achim@video1.in-berlin.de (Joachim Gothe) (04/18/91)
Hi Folks,
is there a way to convert a SuperKickstart-Disk of an A3000 to a
Kickfile, that the programm "ZKICK" can use.
The Kickfile that MAKEFILE produce for the A3000, my ZKICK can`t use.:-(
Please e-mail or post
Thanks,
Achim
----------------------------__
Joachim Gothe /// UUNET: achim@video1.in-berlin.de
Luederritzstr. 4 __ /// achim@artcom.de
FRG 1000 Berlin 65 \\\/// Zerberus: videomaster@bdb
VOICE +49 30 4526202 \XX/greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (04/19/91)
In article <19005706.ARN00b7@video1.in-berlin.de> achim@video1.in-berlin.de (Joachim Gothe) writes: >Hi Folks, > >is there a way to convert a SuperKickstart-Disk of an A3000 to a >Kickfile, that the programm "ZKICK" can use. > >The Kickfile that MAKEFILE produce for the A3000, my ZKICK can`t use.:-( > >Please e-mail or post >Thanks, >Achim Well, there is a 2.0 Kickstart-on-a-disk for non-A3000 machines with memory in the right area. If you are developer, you can get it. If you're not, you shouldn't have it. Problem solved. ;-) BTW, interpret this as a MAJOR flaming of all possessors of PIRATE copies of beta releases of 2.0. How could someone undermine the efforts of the company they are depending on to continue to support them? [Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now... ;-) ] -- Greg Harp |"How I wish, how I wish you were here. We're just two |lost souls swimming in a fishbowl, year after year, greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|running over the same ground. What have we found? s609@cs.utexas.edu |The same old fears. Wish you were here." - Pink Floyd
joshin@ucscf.UCSC.EDU (98896000) (04/19/91)
>In article <19005706.ARN00b7@video1.in-berlin.de> achim@video1.in-berlin.de > (Joachim Gothe) writes: >>Hi Folks, >> >>is there a way to convert a SuperKickstart-Disk of an A3000 to a >>Kickfile, that the programm "ZKICK" can use. >> >>The Kickfile that MAKEFILE produce for the A3000, my ZKICK can`t use.:-( >> >>Please e-mail or post >>Thanks, >>Achim >Well, there is a 2.0 Kickstart-on-a-disk for non-A3000 machines with memory in >the right area. If you are developer, you can get it. If you're not, you >shouldn't have it. >Problem solved. ;-) >BTW, interpret this as a MAJOR flaming of all possessors of PIRATE copies of >beta releases of 2.0. How could someone undermine the efforts of the company >they are depending on to continue to support them? >[Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now... ;-) ] >-- > Greg Harp |"How I wish, how I wish you were here. We're just two > |lost souls swimming in a fishbowl, year after year, >greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|running over the same ground. What have we found? > s609@cs.utexas.edu |The same old fears. Wish you were here." - Pink Floyd Wait just a minute here. Weren't the roms supposed to have been released a few months ago? And now they are being pushed back to June. Now I don't have a beta copy of 2.0 but I would love one. I can't afford to become classified as a developer but I would still love to have 2.0. Now since they are not out I can't get them legally. But if I did have one I would still buy the roms. I have a question now, if I did "pirate" 2.0 on disk and then bought the roms when they became available would that still be pirating? And if it is considered pirating wouldn't I be supporting C= when the roms came out and I buy them? To anyone at C=, Is there anyway I could get a copy of 2.0 on disk without becoming a developer and without having to resort to piracy? Joshua Goldsmith P.S. I do not believe in piracy! I do however want to play with 2.0!!!
