CompuServe Thread

#What's Broken in Beta

41 messages in this thread
#104484From: Wayne ColeMay 14, 1990 1:25 AM
[ continuation ] one for delivery this July. And this was after going in with checkbook in hand and A3000 "wowism" in heart. It seems if one is interested in video the A3000 is not the best platform. All-in-all, a mildly dissappointing experience. wmc
#104501From: Don Curtis/SYSOPMay 14, 1990 1:49 AM
Wayne, Hang on….you were running BETA software on that 3000. Not the software you brought in…the Operating System is beta! Wait till v2.0 is firmed up…then try your software. Don
#104740From: Wayne ColeMay 15, 1990 2:18 AM
Don, I realize I was running beta. Sorry if it appeared I was being other than objective on the software. I was just reporting and didn't mean to imply anything other than if you plan to see all this stuff demo'd at the dealer, well… The only other thing is that I think it is really gamma, no? Be that as it may, the packages that DO break under release 2.0 (there is no such thing as bug free software…) will be a subset of what is broken now. So some people may want to wait to plonk the dough down until the companies or CBM demostrate working release versions of software X if they can't live without it. If your "must have" software is working under the current beta/gamma (and I believe diffent dealers have different releas levels, true?) it is safe to assume it will run under the released version. Now, the subjective part of my comments…Why the mushy wimpy keayboard!!! I like my 2000 Keyboard… It pushes back! Do you know for certain if the keyboards are interchangeable? My Dealer says no, another dealer says yes and the CBM A3000 hot line says, "..er, well, ah..". wmc
#104825From: Don Curtis/SYSOPMay 15, 1990 5:34 PM
Wayne, No…2.0 OS is still beta, no idea on the keyboards. Don
#105122From: John DraperMay 17, 1990 2:06 AM
Strange… my 3000 keyboard 'pushes back'.. my 2000 keyboard is mushy and wimpy. -larry
#105127From: Don Curtis/SYSOPMay 17, 1990 2:36 AM
Larry (and Wayne), Obviously, as in the past, there is more than one supplier of keyboards for the Amiga. For example, I really didn't like the Cherry keyboards at all, the HyTek is not bad…in fact, I'd call it a good keyboard…and the A1000 was the best of the lot. So I presume that Wayne used the equivalent of the Cherry on the 3000…and you've got the equivalent of the HyTek on your A300. Don
#105641From: Wayne ColeMay 21, 1990 12:21 AM
Lary, I get the sense that the keyboard on all models was a "grab bag" as far as the touch. Since the 2000 kbd ccan be used with the 3000, I'm no longer concerned as I can swap if the 3000 comes in with one as mushy as the demo unit. BTW for the benefit of those who seem to be overly sensitive to 3000 criticism (not you, Larry) the mushy feel is just like a $13000 Compaq set up at work which many peopl like…its only an opinion about feel and not about quality…(shees, its so tough to have opinions these days…) wmc
#105647From: John DraperMay 21, 1990 12:56 AM
Wayne, You are right about the 'grab bag' and keyboard feel I think, and for sure about the subjective nature of what constitutes a good feel. -larry
#104506From: Mike SchillerMay 14, 1990 3:35 AM
Wayne: First off, posting this list is BAD. Your dealer obviously has an older revision of the 2.0 software, as the local dealer here has a 3000 , and Pagestream DOES work on it. Remember, the OS out now is BETA, and as such, is subject to change, in other words, most everything WILL work by the time for release version is ready! Also, the 3000 keyboards are probably as bad as the 500 & 2000 keyboards in as much as there isn't that much consistancy between different ones. I've owned 3 different 500's, and now have a 2000, and all three 500's had a different feel to them, some I liked, some I didn't, my 2000 has a nice feel to it, and the 3000 at the dealer definatly has a great feel to it. Don't judge the whole crop from one sample! -Mike Schiller CIS: 76416,3065
#104741From: Wayne ColeMay 15, 1990 2:19 AM
Mike, Does the 3k kbd you played with feel real "light" (like you barely touch it and the key registers) or is it like my 2000 where you can rest the weight of the fingers on the keys without a stroke happening (you actually gotta push…). I realize the os is beta. I was not implying anything, just reporting. And it ain't bad to say what does/does not run under 2.0 as there WILL be programs that don't run under 2.0. Most notabley those who ignored CBM conventions. Those PGMs will be a subset of the now broken ones. So, since dealers are taking deposits for delivery positions on A3000's and your gotta-have-it-cause-thats-how-I-make-a-living software is in the no work catagoy now, you might want to hold off buying until later. BTW, if its bad to report what is not working, its bad to report that the entire paula is not new, that the special chips still run at 7khz etc… its all information one needs to make inteligent buying desisions. wmc
#105126From: John DraperMay 17, 1990 2:10 AM
Beta software is subject to change. The frequency of the custom chips is not. It is not fair to repoert failing software under a beta OS, because people will remember that, and will be saying either that the OS or the program is no good. -larry
#105642From: Wayne ColeMay 21, 1990 12:21 AM
People take all kinds of things out of context. I can't be responsible for them. I offer, they take. If they take the napkin without the doughnut, what can I do…;^} wmc
#105648From: John DraperMay 21, 1990 1:06 AM
