.0? I think this is really a bad >marketing strategy. If the developpers need more time, fine. But one shouldn't >annouce a product before it is finished. What Commodore does really hurts its >immage. > >-- /<ilian > >-- >Kilian Jacob - Cincinnati, Ohio - VOICE: (513)-489-1891 >UUCP: kilian@cinnet.com (or {uceng.uc.edu, ukma!spca6, uunet!sdrc}!cinnet!kilian It would hurt far worse to try to sell the Amiga while using WorkBench 1.3's look. Besides, Commodore has said from the beginning that 2.0 is beta. It is also very stable. You're being very judgemental, and I doubt you'll find many supporters around here. 2.0 is too good for them to keep to themselves. -- Ethan "Brain! Brain! What is Brain?"
peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) (04/30/91)
In article <1991Apr28.064946.27665@cinnet.com> kilian@cinnet.com (Kilian Jacob) writes: >Why did Commodore release beta versions of 2.0? 2.01 and 2.02 (the two releases for the A3000) are _not_ beta releases. The existence of betas later than 2.02 does not in any way make 2.02 a beta, any more than the existence of 1.2 makes 1.1 or 1.0 a beta. Releases shipped to customers undergo extra testing and a stability period, to ensure that the behavior of the software is both good and well-understood. 2.01 is fairly reliable. 2.02 fixes almost all the serious bugs, plus increases compatibility so that much major software runs. I hardly believe that either release is an embarrassment. Of course, the next public release will be even better (more bugs fixed, more compatibility). Remember that on the A3000, you can update your Kickstart with a new disk. The other machines will require ROMs. It's a perfectly acceptable position to say that 2.01 and 2.02 were ready for public release on disk, but not yet ready for the permanence that ROM provides. >Kilian Jacob - Cincinnati, Ohio - VOICE: (513)-489-1891 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."
kilian@cinnet.com (Kilian Jacob) (05/01/91)
From article <1991Apr29.190432.1382@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, by es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita): > > It would hurt far worse to try to sell the Amiga while > using WorkBench 1.3's look. Besides, Commodore has said from the > beginning that 2.0 is beta. It is also very stable. You're being > very judgemental, and I doubt you'll find many supporters around > here. 2.0 is too good for them to keep to themselves. > -- Ethan > Except for the A3000, all Amigas are sold with "the 1.3's look." Any Amiga user that has enough fast ram should be able to buy and run KS 2.0. Once you haveO bought a version of KS 2.0x, one should be allowed to get a copy of the newest version for a minimal fee at your local dealer. -- /<ilian -- Kilian Jacob - Cincinnati, Ohio - VOICE: (513)-489-1891 UUCP: kilian@cinnet.com or {uceng.uc.edu, ukma!spca6, uunet!sdrc}!cinnet!kilian
kilian@cinnet.com (Kilian Jacob) (05/01/91)
From article <21070@cbmvax.commodore.com>, by peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna): > > Of course, the next public release will be even better (more bugs > fixed, more compatibility). > Well, I'm waiting for the first *public* release of KS 2.0. > Remember that on the A3000, you can update your Kickstart with a new > disk. The other machines will require ROMs. It's a perfectly acceptable > position to say that 2.01 and 2.02 were ready for public release on > disk, but not yet ready for the permanence that ROM provides. > If Commodore's point not to release KS2.0 for all Amigas is simply because 2.0 isn't ready to be ROMed, why can't I just go to my dealer and buy a disk version of 2.0? Not only the A3000 has a MMU to relocate the ROM addresses into FAST RAM. Even if one doesn't have a MMU, there are ways to run 2.0 on a machine (that has enough FAST RAM). -- /<ilian -- Kilian Jacob - Cincinnati, Ohio - VOICE: (513)-489-1891 UUCP: kilian@cinnet.com or {uceng.uc.edu, ukma!spca6, uunet!sdrc}!cinnet!kilian
wright@etsuv2.etsu.edu (BRIAN WRIGHT) (05/02/91)