nj@magnolia.Berkeley.EDU (Narciso Jaramillo) (04/19/91)
In article <14678@darkstar.ucsc.edu> joshin@ucscf.UCSC.EDU (98896000) writes: > I have a > question now, if I did "pirate" 2.0 on disk and then bought the roms > when they became available would that still be pirating? And if it is > considered pirating wouldn't I be supporting C= when the roms came out > and I buy them? Piracy is only part of the issue. The other part is that it's unhealthy to have beta versions of an operating system floating around, both for you and for Commodore. It's unhealthy for you because you might get bitten by a nasty bug and lose data. It's unhealthy for Commodore because bugs in beta versions often cause rumors to spread, even if those bugs are fixed in the final release. nj
peterk@cbmger.UUCP (Peter Kittel GERMANY) (04/19/91)
In article <14678@darkstar.ucsc.edu> joshin@ucscf.UCSC.EDU (98896000) writes: > >To anyone at C=, > Is there anyway I could get a copy of 2.0 on disk without becoming a >developer and without having to resort to piracy? NO. Sorry. But then, PLEASE all be a little patient. We all know this is lasting much longer than hoped, but well, piracy is not the way to make the situation better, you only would make it worse. (Imagine the situation when a dozen different beta prereleases are floating without control through the Amiga scene. You WILL get compatibility problems, and WHO will be blamed for it? Now guess...) -- Best regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // E-Mail to \\ Only my personal opinions... Commodore Frankfurt, Germany \X/ {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmger!peterk
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (04/19/91)
In article <14678@darkstar.ucsc.edu> joshin@ucscf.UCSC.EDU (98896000) writes: >Wait just a minute here. Weren't the roms supposed to have been released a few >months ago? And now they are being pushed back to June. Now I don't have a >beta copy of 2.0 but I would love one. I can't afford to become classified as >a developer but I would still love to have 2.0. Now since they are not out I >can't get them legally. But if I did have one I would still buy the roms. I >have a question now, if I did "pirate" 2.0 on disk and then bought the roms >when they became available would that still be pirating? And if it is >considered pirating wouldn't I be supporting C= when the roms came out and I buy >them? Well, piracy is piracy. Possessing an illegal copy of something is piracy. If nothing else, any developer giving out pirate copies of the 2.0 release disks is in direct violation of his/her agreement with C=. Now some might say that it falls into the area of trying out the software before buying it. (BTW, I'd like to see that established in better way than having to obtain a pirate copy or _hope_ there's a rental place that has it -- something that is unlikely in the Amiga market.) However, these are beta releases, and by no means should anyone have them except the people that C= gives them to. >P.S. I do not believe in piracy! I do however want to play with 2.0!!! Hmmm... The best thing I can suggest is to spend some time at a local dealership (if that is possible) and play with a 3000. You're going to want to upgrade, I can tell you that. There's already a decent amount of PD software that works only under 2.0, and there will be a growing amount of commercial software that at least works _better_ under 2.0. The upgrade can't cost _that_ much -- certainly no more than a couple games or a half-decent app. Greg -- Greg Harp |"How I wish, how I wish you were here. We're just two |lost souls swimming in a fishbowl, year after year, greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|running over the same ground. What have we found? s609@cs.utexas.edu |The same old fears. Wish you were here." - Pink Floyd
bobl@graphics.rent.com (Bob Lindabury - SysAdm) (04/20/91)
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > BTW, interpret this as a MAJOR flaming of all possessors of PIRATE copies of > beta releases of 2.0. How could someone undermine the efforts of the company > they are depending on to continue to support them? Huh? I don't really see the harm in a few people having "pirate" copies of WB 2.0. In fact, I imagine that these versions were intentionlly leaked to allow more people to beta-test the software prior to burning the chips. Just how is someone runing WB 2.0 going to undermine Commodore? After all, Apple gives away free OS updates for thier computers as far as I know. I've never had to pay for an OS upgrade on my Mac or Apple //. Previous updates for Workbench have also been free. The only cost was in the ROM chip. Surely Commodore doesn't expect to make its profits from selling Kickstart 2.0 ROM chips. -- 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
bobl@graphics.rent.com (Bob Lindabury - SysAdm) (04/20/91)
