From: smneyln@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Michael Neylon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Subject: Re: @$#^@$%# 2.04!
Date: 30 Jul 92 18:30:00 GMT
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Jul30.141311.17544@fripp.ri.cadre.com>, jh@cadre.com writes...
>In article 10217@ecsvax.uncecs.edu, urjlew@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (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.
>
Well, here in Cleveland (and probably at several other cities) there are
no more upgrade kits (Somer's has been out for 3 MONTHS).  The new shipment
has no set date on it either (basically when C= gets around to it.) So if
companies started producing the 2.0 only product now, several folks will not
be able to upgrade immediately, and they will get upset.


>>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.

As was pointed out earlier, all Amigas released now have 2.0 ROMs, no prob
> 
>>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.

Thank god for sockets!  Imagine trying to replace the motherboard!

(note: is there a reverse to zkick ie load 1.3 roms, and go that way?)
> 
>>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 onyl patch that I ever have to run twice is a PAL switch, and thats only
to set envioment variables as to max screen size, grf memory...


>>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.
>
C= is not shipping, as it were, the second round of upgrades.  Most
dealers are still waiting for em...

>>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.
> 
By offering upgrades, and not switching (forcing) software to the new OS
soon after, Amiga has overcome IBM in customer service.  Yes, there are a
few folks who hate the Amigas, and I know I will eventually purchase a top-line
IBM machine, but I will never give up on my Amiga.  It has and will serve
me well. Now if we can only get C= off their butts and make them advertise..


>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

I called in my order for 2.0 yesterday, so I will be eagerly awaiting the
arrival of them.

As for software, there is no need for 'standard' (software that doesnt
mess with the actual system) software to be system dependant.  It should
be able to use libraries of both systems equally well...

Michael Neylon   aka Masem the Great and Almighty Thermodynamics GOD!
      //         | Senoir, Chemical Engineering, Univ. of Toledo
  \\ // Only the |   Summer Intern, NASA Lewis Research Center
\  \X/   AMIGA!  |          smneyln@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov              /
 --------+ How do YOU spell 'potato'?  How 'bout 'lousy'? +----------
    "Me and Spike are big Malcolm 10 supporters." - J.S.,P.L.C.L