In article <1991Apr30.230120.20642@cinnet.com>, kilian@cinnet.com (Kilian Jacob) writes... >From article <21070@cbmvax.commodore.com>, by peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna): >> Remember that on the A3000, you can update your Kickstart with a new >> disk. The other machines will require ROMs. It's a perfectly acceptable >> position to say that 2.01 and 2.02 were ready for public release on >> disk, but not yet ready for the permanence that ROM provides. >> >If Commodore's point not to release KS2.0 for all Amigas is simply because >2.0 isn't ready to be ROMed, why can't I just go to my dealer and buy a disk >version of 2.0? Not only the A3000 has a MMU to relocate the ROM addresses >into FAST RAM. Even if one doesn't have a MMU, there are ways to run 2.0 >on a machine (that has enough FAST RAM). Yes, there are ways to run 2.0 on a machine without an MMU, but not with very much stability. One wild program and your Kickstart is trashed. Not a good situation. I can see why Commodore hasn't released it in that format. There would be more complaints than good coming from that. I will agree that there is a point to which Commodore is going to have to say, "2.0 is finished, all revisions after this date will go towards x.x OS." That date should hopefully be soon. I'm know everyone is tired of waiting, but think of the stability of the OS. :-) >-- /<ilian > >-- >Kilian Jacob - Cincinnati, Ohio - VOICE: (513)-489-1891 >UUCP: kilian@cinnet.com or {uceng.uc.edu, ukma!spca6, uunet!sdrc}!cinnet!kilian -------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Wright wright%etsuvax2@ricevm1.rice.edu or wright@etsuvax2.bitnet -------------------------------------------------------------- Standard Disclaimer... not my words and all that jazz.
holgerl@amiux.agsc.sub.org (Holger Lubitz) (05/06/91)
In article <Yc54BIy00VIGNe2VAZ@andrew.cmu.edu> re0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Ronald William Ely) writes: > I WANT MY 2.0!!! I WANT MY PRODUCTIVITY MODE!!! >I WANT TO SEE A GREEN GURU!!! What you need for the productivity mode, is in fact only the ECS Denise and some clever programming on your part. 2.0 makes accessing this mode a lot easier, though. (And no, I did not do it myself, but its technically possible) BTW: The Guru isn't green. Last time I got a recoverable alert, it was orange. Normal Dead-End-Alerts are still red. Best regards, Holger -- Holger Lubitz, Kl. Drakenburger Str. 24, D-W-3070 Nienburg/Weser
michael@ewa.cs.ucla.edu (michael gersten) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May1.200820.46421@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> wright%etsuvax2@ricevm1.rice.edu writes: >Yes, there are ways to run 2.0 on a machine without an MMU, but not with very >much stability. One wild program and your Kickstart is trashed. Not a good Really? Lets take a look at that. I used to use RAD:. I have used VD0: for a long time. I have never had VD0: wiped out by a wild program. I've lost my clock a couple of times. I've even had to reboot to play some games, and VD0: was still there later when I came back. I've had my screen go kapui. I've gotton machine lock ups with nothing working. The only time that VD0 goes away on me is when I say deleteramdisk or power off. RAD: was almost as reliable as this -- the 1.3 double reboot bug lost it a few times, it got wiped by a runaway program once. Incompatibilities with two other programs made me stop using it. (I hope these have been fixed by now--one was aztec C 3.6, the other was word perfect, about 2 years old at this point.) The point? Both VD0 and RAD use a simple feature of CHECKSUMS to insure that the data hasn't changed. Why not just have the RAM version do a checksum of itself, and if it finds it different, go back to the default kickstart? (I think the kickstart code does this already, I know that my old 1000 would checksum kickstart at each reboot). This is plenty of stability. Let me put it to you very simple. Either I get 2.0 in RAM legally, or illegally. I've never liked the idea of a ROM'd O/S. I like kickstart. Michael
bobl@graphics.rent.com (Bob Lindabury - SysAdm) (05/07/91)