nj@magnolia.Berkeley.EDU (Narciso Jaramillo) writes: > Piracy is only part of the issue. The other part is that it's > unhealthy to have beta versions of an operating system floating > around, both for you and for Commodore. It's unhealthy for you > because you might get bitten by a nasty bug and lose data. It's > unhealthy for Commodore because bugs in beta versions often cause > rumors to spread, even if those bugs are fixed in the final release. What? This logic doesn't follow. 2.0 is already out there in thousands of A3000 computers. It's no different than the A2000 Developers versions except that the developers versions are *newer* versions that what's being shipped in current A3000's. So your buggy beta version theory doesn't wash. I would think it would be a bit more benificial for Commodore as Randall can just check Usenet here and hear of the gripes that people are having with thier *pirate* WB 2.0's and maybe he can fix them. After all, the more beta testers the better, no? I am certainly not condoning piracy but I just don't see the harm in having or using WB 2.0 on your 2000 at this point in time. If you want it, it's readily available even on Public Domain boards. -- 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
achim@video1.in-berlin.de (Joachim Gothe) (04/20/91)
In article <NJ.91Apr18150329@magnolia.Berkeley.EDU>, Narciso Jaramillo writes: > >Piracy is only part of the issue. The other part is that it's >unhealthy to have beta versions of an operating system floating >around, both for you and for Commodore. It's unhealthy for you >because you might get bitten by a nasty bug and lose data. It's It is MY health. I smoke, I drink German beer and I want to use Kick2.0 :-))) >unhealthy for Commodore because bugs in beta versions often cause >rumors to spread, even if those bugs are fixed in the final release. > What is the final BUG FREE release ? 1.1, 1.2, 1.3. 2.0, 2.5, 5.0, 08/15 ? If more people than a few developer can test !!TEST!! a Betaversion of Software, Commodore don`t need so much time to find the bugs. I am a silly USER of computers, and I accept this. If two bugs come together, (the beta version and I) we will find us faster. .....its just a vision...:-( > >nj PS: I use Kick2.0, Version 36.207 (old) :-((, but I love it!!! ----------------------------__ Joachim Gothe /// UUNET: achim@video1.in-berlin.de Luederritzstr. 4 __ /// achim@artcom.de FRG 1000 Berlin 65 \\\/// Zerberus: videomaster@bdb VOICE +49 30 4526202 \XX/
nj@magnolia.Berkeley.EDU (Narciso Jaramillo) (04/20/91)
I wrote: >> [Spreading beta versions of 2.0 around is] >> unhealthy for Commodore because bugs in beta versions often cause >> rumors to spread, even if those bugs are fixed in the final release. bobl@graphics.rent.com (Bob Lindabury - SysAdm) replied: > What? This logic doesn't follow. 2.0 is already out there in > thousands of A3000 computers. It's no different than the A2000 > Developers versions except that the developers versions are *newer* > versions that what's being shipped in current A3000's. So your buggy > beta version theory doesn't wash. Newer doesn't imply less buggy. Of course, the newer versions will have fixes for bugs in the older versions. But the newer versions have *new* code in them. I expect that some of this code mucks about in fairly dangerous areas, since one of their goals in the current releases is making concessions to pre-2.0 programs that did things that weren't strictly legal, trying to prevent them from breaking. [I assume I'm not violating non-disclosure with this, since other people have mentioned it.] > I would think it would be a bit more benificial for Commodore as > Randall can just check Usenet here and hear of the gripes that people > are having with thier *pirate* WB 2.0's and maybe he can fix them. Seems to me that they already are. nj
peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) (04/20/91)
In article <59XN18w164w@graphics.rent.com> bobl@graphics.rent.com (Bob Lindabury - SysAdm) writes: >nj@magnolia.Berkeley.EDU (Narciso Jaramillo) writes: > >> Piracy is only part of the issue. The other part is that it's >> unhealthy to have beta versions of an operating system floating >> around, both for you and for Commodore. >What? This logic doesn't follow. 2.0 is already out there in >thousands of A3000 computers. It's no different than the A2000 >Developers versions except that the developers versions are *newer* >versions that what's being shipped in current A3000's. So your buggy >beta version theory doesn't wash. You assume that each beta is strictly and absolutely better than the one before it. That's simply not true. There is always a risk that when fixing a bug or adding a new feature, a serious problem can be introduced. If that wasn't true, there would be no reason to send out betas at all (think about it). >-- Bob 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."