Well, the point is, they do take things either out of context, or on a mistaken notion that people are talking about a released product. It does do harm, as can be seen by the person who was under the impression that the 3000 was buggy becuase some programs wouldn't run under 2.0 on it. It was corrected, but what about the casual reader? What about the person just dropping in to a conversation in the middle of it, perhaps looking to see what's up with the latest Amiga stuff? Can you conceive of such a person saying "Forget it! It's buggy, and I'll stick with my Compaq or whatever"? I can, and the worst part is that the person doing that might never make it known that he came, he saw, and he left emnpty handed and with an impression that does not reflect the true situation. A while back, I got mail from people reading some of the threads here, asking about the speed and capabilities of the 3000. They were asking if all the negative things being put forth were true. I set them straight with what I hope was a fair and accurate assesment of the capabilities of the new machine, but the mail I got was probably only from a small fraction of the people who read the same things into the conversation, but didn't take the time to ask what the facts were, and that, my friend, is what bothers me about the whole thing. In the case of the conversation in question that prompted the members to email, it infuriated me, which was probably quite apparent in my responses to the messages in question. -larry
#104521From: David McCabeMay 14, 1990 7:00 AM
If people insist on posting lists of software that does or does not work with OS 2.0B, why don't they at least type the Version command in a CLI and find out the exact version number of the OS that is on the 3000 they are testing. Then the rest of us could see the evolution of the BETA releases. Thanx, David McCabe
#104744From: Wayne ColeMay 15, 1990 2:19 AM
Dave, Good point! If I get back this weekend I will do that. I'm also interested in hearing if other people have experience with those packages running on beta/gamma versions. The other thing to check (as i reported) is the memory config. My dealer had one with 2meg chip and that may have bothered some programs that rely on fast ram being present. wmc
#104566From: Steve AhlstromMay 14, 1990 12:32 PM
Wayne, Your dealer is either very unknowledgable about Amiga, stupid, or feels little need to support the machine. All dealers who legitimately got the 3000 demo unit(s) also go a very nice dealer book complete with wholesale/retail pricing, ad slicks, glossy brouchures, etc. Your run down of what does and does not work under 2.0 is not relevant. 2.0 is in beta, it is not for sale, nor will it be anytime soon. Dealer demo 3000s were set up so you could boot from 1.3 or the beta 2.0. If your dealer hasn't figured this out he should seriously consider getting out of the Amiga market before he does more damage from ignorance. -sja
#104673From: Ethan SolomitaMay 14, 1990 9:29 PM
Wayne, you've been reading all the posts here so yours is really inexcusable. You know full well by now that 2.0 is not finished software and that you don't know what will work and what won't. I posted a list of a few programs, but I made sure to note that those were pre-release trials. You know full well that 2.0 is in beta and that the o/s has bugs, not necessarily the software. None of those problems should have ANYTHING to do with the A3000 itself. Besides, the 2000 etc. will be shipped with 2.0 eventually. Look before you leap (to conclusions) next time! — Ethan
#104708From: Mark OlbertMay 14, 1990 11:58 PM
As Voltaire once said, "I do not agree with what you have said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." For goodness sake, let's stop personalizing all this A3000 early beta what software fails what works stuff. Unless we're willing to assume Wayne is nuts he's just reporting what he saw, along with conclusions based on what he saw. What's the big deal about doing that??? – Mark
#104794From: Steve AhlstromMay 15, 1990 11:30 AM
Mark, Cuz Wayne IS nuts! <grin> (going back under my rock so Wayne doesn't see me) -sja
#104801From: John BonoMay 15, 1990 12:33 PM
In addition, remember that since 2.0 is in beta, they may be fixing each bug as it comes along, so revisions may be coming hot and heavy to dealers. It may come down to when the dealer received the machine as to what version it is, and how buggy it is. John
#104872From: Dean BrownMay 15, 1990 9:01 PM
John, and All: Please remember that the version of OS that your dealer has, is not necessaraly the current release. Nor is there any reason to believe that the dealers will be kept up to date on Beta releases. Many of the non-working programs listed here on CIS have already been reported to CBM as compatability issues, and there is a stated intent by CBM to keep as much of the released software working as possible. I believe, (my opinion only) that in excess of 90% of the current software will work under 2.0 by the time it is released. Dean DKB Software
#104870From: Steve PietrowiczMay 15, 1990 9:00 PM
The big deal is that while many of our members know that the A3000 is running beta software, there are others that don't know that. We've got new people signing on for the first time to find out about the A3000, and they'll see something like that and say, "Gee, the A3000 doesn't run any of the current software, why should I bother?" Worse yet, they'll tell other people about it too.