holgerl@amiux.agsc.sub.org (Holger Lubitz) writes: > BTW: The Guru isn't green. Last time I got a recoverable alert, it was orange > Normal Dead-End-Alerts are still red. > > Best regards, > Holger Actually, some recoverable Gurus are green. I've gotten them. I forget offhand what causes the green ones however. Anyone have the answer? -- Bob The Graphics BBS 908/469-0049 "It's better than a sharp stick in the eye!" ============================================================================ InterNet: bobl@graphics.rent.com | Raven Enterprises UUCP: ...rutgers!bobsbox!graphics!bobl | 25 Raven Avenue BitNet: bobl%graphics.rent.com@pucc | Piscataway, NJ 08854 Home #: 908/560-7353 | 908/271-8878
peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) (05/07/91)
In article <holgerl.2119@amiux.agsc.sub.org> holgerl@amiux.agsc.sub.org (Holger Lubitz) writes: >In article <Yc54BIy00VIGNe2VAZ@andrew.cmu.edu> re0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Ronald William Ely) writes: > >> I WANT MY 2.0!!! I WANT MY PRODUCTIVITY MODE!!! >>I WANT TO SEE A GREEN GURU!!! >BTW: The Guru isn't green. Last time I got a recoverable alert, it was orange. >Normal Dead-End-Alerts are still red. The first release of 2.0 had a green color for recoverable alerts. However, green didn't really make all that much sense, since a recoverable alert is most certainly "proceed with caution". Amber was much more appropriate. >Holger Lubitz, Kl. Drakenburger Str. 24, D-W-3070 Nienburg/Weser 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."
jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) (05/08/91)
bobl@graphics.rent.com (Bob Lindabury - SysAdm) writes: >holgerl@amiux.agsc.sub.org (Holger Lubitz) writes: >> BTW: The Guru isn't green. Last time I got a recoverable alert, it was orange >> Normal Dead-End-Alerts are still red. >> >> Best regards, >> Holger >Actually, some recoverable Gurus are green. I've gotten them. I >forget offhand what causes the green ones however. Anyone have the >answer? They can be caused when the system tries top bring up the little helpfull requesters (Like diskfull, writeprocteced, disk trashed, etc...) but there is not enough free memory to open the window and stuff it with a requester. If this happens, a greenguru pops up with the text in it that would have been in the requester. This also happens under AmigaOS < 2.0, but the thing is always red, even if it won't mean a reboot. For you programmer types, AutoRequest() does this I believe.
watters@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (david r watters) (05/08/91)
In article <holgerl.2119@amiux.agsc.sub.org> holgerl@amiux.agsc.sub.org (Holger Lubitz) writes: >BTW: The Guru isn't green. Last time I got a recoverable alert, it was orange. >Normal Dead-End-Alerts are still red. > Is it me, or does 2.0 recover _A LOT_ more than 1.3? In fact I don't remember every having 1.3 recover. I hardly remember 2.0 _not_ recovering! This says to me that 2.0 is an order of magnatude more stable than 1.3, which also says that CBM _IS_ shipping an unstable OS in it's new machines that hurts it's image, it's called KS1.3! The stability is NOT affected by remaping the OS into ram using Zkick, in fact, a 2500/30 using Zkick boots faster, recovers from system errors, retains the OS in memory after crashing...running commercial games...and rebooting a lot, and runs WB2.0 far better than 1.3.3 can!! You would have to be a fool not to use Zkick and OS2.0 on a 2000 series machine today, it is safer! David -- "All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer by the stars. All of us do time in the gutter, dreamers turn to look at the cars!" - RUSH David watters@cis.ohio-state.edu "It's 12:35... and Michigan STILL sucks." _-_-_-__---_---_---__-_-_-____ TurboExpress : The Neo*Geo of portables _____
peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) (05/08/91)
In article <X2Vk24w164w@graphics.rent.com> bobl@graphics.rent.com (Bob Lindabury - SysAdm) writes: >Actually, some recoverable Gurus are green. I've gotten them. I >forget offhand what causes the green ones however. Anyone have the >answer? The cause of green gurus is out-of-date software. Kickstart 36.141 and 36.143 (2.00 and 2.01) have green recoverable alerts. Kickstarts since then (36.207 and 36.209) have amber recoverable alerts. > InterNet: bobl@graphics.rent.com | Raven Enterprises 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."