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (04/21/91)
In article <4yXN17w164w@graphics.rent.com> bobl@graphics.rent.com (Bob Lindabury - SysAdm) writes: >greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > >> BTW, interpret this as a MAJOR flaming of all possessors of PIRATE copies of >> beta releases of 2.0. How could someone undermine the efforts of the company >> they are depending on to continue to support them? > >Huh? I don't really see the harm in a few people having "pirate" >copies of WB 2.0. In fact, I imagine that these versions were >intentionlly leaked to allow more people to beta-test the software >prior to burning the chips. Why would C= intentionally leak copies of the OS? More testers doesn't outweigh the problems with multiple betas of the OS in use. Many people would continue to use the soft copies instead of ungrading, and when software broke they would blame C=. >Just how is someone runing WB 2.0 going to undermine Commodore? >After all, Apple gives away free OS updates for thier computers as >far as I know. I've never had to pay for an OS upgrade on my Mac or >Apple //. Previous updates for Workbench have also been free. The >only cost was in the ROM chip. Upgrades to the Workbench have been free. Kickstart upgrades (disk or ROM) have not been. Apple isn't going to pass out ROMs for their machines for free either. In fact I'm sure any A-Max owner would be glad to tell you how much he/she paid for just a simple ROM. >Surely Commodore doesn't expect to make its profits from selling >Kickstart 2.0 ROM chips. Of course not. Profit isn't the problem. It's legal ownership of an up-to-date version of the OS that concerns them. For the same reason software companies have to have a license to distribute their software with a Workbench disk. -- Greg Harp |"How I wish, how I wish you were here. We're just two |lost souls swimming in a fishbowl, year after year, greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|running over the same ground. What have we found? s609@cs.utexas.edu |The same old fears. Wish you were here." - Pink Floyd
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (04/21/91)
In article <59XN18w164w@graphics.rent.com> bobl@graphics.rent.com (Bob Lindabury - SysAdm) writes: >What? This logic doesn't follow. 2.0 is already out there in >thousands of A3000 computers. It's no different than the A2000 >Developers versions except that the developers versions are *newer* >versions that what's being shipped in current A3000's. So your buggy >beta version theory doesn't wash. Actually, as a few people have pointed out, 'newer' != 'less buggy.' >I would think it would be a bit more benificial for Commodore as >Randall can just check Usenet here and hear of the gripes that people >are having with thier *pirate* WB 2.0's and maybe he can fix them. >After all, the more beta testers the better, no? No. More responsible beta testers is better than a random mass of beta testers. I'm not saying that the only responsible Amiga owners are developers. I'm saying that at least C= knows the developers are somewhat knowledgable about the machine. They can give reasonable bug reports to the right people. Many users couldn't give a better description than, "It crashes when I run Amaze-A-Paint in Billo-Color mode." Actually, that would just make more work for the people at Commdore. Imagine having to scan the entire comp.sys.amiga.* hierarchy for bug reports. Also, there is an established format for providing all the needed information for a bug report. I challenge anyone here to find a bug post that gave the exact machine configuration, Kickstart version, Workbench version, name and version of the program/library/etc. in question, method for producing the error, conditions/configurations under which the error doesn't occur, and more. Without revealing any proprietary info, let me give you an example. I sent in an enhancement request a while back. I receieved mail the next day saying that the feature would be added (it was rather simple). Of course, my bug reports didn't generate responses, but I like to think that they were too busy to reply. ;-) I couldn't expect the C= engineers to have that kind of performance if they had to spend the time it would take to read the newsgroups in their entirety. It would take half their time just to collect the info, and then very little of it