CompuServe Messages

Rob: I hafta agree. If CBM is going to just do fixes and trim up a few nasties like they did 1.2 -> 1.3, then they should've had the code out long ago. The development time should've been comparable to the dev time for 1.2 -> 1.3 . For the length of time they've worked on 1.4, I darned well expect some serious improvements. It's cool by me, and prolly everybody else, if CBM takes a long time on producing QUALITY. It's when they take a long time producing mere bug fixes that ticks me off. I wish CBM would release a short list of at least PART of the WB1.4 specs so that we know what we're waiting for. NOTE: releasing A3000 specs would prolly cut into A2x00 slaes, but releasing info on OS updates should only RAISE sales. If we know what we're waiting for, maybe we'd wait more peacefully. 🙂 [and maybe we'd do less rumormongering!] On the 2.0 thing, CBM might do well to rename WB1.4 as WB2.0, just for marketing reasons. Previous statements about the meaning of the revision number "2.0" would have to be scrapped, of course, but I think Amiga sales would be helped by a bigger number. Just look at the "Photon Paint/DigiPaint revision number war" to see what I mean. People really think revision numbers mean something other than, "This version is different from the last one." I work for Washington State U's M.E. dept writing sampling software for PC's. I changed the sampling system recently, and the configuration files were incompatible (every version of the sampler has had a unique config file), so I changed the veriosn number from 280 to 290. (they're displayed with decimals to the user.) Two weeks back, I changed the actual output file for the first time, and I went to version 300. I actually had people telling me they liked new features in "3.00" that had always been in the telling me they liked new features in "3.00" that had always been in the (oop) a more compact file format. -TL