ericpaul@wyatt.ksu.ksu.edu (Eric Paul Armstrong) (05/08/91)
watters@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (david r watters) writes: >a 2500/30 using Zkick boots faster, recovers from system errors, retains the >OS in memory after crashing...running commercial games...and rebooting a lot, >and runs WB2.0 far better than 1.3.3 can!! >You would have to be a fool not to use Zkick and OS2.0 on a 2000 series machine >today, it is safer! I'd like to be able to get 2.0 (A500 w3M&HD) I still have 1.2 roms in mine, and am debating whether to get the 1.3 roms or wait for 2.0 to be in rom. I don't reboot that much so waiting a minute longer for the computer is not a big deal. (It used to take 4 mins off floppy. uugh) When are the roms going to be available or where can I get the images legally to zkick into memory? >David ---- Eric P. Armstrong ericpaul@matt.ksu.ksu.edu
peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) (05/08/91)
In article <1991May7.193443.19907@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) writes: >They can be caused when the system tries top bring up the little >helpfull requesters (Like diskfull, writeprocteced, disk trashed, etc...) but >there is not enough free memory to open the window and stuff it with >a requester. If this happens, a greenguru pops up with the text in it >that would have been in the requester. Under 2.0, system requesters (AutoRequest()) no longer devolve into alerts under low RAM. That only happens under 1.3 and earlier. 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."
aduncan@rhea.trl.OZ.AU (Allan Duncan) (05/09/91)
From article <118037@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, by watters@anaconda.cis.ohio-state.edu (david r watters): > Is it me, or does 2.0 recover _A LOT_ more than 1.3? In fact I don't remember > every having 1.3 recover. I hardly remember 2.0 _not_ recovering! > This says to me that 2.0 is an order of magnatude more stable than 1.3, which > also says that CBM _IS_ shipping an unstable OS in it's new machines that hurts > it's image, it's called KS1.3! There was a bug that turned the Recoverable Alerts into a guru that was corrected in 2.0 - the program GOMF was in effect a patch for this. Remember, 1.3 was really 1.2 patched for autoboot only. There were _no_ bug fixes in the ROM stuff, except for the patches contained in SetPatch. Allan Duncan ACSnet a.duncan@trl.oz (+613) 541 6708 Internet a.duncan@trl.oz.au UUCP {uunet,hplabs,ukc}!munnari!trl.oz.au!a.duncan Telecom Research Labs, PO Box 249, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia.
re0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Ronald William Ely) (05/09/91)
>>[Lots of stuff about green & amber gurus deleted...]
Now you see.. If they'd just let me have 2.0 I'd know this stuff so I wouldn't
make silly mistakes like that:-)
*****************************************************************************
Ronald Ely //
re0t@andrew.cmu.edu //fubar - where CS students go for a drink.
\\ //If you don't believe me, look it up.
\\/
*****************************************************************************jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) (05/13/91)
peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) writes: >In article <1991May7.193443.19907@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) writes: >Under 2.0, system requesters (AutoRequest()) no longer devolve into So what _does_ happen to them??? I have gotten green alerts under 2.0 a couple of times... I thought it was becuase of low mem, mebe not.... >alerts under low RAM. That only happens under 1.3 and earlier.
peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) (05/13/91)
In article <1991May13.031357.22993@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) writes: >peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) writes: >>Under 2.0, system requesters (AutoRequest()) no longer devolve into > > >So what _does_ happen to them??? They return as though the user cancelled them, with the exception of the Software Failure requester, since "cancel" would imply "reboot", and we'd rather suspend the offending task instead. >I have gotten green alerts under 2.0 a couple of times... I thought >it was becuase of low mem, mebe not.... Recoverable alerts can occur for a number of reasons. Out of memory is one. Corrupt memory lists are another. Anyways, if you still see green alerts, you should update to 2.03, because you're still running 2.01 or earlier. 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."