would be valid (this is USENET, not reality ;). However, the team seems to not mind listening to the net users' rantings anyway. ;-) >I am certainly not condoning piracy but I just don't see the harm in >having or using WB 2.0 on your 2000 at this point in time. If you >want it, it's readily available even on Public Domain boards. I certainly see the harm. With pirate copies of the OS available many users won't purchase the release version. They will lack not only the bug fixes but also the manuals. The OS won't appear complete or solid to potential customers. Any board with a copy of 2.0 available for downloading is in violation of the U.S. copyright laws. Greg -- Greg Harp |"How I wish, how I wish you were here. We're just two |lost souls swimming in a fishbowl, year after year, greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|running over the same ground. What have we found? s609@cs.utexas.edu |The same old fears. Wish you were here." - Pink Floyd
drtiller@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Donald Richard Tillery Jr) (04/21/91)
In a message From: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) >In article <59XN18w164w@graphics.rent.com> bobl@graphics.rent.com > (Bob Lindabury - SysAdm) writes: >>What? This logic doesn't follow. 2.0 is already out there in >>thousands of A3000 computers. It's no different than the A2000 >>Developers versions except that the developers versions are *newer* >>versions that what's being shipped in current A3000's. So your buggy >>beta version theory doesn't wash. > >Actually, as a few people have pointed out, 'newer' != 'less buggy.' Yes, 3000 owners know this also. >>I would think it would be a bit more benificial for Commodore as >>Randall can just check Usenet here and hear of the gripes that people >>are having with thier *pirate* WB 2.0's and maybe he can fix them. >>After all, the more beta testers the better, no? > >No. More responsible beta testers is better than a random mass of beta >testers. I'm not saying that the only responsible Amiga owners are >developers. I'm saying that at least C= knows the developers are somewhat >knowledgable about the machine. They can give reasonable bug reports to the >right people. Many users couldn't give a better description than, "It crashes >when I run Amaze-A-Paint in Billo-Color mode." > >Actually, that would just make more work for the people at Commdore. Imagine >having to scan the entire comp.sys.amiga.* hierarchy for bug reports. Also, >there is an established format for providing all the needed information for a >bug report. I challenge anyone here to find a bug post that gave the exact >machine configuration, Kickstart version, Workbench version, name and version >of the program/library/etc. in question, method for producing the error, >conditions/configurations under which the error doesn't occur, and more. I agree. Bug reports should be taken from registered developers first, and general public owners later (and only when accompanied by the above mentioned information in a complete form). >Without revealing any proprietary info, let me give you an example. I sent in >an enhancement request a while back. I receieved mail the next day saying >that the feature would be added (it was rather simple). Of course, my bug >reports didn't generate responses, but I like to think that they were too busy >to reply. ;-) Gee, that's impressive. It's nice to see C= working so quickly in fixing problems and updating software. I like to hear positive feedback about C=! :-) >I couldn't expect the C= engineers to have that kind of performance if they had >to spend the time it would take to read the newsgroups in their entirety. It >would take half their time just to collect the info, and then very little of >it would be valid (this is USENET, not reality ;). I totally agree. >However, the team seems to not mind listening to the net users' rantings >anyway. ;-) Thank goodness. >>I am certainly not condoning piracy but I just don't see the harm in >>having or using WB 2.0 on your 2000 at this point in time. If you >>want it, it's readily available even on Public Domain boards. > >I certainly see the harm. With pirate copies of the OS available many users >won't purchase the release version. They will lack not only the bug fixes but >also the manuals. The OS won't appear complete or solid to potential >customers. I