home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!ariel.lerc.nasa.gov!smneyln
- From: smneyln@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Michael Neylon)
- Subject: Re: @$#^@$%# 2.04!
- Message-ID: <28JUL199207552041@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov>
- News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
- Sender: news@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov
- Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
- References: <1992Jul24.022407.26450@Armstrong.EDU> <AHANSFOR.92Jul24104956@graywacke.wpi.edu> <1992Jul24.153748.23488@hubcap.clemson.edu> <1992Jul28.030730.8467@ultb.isc.rit.edu>
- Date: 28 Jul 1992 07:55 EST
- Lines: 107
-
- In article <1992Jul28.030730.8467@ultb.isc.rit.edu>, mjp3783@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes...
- >In article <27JUL199212420371@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov>, smneyln@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Michael Neylon) writes:
- >>In my case, I still got a 500 with 1.3, and I've extensively used 2.0 on
- >>a friend's 3000, but I'm still very wary about switching to 2.0
- >>Besides the money, I really dont think a nonaccerlated 500 w/o a multisync
- >>is a good platform to run 2.0 on. I'm conforatable with 1.3, and except
- >>for a few programs (ie maple), I still can run everything...
- >>(yes, I understand that 2.0 is better. But it is just too slow for
- >>types of activities that I do).
- >
- >Actually, 2.0 is alot faster than 1.3 - many routines were optimized - esp.
- >serial.device.
- >
- I havent clocked anything, but 2.0 on an unaccel. 500 *seems* slower. I
- may be incorrect. Now on a 3000, *drool*....
-
- >>Until the Amigas are all released with the 2.0 ROMs for at least a year,
- >>software developers should release products for both systems. Since many
- >>of the large packages are developed in C, all that these programmers need
- >>to do is to redefine troublesome commands. For example, if I need
- >>to make a library, but the call is different under both systems, I create
- >>a dummy function, and use intelligent switching in order to determine
- >>which call to make...this shouldnt be more than a few extra lines of code
- >
- >2.04 is (I believe) over 1 year old. There is a good bit more to programming
- >different revisions than that.
-
- But 500's are still being released with 1.3 stuff (and 600's? not sure).
- Since this is their more popular computer, It would be stupid to force
- 2.0 on people like this. The other problem is the Euro market. Has 2.0
- been accepted as well as it has over here? If America goes to 2.0, and Euro
- stays at 1.3, Americans will miss out on great games until the OS's are
- the same.
- >
- >>As for making only 2.0 specific software, that is insane. Take a look at
- >>Windows and its products. Companies like WordPerfect, Lotus, and Excel
- >>start making their products for Windows only (and the current releases at that).
- >>This forces people into buying software/hardware they may not have
- >>wanted, only to run a program they need. I've met some IBM folk
- >>who HATE Windows with a venegence, and will now refuse to purchase
- >>software from these companies, but they dont feeling like wasting their money
- >>on such like that. But most IBM users dont care, as long as they have
- >>the most uptodate features, so they purchase all the extra software, and keep
- >>on feeding Microsoft. Microsoft improves Windows, companies upgrade,
- >>and the cycle keeps on going.
- >
- >I don't think that it is insane. Anymore than releasing software that will not
- >work under 1.2. I don't know of ANYONE that doesn't like 2.0. Some people may
- >not like dishing out $100, and some may not feel like bothering to upgrade, but
- >I don't think anyone doesn't like it as an OS. Now as for Windows...
- >
- I mentioned this only because money-loving companies such as the above will
- release frequent, NON-COMPATABLE upgrades for OS and applications ~3-4 times
- a year. Now, assume that each upgrade costs about $100 (US), and you
- have 4 applications to keep 'up-to-date'. Thats means you spend $1600 a year
- just to keep up with the companies. (hmmm...the cost of a 500+monitor+HD :)
- Commodore and Amiga developers dont seem to be those type of companies, but
- rather rely on customer service and satisfaction. I heard that 2.1 is in the
- works, but is not ready for release yet. Amiga stuff doesnt seem to change
- as fast, upgrades are less frequent, and people can save their money...
-
- >>Now if you give ~ a year after complete availability of the new OS, this
- >>will give folks a chance to think about their purchase. Those who want
- >>the software will probably upgrade, and will have sufficient time to
- >>do so before the ware's availability. Those that dont not need to
- >>upgrade will be happy. Those that want the upgrade but not the new OS...
- >>well they're still stuck in the middle. However, they are assured that
- >>for at least a year, all software will still be available to them, and
- >>maybe in that time they will adjust and want the new OS.
- >
- >The OS is completely available. I walked into MicroWorks in Buffalo, NY and
- >picked up 2.0 ROM chips. That easy - no waiting list. I can't speak for all
- >dealers, but I can't believe that between the mail order co.s and local dealers
- >anyone can't get the chips. As for waiting, I think that is the producers
- >perogative. I will/would not write for <2.04. I might lose business, but I will
- >maintain sanity. ;-D
-
- After extensive review of my software at home, I relized that I have only one
- (commerical) program that is 1.3 only. So......
- I will probably go buy the upgrade end of the summer, but I have to plan ahead...
- the closest amiga dealer is 1 hr away (probably has a waiting list) and
- goes thru a 'bad' part of town...
-
- Incidentally, is the upgrade just chips and software/manuals? and can this
- be done at home (i know that almost all the chips on the board are socketed,
- so switching and relplacement are easy)?
- >
- >>Besides, I wouldnt be surprised if producers like Soft-Logik wont still
- >>release stuff under 1.3 after others have gone system dependant. As said
- >>before, this is very hard to do, and only lazy group will avoid it, and
- >>claim that the software only works under one system....
- >
- >I wouldn't either. I would be sorry if they did, but that is their decision. I
- >personally think that SoftLogik is gearing up for a 2.0 only version of
- >PageStream (3.0?).
-
- Im not surprised at that. Im sure several other producers are planning
- versions of their wares in 2.0 only format. However,they should not
- neglect older versions (ie still have bug fixes/updates if necessary, provide
- techical support) for at least 3 years.
-
- Mike Neylon aka Masem the Great and Almighty Thermo GOD
- // Only the | Univ. of Toledo - Chemical Engineering - Senior
- \X/ AMIGA! | NASA Lewis Research Center - Summer Intern
- \_____________|_____smneyln@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov________________/
- -+ How do YOU spell 'potato'? How about 'lousy'? +-
- "Me and Spike are big Malcolm 10 supporters."-J.S.,PLCL
-