#105714From: Mark OlbertMay 21, 1990 7:13 PM
Steve, In that case, I think the solution is an open commentary and exchange of ideas. Most people read up as much as they can about issues like software compatability before they spend thousands on a piece of hardware. I just don't like the idea of surpressing any honestly-inspired commentary, regardless of how phrased. – Mark
#105949From: Steve PietrowiczMay 23, 1990 5:42 AM
I never said anything about surpressing commentary. It's important to clearly state that the OS software is BETA, because just saying something like "DPAINT doesn't work on the 3000" is misleading to people that don't know the software is in BETA. Recently I was in a store where a few people were playing with the 3000 and one of them said "Well, it's nice, but it won't run most of the software that's out". I stepped in and pointed out that the software was in BETA still, and that it was likely that most software would run in the release version of 2.0…other would require upgrades. If I hadn't said that, those folks would have gone off with the wrong impression of the machine. The same thing can happen here. As long as it's clearly stated it was "tested" under Beta (an OLD beta by the way), there is no problem. Anything else is misleading to people not "in the know". Steve
#105019From: Ethan SolomitaMay 16, 1990 4:17 PM
What bothered me was how he said he was so disappointed because nothing worked, when he knew from our discussions here that this was the case as the software was in beta. — Ethan
#105715From: Mark OlbertMay 21, 1990 7:15 PM
Ethan, Not knowing all the details, I agree that that would be bothersome. On the other hand, I can understand his frustration. We would all like it to work perfectly as soon as it's available for playing around with. -Mark
#104754From: Wayne ColeMay 15, 1990 2:23 AM
Ethan, I thought the title "whats broken in beta" was sufficient. I also don't recall trying to tell people "dont buy this machine caus nothing works!" Everyone here, I believe, knows full well that it is in beta. So your argument about my reading all the messages argues against you….all the messages say beta beta beta – why do I need to repeat it? I'm talking to the choir, not the GP. wmc
#105001From: Vic WagnerMay 16, 1990 2:30 PM
Unfortunately, I must disagree. It's NOT the choir I'm worried about. You ARE talking to the GP. Where do you thing the GP goes to get information? Victor A. Wagner, Jr.
#105376From: Wayne ColeMay 19, 1990 2:32 AM
Vic, The GP goes to dealers, the "addicts" go to CIS….;^} wmc
#105021From: Ethan SolomitaMay 16, 1990 4:17 PM
I'm sorry if I misinterpreted what you were saying, but it sounded like you were saying how nothing worked under 2.0 and you were very "disappointed". If that wasn't your intentions then I'm sorry but both the GP and the informed read these messages and if I misinterpreted what you were saying… — Ethan
#105378From: Wayne ColeMay 19, 1990 2:33 AM
Ethan, The only disappointment is that I felt that it may be an indicator that some of the initial release dates might be 3 – 6 weeks optomistic, and that the 1.3 to 2.0 transition might be a little more drawn out (in terms of programs catching up) than the previous upgrades. wmc
#104684From: Karl SparklinMay 14, 1990 9:57 PM
Wayne, While there are certainly quite a few things that have broken under the current beta version of 2.0, I'd expect that to change quickly. Also, others report that quite a few things DO run OK. I felt as you did, seeing most things at my dealer's bomb, but realize now that the things that were on his HD were not the programs that folks were saying were OK. So it's a mixed bag at the moment, but since it's not a release, I'm not too worried. Developers have had access to this version of 2.0 for some time, and if they have any interest in staying in business, have been working out some upgrade path or an agreement with CBM as to what would be "fixed". I'm sure many aren't HAPPY about that (understandably), but they have a little time to work it out. Karl
#104756From: Wayne ColeMay 15, 1990 2:23 AM
Karl, Well put and my feelings as well. I just liked getting feed back from those who were able to get some of the pgms running that are not on the the machine I played with. That gives me and idea of how long initial delivery 3000 owners (among which I may be) might have to wait for certain programs to run well with 2.0. wmc
#104873From: Dean BrownMay 15, 1990 9:01 PM
Wayne, You might want to ask your dealer to try to install more FAST RAM in his A3000. Many of the programs that crashed, probably did so because after loading KickStart into FAST RAM, there is only about 200K left. When the release OS is put into ROM, much of this problem will disapear. Dean DKB Software