don't know if I agree completely with this. The fact that they don't have the "official" release and they don't have the manuals (especially the AREXX portion) would (for most of the people I know with 3000s and the two developers I know) be MORE reason to buy the ROMs. >Any board with a copy of 2.0 available for downloading is in violation of the >U.S. copyright laws. Very true. However, I concur with Mr. Lindabury that _selling_ 2.0 to 500 and 2000 users in the same way that 3000 owners can have 2.0 with their purchase is rather fair. 2000 and 500 owners with offical releases are just as deserving (if not more so for their patience) as 3000 owners. I don't think it's a problem to ask for its release to the public (not that I think C= will). If you are a developer and you are the only one with 2.0, then we don't need it. BUT, if my buddy just paid $3000 for a 3000 and has 2.0 and I spent almost $6000 on my 2000 with accellerator so I could have something comparable and I can't, I think I have VERY just cause to complain. Rick Tillery (drtiller@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu)
stelmack@screamer.csee.usf.edu (Gregory M. Stelmack) (04/21/91)
My one comment on this is: Don't lots of NON-developers already have 2.0 through their purchase of a 3000? If Commodore is hurt by pre-releases of 2.0, why did they release it to 3000 owners? It seems like once it was released to one set of owners, it could have been released to all of us. That's my only complaint -- it's probably better that I don't have 2.0 yet, 'cause if I did I would be spending too much time figuring out how to program it and not enough time doing stuff I'm SUPPOSED to be doing. I understand Commodore wanting to wait to release a very stable version, but once they released a version they shouldn't have made most of us wait. Anyway, I think I know how 1000 owners often feel :( -- Greg Stelmack (stelmack@sol.csee.usf.edu)
bobl@graphics.rent.com (Bob Lindabury - SysAdm) (04/22/91)
stelmack@screamer.csee.usf.edu (Gregory M. Stelmack) writes: > My one comment on this is: Don't lots of NON-developers already have 2.0 > through their purchase of a 3000? If Commodore is hurt by pre-releases of 2.0 > why did they release it to 3000 owners? It seems like once it was released to > one set of owners, it could have been released to all of us. That's my only > complaint -- it's probably better that I don't have 2.0 yet, 'cause if I did > would be spending too much time figuring out how to program it and not enough > time doing stuff I'm SUPPOSED to be doing. This is basically my same opinion. I am running 2.0 on my A2000 and I love it. I'm not a developer so I guess I'm a naughty boy. However, I plan on purchasing or whatever Commodore wants us to do when the "official" version comes out but I am glad that I am getting use to it now and I am conforming my system *NOW* to be fully 2.0 compliant. After all, there are alot of things to change when you switch to 2.0. If it was released for the 3000, it should have been released at the same time for A500 and A2000 owners. I can't see how anyone can justify it NOT being released to the others at the same time since the 3000 just loads the image from disk anyway. It just goes to show you that Commodore doesn't do things like the other companies. I don't know if this is good or bad however. If it was good enough to release in 3000's, why wasn't it good enough to release to the others? > I understand Commodore wanting to wait to release a very stable version, but > once they released a version they shouldn't have made most of us wait. Exactly. There wouldn't be any Pirated versions of the OS around if C= had released all versions at the same time on disk. There would have been *one* version out..the official version. They could then release more versions to the developers and also get feedback from users with the one *official* version. > Anyway, I think I know how 1000 owners often feel :( Yeah...yech! Ah..BTW, I am the sole user of my WB2.0 on my machine. It hasn't left my abode. Some may poo-poo me for having a version of WB but I wanted to get use to the OS and I feel I am hurting nobody if I quietly use the OS in the privacy of my own home and don't hand it out to every Tom Dick and Harry like some people do. > -- Greg Stelmack (stelmack@sol.csee.usf.edu) -- 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
greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (04/23/91)
In article <gZPR16w164w@graphics.rent.com> bobl@graphics.rent.com (Bob Lindabury - SysAdm) writes: >stelmack@screamer.csee.usf.edu (Gregory M. Stelmack) writes: >If it was released for the 3000, it should have been released at the >same time for A500 and A2000 owners. I can't see how anyone can >justify it NOT being released to the others at the same time since >the 3000 just loads the image from disk anyway. It just goes to show >you that Commodore doesn't do things like the other companies. I >don't know if this is good or bad however. If it was good enough to >release in 3000's, why wasn't it good enough to release to the others? Well, for one thing the majority of Amigas are 1 meg machines. These machines don't have autoconfig memory in the right place for the ROM image. The actual percentage of machines that can run the betas of 2.0 is pretty small. -- 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
barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (04/23/91)
In article <1292@screamer.csee.usf.edu> stelmack@screamer.csee.usf.edu (Gregory M. Stelmack) writes: >It seems like once it [2.0] was released to >one set of owners, it could have been released to all of us. > >Anyway, I think I know how 1000 owners often feel :( ?? I'm an A1000 owner (for more than 4 years) and I feel fine. What a wonderful machine. Perhaps I can't upgrade directly to 2.0, but so what? I still have a great computer. Dan //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University | | INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | | | COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP | \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
stelmack@screamer.csee.usf.edu (Gregory M. Stelmack) (04/23/91)
In article <47661@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: >Well, for one thing the majority of Amigas are 1 meg machines. These >machines don't have autoconfig memory in the right place for the ROM image. >The actual percentage of machines that can run the betas of 2.0 is pretty >small. My machine has 3 megs, as do many other Amiga 2000 owners I know (many have more). I am more than willing to move my boards around or whatever to get 2000 up and running. You have explained why some of us can't run it -- what about those of us who can? -- Greg Stelmack (stelmack@sol.csee.usf.edu)
skank@iastate.edu (Skank George L) (04/24/91)
In article <1991Apr21.055446.11230@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> drtiller@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Donald Richard Tillery Jr) writes: >In a message From: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) >>Without revealing any proprietary info, let me give you an example. I sent in >>an enhancement request a while back. I receieved mail the next day saying >>that the feature would be added (it was rather simple). Of course, my bug >>reports didn't generate responses, but I like to think that they were too >>busy to reply. ;-) > >Gee, that's impressive. It's nice to see C= working so quickly in fixing >problems and updating software. I like to hear positive feedback about >C=! :-) In defense of Commodore, I sent a report to bugs@commodore.com about what I thought was a bug (in the end I guess it's not a bug) and got mail back from Andy Finkle, THE NEXT DAY! Make sure that if you submit a bug report that you send complete information about the problem. ;-) --George
skank@iastate.edu (Skank George L) (04/24/91)
In article <gZPR16w164w@graphics.rent.com> bobl@graphics.rent.com (Bob Lindabury - SysAdm) writes: [stuff deleted] >Yeah...yech! Ah..BTW, I am the sole user of my WB2.0 on my machine. >It hasn't left my abode. Some may poo-poo me for having a version of >WB but I wanted to get use to the OS and I feel I am hurting nobody >if I quietly use the OS in the privacy of my own home and don't hand >it out to every Tom Dick and Harry like some people do. > > -- Bob This will probably be pointed out several times, and don't take this super-personally, but since you are running a pirated version of 2.0 on you machine you must have gotten it from somewhere? Someone must be handing it out to every Tom, Dick, and Harry even if it's not you. This is a bit of a double standard isn't it? --George P.S.: I'm not trying to make too many waves...
