NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/comp/sys/amiga/hardware/13469

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-30 | 5.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!cadreor!fripp!xtc!jh
From: [e-mail] (Joe Hartley)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: @$#^@$%# 2.04!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 30 Jul 92 14:13:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: fripp.1992Jul30.141311.17544
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News Poster Account)
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: Cadre Technologies Inc.
Lines: 90
Nntp-Posting-Host: xtc

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Rostyk Lewyckyj) writes:
>Since DOS 2.04 has been officially released, it is certainly desirable
>to have as many applications, both major and minor, as possible,
>support and exploit its features. However because there are so many
>systems which are stuck with older releases of DOS, because 2.04
>is not available to them, it is counterproductive to AMIGAs image
>to have the software require 2.04 to even run. Current owners of
>systems that want to but cannot upgrade become frustrated and feel
>let down by C= and the program vendors.

2.04 unavailable?  I've never heard of a system that can't be upgraded to
2.04.  I'm on a 1000, and I run 2.04.  I've seen 500's and 2000's running
it as well, so I find this statement hard to swallow.

>Prospective machine buyers
>seeing the situation will be wary of buying a system where
>they may not be able to upgrade to the next version of the DOS and
>applications revision.

Again, I see no machine that can't move to 2.0.

>I place the blame squarely on bad system design and bungled
>system support by C=. The bad design is in choosing to put such
>a large portion of the system in ROM, so that upgrading to the
>next revision of the operating system requires hardware modification
>in the form of swapping ROMS. This makes upgrades unnecessarily
>difficult and in some cases practically infeasible. For example
>upgrading an A1000 to DOS 2.04.

There are some very good reasons to put the bootstrap routines on
a ROM chip.  I disagree that a ROM swap is unnecessarily difficult.
For folks like me who aren't scared of hardware, I can do it myself.
Others can go to a dealer or have a hardware-knowledgeable friend
do it.  As for 2.04 on a 1000, I reiterate, I have it.  I use ZKick to
put a file image of the ROM into my RAM (please note that I have purchased
2.04 and that this is not illegal to do.)  I've also installed ROM
cards in a couple of 1000's.  THey're pretty cheap, and relatively
easy to put in.

>Since obtaining and installing
>new ROMS is so much more difficult than distributing program
>corrections on disk or via a network, problem corrections are
>less likely. Yes the ROM code can be bypasses by loading patches
>(?? name) from setpatch disks. But this makes booting a two step
>process. I consider the Kickstart - DOS, KS - WB, system partitioning
>to be a design misfeature. The WB is not even properly named since
>it includes the CLI and other non WORKBENCH pieces.

??? All the setpatches I have seen run cleanly from within my
startup-sequence, and don't force a second boot.  Perhaps you just
don't know how to properly use the tools you have.

>The bungled support is in not having the DOS upgrades available
>for shipping at the time of the official release of the new version
>of DOS. It is ridiculous that DOS 2.05 is shipping in some new
>machines and yet DOS 2.04 is not readily available.
>(I have an A3000 purchased in Aug 1990. I have not heard a peep
>from C= about a ROM upgrade, although it is my understanding that
>it was a part the purchase package. I don't even know if the A3000
>ROM upgrades exist. Last I checked with a dealer, in April, they
>were not yet out)

I haven't heard of anybody around here having problems getting 2.04.
Perhaps you have had a misunderstanding with your dealer.

>Compare the situation to the (BOO   HISS  we love to hate them)
>IBM/MSDOS PCs and clones. At which DOS upgrades did the users need
>to swap BIOS ROMS??? Can DOS 5.0 be run on an original IBM PC?

DOS 5.0 will run on a PC, but not very well.  I do know, though, that
Windows 3.0 won't run on it.  the people who have clung to their PSs and
even XTs have found themselves left behind by many, many software programs
that now require 80286 or even '386 CPUs to run.  Compare that to the Amiga
line, where I can run any software at all except for a couple of games
that require a Meg of CHIP RAM.

I find your post to be a rant against something you don't seem to know
much about, or at the very least, a tirade that you need to spend an extra
50 bucks on a card to make your 8 year old 1000 run 2.04.  I think the
Amiga line has held up pretty well over time, although more R&D at
Commodore would certainly be a nice change of pace.

---
===============================================================================
Joe Hartley          | [e-mail]  -  Whenever you find that you are on the
Cadre Technologies   | side of the majority, it is time to reform. - M. Twain
222 Richmond St.     | --------------------------------------------------------
Providence, RI 02903 | Overman 1st Class - the Kilgore Trout Memorial Clench
[phone] x266  |            of the Church of the SubGenius
===============================================================================