CompuServe Thread

#Up/Loads

6 messages in this thread
#33050From: Edson K. GrayMar 13, 1993 5:44 PM
Hi All, First I would like to apologize for the Message #: 32916 S16/Ramblings 09-Mar-93 Sb: It's sad. By the tone of some of the replies, I realize that the reason for the POST was misunderstood. If I might explain, at the time of posting this message I had (for the Nth time) just Down/Loaded another file which needs O/S2.# to run. As my CI$ bill can quickly become rather high. This (for now) waste of money, ticked me off. As I it has been a long time since I have read any Amiga magazines, and only recently joined CIS I had not considered that there were third party venders who (for a fee) could help to keep my AMI up to date. Thanks to all for pointing this out. OH YAH: the reason for the original POST. When Up/Loading do you not think it a good idea to note in the 1 line description, if a program is 2.0 or 3.0 specific ? Thanks Edson
#33052From: Steve AhlstromMar 13, 1993 6:30 PM
Edson, 1.3 is no longer supported by Commodore. 2.0 and 3.0 is the supported standard (and they are compatible). Because of that, in the file descriptions of all newly uploaded files no notation of which OS is required will be listed UNLESS 1.3 (or earlier) is required.
#33079From: Edson K. GrayMar 14, 1993 9:24 AM
Steve, If I read this right, if the file description does not say it will run on 1.3 I should assume it is for 2.0 and up ?
#33086From: Steve AhlstromMar 14, 1993 2:04 PM
Edson, No. If the file _requires_ 1.3 it will say so. -sja
#33066From: Jonathan BlackwellMar 13, 1993 11:48 PM
1.3 is not supported by CBM anyway. I would not care to see needless notation. On the other hand, it would be nice to see that some of the old program have a 1.3 requirement notation. -Jonathan
#33069From: Betty Clay/SYSOPMar 14, 1993 12:28 AM
Edson, We try to get a note in the full description if something requires 2.0x or 3.0, but that little one-line description is just too short for us to put it in there all the time. —Betty