manes@vger.nsu.edu ((Mark D. Manes), Norfolk State University) (04/25/91)
In article <gZPR16w164w@graphics.rent.com>, bobl@graphics.rent.com (Bob Lindabury - SysAdm) writes: > stelmack@screamer.csee.usf.edu (Gregory M. Stelmack) writes: > >> My one comment on this is: Don't lots of NON-developers already have 2.0 >> through their purchase of a 3000? If Commodore is hurt by pre-releases of 2.0 >> why did they release it to 3000 owners? It seems like once it was released to >> one set of owners, it could have been released to all of us. That's my only >> complaint -- it's probably better that I don't have 2.0 yet, 'cause if I did >> would be spending too much time figuring out how to program it and not enough >> time doing stuff I'm SUPPOSED to be doing. > > This is basically my same opinion. I am running 2.0 on my A2000 and > I love it. I'm not a developer so I guess I'm a naughty boy. > However, I plan on purchasing or whatever Commodore wants us to do > when the "official" version comes out but I am glad that I am getting > use to it now and I am conforming my system *NOW* to be fully 2.0 > compliant. After all, there are alot of things to change when you > switch to 2.0. And both of your opinions are wrong. First off, the Amiga 3000 is a new computer and it has a different kickstart loading mechanism than does the A2000 / A500. When 2.0 was initially released Zkick did not exist, and kickit required memory to be in a certain location. Many people with A2000s could not run the software because they had a GVP hardcard in the first slot. In other words it would be a giant support nightmare for Commodore to have released 2.0 for all machines. Commodore would have suffered more than they could gain by releasing a method for softloading kickstart into the A2000/A500. How many of you are really willing to give up 512k of RAM to run 2.0? I think that beta software belongs in the hands of beta testers. The A3000 was provided with 1.3 and 2.0. Remember that, and there was one major update to 2.0 that was released. It costs money to release and re-release and re-release software and send it out. Nay, they are doing the right thing. > Yeah...yech! Ah..BTW, I am the sole user of my WB2.0 on my machine. > It hasn't left my abode. Some may poo-poo me for having a version of > WB but I wanted to get use to the OS and I feel I am hurting nobody > if I quietly use the OS in the privacy of my own home and don't hand > it out to every Tom Dick and Harry like some people do. It is not up to you decide what will hurt Commodre and what will not. You are violating the law. Plain and simple. > >> -- Greg Stelmack (stelmack@sol.csee.usf.edu) > > -- 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 -mark= +--------+ ================================================== | \/ | Mark D. Manes "Mr. AmigaVision, The 32 bit guy" | /\ \/ | manes@vger.nsu.edu | / | (804) 683-2532 "Make up your own mind! - AMIGA" +--------+ ==================================================
IO91461@MAINE.BITNET (Tom Nezwek) (04/25/91)
Hey Mark Manes: Run, don't walk, to your bookshelf and pick up your
Dictionary (If you own One) and look up the definition
of the word `opinion'. Obviously you have no idea
what it means, or you wouldn't be trying to tell the
net that other people's opinions are wrong! Opinions
can't be wrong... Their just how people feel about
a topic. oops!, now you don't have to look it up..greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) (04/30/91)
In article <1299@screamer.csee.usf.edu> stelmack@screamer.csee.usf.edu (Gregory M. Stelmack) writes: >My machine has 3 megs, as do many other Amiga 2000 owners I know (many have >more). I am more than willing to move my boards around or whatever to get 2000 >up and running. You have explained why some of us can't run it -- what about >those of us who can? Well, C= has simply chosen not to release the betas for general use. I won't pretend to know what their reasoning is for this. Be patient. 2.0 will be ROMed and released RSN. 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
baxter_a@wehi.dn.mu.oz (05/01/91)
In article <91115.094355IO91461@MAINE.BITNET>, IO91461@MAINE.BITNET (Tom Nezwek) writes: > > Hey Mark Manes: Run, don't walk, to your bookshelf and pick up your > Dictionary (If you own One) and look up the definition > of the word `opinion'. Obviously you have no idea > what it means, or you wouldn't be trying to tell the > net that other people's opinions are wrong! Opinions > can't be wrong... Their just how people feel about > a topic. oops!, now you don't have to look it up.. RUBBISH! THAT'S JUST YOUR OPINION. Regards Alan (I'm sure I'm going to regret this..)