1013734@hydra.maths.unsw.OZ.AU (05/14/91)
In article <holgerl.2119@amiux.agsc.sub.org> holgerl@amiux.agsc.sub.org (Holger Lubitz) writes: >In article <Yc54BIy00VIGNe2VAZ@andrew.cmu.edu> re0t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Ronald William Ely) writes: > >> I WANT MY 2.0!!! I WANT MY PRODUCTIVITY MODE!!! >>I WANT TO SEE A GREEN GURU!!! [Stuff deleted] > >BTW: The Guru isn't green. Last time I got a recoverable alert, it was orange. >Normal Dead-End-Alerts are still red. > >Best regards, >Holger Funny, last time I got an alert from WB2.0 it was GREEN, yes a green guru. Must be the different versions of KickStart2.xx There's zillions of them!! BTW: Did anyone notice that after getting a guru under 2.xx and doing reset you always get 00000003.xxxxxxxx guru under 1.3? That is on a A2620 or A2630 with 1.3 in ROM. Peter Urbanec. University of New South Wales, Sydeny, Australia s1013734@spectrum.cs.unsw.oz.au 1013734@hydra.maths.unsw.oz.au ---- The Only Sin is Stupidity ---- Unknown.
jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) (05/15/91)
peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) writes: >In article <1991May13.031357.22993@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) writes: >>peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) writes: >>>Under 2.0, system requesters (AutoRequest()) no longer devolve into >> >> >>So what _does_ happen to them??? >They return as though the user cancelled them, with the exception >>it was becuase of low mem, mebe not.... >Recoverable alerts can occur for a number of reasons. Out of memory >is one. Corrupt memory lists are another. Anyways, if you still >see green alerts, you should update to 2.03, because you're still >running 2.01 or earlier. Any change of removing the flash from alerts? ??? Alerts are rude to begin with, but the flash is downright obnoxious (sp?)
ewilts@janus.mtroyal.ab.ca (Ed Wilts) (05/15/91)
In article <21507@cbmvax.commodore.com>, peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) writes: > > Recoverable alerts can occur for a number of reasons. Out of memory > is one. Corrupt memory lists are another. Anyways, if you still > see green alerts, you should update to 2.03, because you're still > running 2.01 or earlier. They're still green under 2.02, and unfortunately, some of us do not have access to 2.03. My dealer is trying to get 2.03, but hasn't received it yet. Please remember that not all Usenet readers are in the USA, and it certainly takes time for the releases to propogate. I'm sure it would benefit many of us greatly if the 2.03 update could be received electronically, like the 1.3.2 update. It somebody at Commodore could ship it via private mail to some select sites (like ab20, MRCserv), distribution would be greatly enhanced, thereby benefiting us all. > > Peter > -- > Peter Cherna, Operating Systems Development Group, Commodore-Amiga, Inc. > {uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!peter peter@cbmvax.commodore.com -- .../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
peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) (05/15/91)
cl.msu.edu> Sender: Reply-To: peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Commodore-Amiga, Inc. West Chester, PA. Keywords: In article <1991May14.190040.29545@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) writes: >peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) writes: >>Recoverable alerts can occur for a number of reasons. Out of memory >>is one. Corrupt memory lists are another. Anyways, if you still >>see green alerts, you should update to 2.03, because you're still >>running 2.01 or earlier. I'm sorry. I just checked and discovered that recoverable alerts are indeed still green in 2.02 (and 2.03). Amber alerts coming soon to an Amiga near you! >Any change of removing the flash from alerts? ??? Not this time. >Alerts are rude to begin with, but the flash is downright obnoxious (sp?) I'd prefer them to be less jarring myself. 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."