#104956From: Wayne ColeMay 16, 1990 1:57 AM
Dean, He told me after I finihed playing, (and he was bout to close) that all the RAM was config'd as chip ram: (Is that possible at this point?) I will mention your suggestion to him, tho. wmc
#105066From: Dean BrownMay 16, 1990 9:41 PM
Wayne, I'm not sure if it is possible. The machine can use 2 meg of CHIP RAM, but it may require at least 512K of FAST RAM in order for KickStart to load. Dean
#105103From: David ArtMay 17, 1990 12:37 AM
Wayne, Let's examine what you've said to date: 1) Your dealer has an advance demo of a machine that has a demo beta version of the operating system, which he knows is demo and beta. 2) He opened the machine and intentionally changed the configuration of the memory from 1 meg CHIP + 1 meg FAST to 2 megs CHIP. 3) He (and you) are complaining that nothing seems to work on the machine with the beta OS and the changed hardware configuration. Is that about it? Doesn't seem like there's a lot of substance to your claims up to this point. David
#105640From: Wayne ColeMay 21, 1990 12:21 AM
David, Guess your glasses need cleaning. I never said the dealer changed the demo unit memory configuration. I said he reported it to me. The exact truth is he reported it with words like, " the ***h***s sent the d**** thing with 2 megs of chip ram and no fast ram…" I did not ask if "they" were CBM or his main location. Again, because people can't hear me or see facial expressions they read their own emotions into the message exactly as you have done. Because of your emotional commitment to the goodness of the machine, any report to the contrary you take as a personal affront. I was not complaining… I made a report on my experiments. Part of good scientific method is disclosing the nature of the experimental setup. I DID err in that I did not get the exact rev of the OS to post; the memory observation was a report of the setup puposely to allow people to know that the problems may have been due to the setup that I thought was the root of some of the packages' problems. If it makes you feel better, I will be ordering one as soon as I figure out how to get the bread together… wmc
#105748From: David ArtMay 21, 1990 10:17 PM
Wayne, A good scientific method dictates that you should also have meaningful data to publish. (Yes, I do consider posting a message on an international message base system as publishing.) A good scientific method dictates that you post things like the configuration of the machine and the OS rev. level. A good scientific method also includes your own observations and conclusions from the data as a part of the original posting, not as some afterthought. Wayne, it was precisely your lack of scientific method that I gave me problems with your posting. It was not, as you suggest, a personal affront. Posting messages that package 'X' doesn't work with 2.0, without giving the necessary information for people to analyze the validity of your conclusions seems more like "shooting from the hip" than a scientific report on a controlled experiment. You are entitled to your own opinions, and are entitled to post them within the policies of CIS and the AmigaForum. I have no problem with that. It's "pseudo-facts" posted without qualifying information that I have a problem with. i.e. you can post, but expect to be challenged, and don't think that anybody who challenges you has dirty glasses. People need to realize that problems discovered with a beta release are problems that are getting fixed, not problems that they can expect to have. The time to consider posting messages on what works and what doesn't work is when the OS is released. Anyway, I take it from the last line of your message that you must have the confidence that the problems will be fixed in the release version, since you indicated your desire to purchase an A3000, so, I'll end this with a 8) David
#105531From: Ray LewisMay 20, 1990 11:34 AM
Yes, it is possible to configure up to 2K as chip ram by simply moving the 1K of fast ram that comes with the machine over to the chip side. I guess your dealer wanted to see how the machine worked with a full 2K of chip. However, all the articles I have read say that you should only do that when you add MORE fast ram. ?|^] Ray Lewis
#105653From: Wayne ColeMay 21, 1990 1:57 AM
Ray, He got it that way (and wasn't happy about it). He put it back to 1 and 1 during the week and I played with it some this weekend. It seemed to load and allow editing of PageStream files excpet for graphics. He said he got ProPage working except for graphics too. Probably somehing in the beta version (ks 36.28, wb 36.10). wmc