CompuServe Thread

Janus 3.0

18 messages in this thread
#73152From: Kelly JordanOct 11, 1992 7:07 AM
Has Janus 3.0 been released yet in the form of an upgrade package?
#73304From: Marion J DelandOct 12, 1992 4:14 PM
Kelly, Not yet. (It's Janus 2.1, actually.) I've strongly suggested it to Commodore, but it's low on their list of priorities, I guess. Marion CROSSINGS Newsletter for the Bridgeboard, etc.
#73493From: Mark D. ManesOct 14, 1992 8:03 PM
Janus 2.1 is now available via Commodore parts. You use the same part number for Janus 2.0. -mark=
#73609From: Mike HobartOct 15, 1992 10:46 PM
How do you contact 'Commodore parts' this is the first that I've heard of it. Are you SURE that they have the same part # for two different versions. I don't want to spend my money and just get another copy of what I already have. Mike
#73638From: Betty Clay/SYSOPOct 16, 1992 11:38 AM
Mike, If you leave a question in CBMSER (Commodore service), Greg will get you part numbers within a few days, along with the price. He's doing this after work hours these days, just so the service will still be provided, so he doesn't get on every day, but usually two or three times a week. —Betty
#73751From: Mike HobartOct 17, 1992 11:56 PM
Thanks for the info. Mike
#73681From: Mark D. ManesOct 16, 1992 11:29 PM
You get to Commodore parts via your Amiga dealer, and yes, I am sure about the part number. We ordered it, and whammo, we got 2.1 of Janus. This after talking to Commodore about it. -mark=
#73700From: Christopher TolmieOct 17, 1992 10:04 AM
MarkM, How about the part number for the High Density Drives for the A2000? Is there a different number for the A3000, too? Ready to take orders? chris
#73792From: Mark D. ManesOct 18, 1992 4:30 PM
I will have to check on that… I read here that one dealer had his ordered filled on the high density drives, alas, that has not happened to us. -mark=
#73752From: Mike HobartOct 17, 1992 11:59 PM
Thanks for the confirmation re the parts number. It just looked a bit odd compared to most software/computer stuff. It would actually make SENSE if you ordered with a part number and then got the most up to date version. That's probably why I expressed some disbelief. I work with computers for a living so I've come to be (probably too) skeptical about the companies. Thanks again! Mike
#73987From: Marion J DelandOct 20, 1992 5:26 PM
Mark, Good. Thanks for letting me know… Marion CROSSINGS Newsletter for the Bridgeboard, etc.
#73608From: Mike HobartOct 15, 1992 10:44 PM
I really can't understand CBM (and other computer manufacturers at times, actually many times). They have a product ready which improves their existing product and addresses problems their users have had. Then they wait and wait to release it. If they really wanted to support their users they would follow a lead like Apple's, and release the software for downloading from the forum and for distribution via user groups and over the internet. If you wanted new manuals, buy the upgrade kit which included them. We've already bought the hardware – we want to use it more! Why delay. Unhappy/dissatisfied customers are death to a product. Happy/ satisfied customers are things which no advertising budget can buy! Mike
#73723From: Brian CowanOct 17, 1992 12:44 PM
They did this — updating software via electronic distribution — ONCE. The 1.3.0 –> 1.3.2 upgrade. I was rather annoyed that they didn't do it again. // Brian — Cruising on AutoPilot….. \X/
#73753From: Mike HobartOct 18, 1992 12:01 AM
The fact that they HAD done it, which was very convenient, was one of the reasons I brought up the point. One of the other messages, which said that the dealer got it very quickly, was very encouraging. Mike
#73793From: Mark D. ManesOct 18, 1992 4:30 PM
Brian, I remember when Commodore updated its software via electronic distribution. The 'folks' out there gave them hell for doing it, because they did not release it to 'usenet', nor did they allow it to be posted on the local bulletin boards. So, I suspect they will never do it again. People are always so quick to bite the hand that feeds them. -mark=
#74482From: Brian CowanOct 24, 1992 11:30 PM
Well, for crying out loud, the C= policy was a little oddball. After all, the update was useless without the original program. But user complaints about it were not so swift either. They should have innundated C= with requests to post it to Usenet, Local BBS's affiliated with Amiga user groups, etc. That may have brought about a morefavorable response…. // Brian — Cruising on AutoPilot….. \X/
#73986From: Marion J DelandOct 20, 1992 5:25 PM
Mike… I agree, and I've told Commodore so. I think it's just low on the list of priorities at a time when Commodore is introducing a lot of new stuff. Marion CROSSINGS Newsletter for the Bridgeboard, etc.
#74268From: Mike HobartOct 22, 1992 9:48 PM
News item as of Monday – Apple decides to start charging users for operating system upgrades previously offered free. ($99/shot). I wonder if Apple will offer rebates for the "Updaters" which fix the upgrades. My favorite headline in a computer magazine last spring went to a MacWeek editiorial "Quality is not job 1.1.1", referring to Apple's infamous release of the wrong updater (1.1) to fix the updater (1.) to Mac O.S. 7.0. I'm not knocking Apple on the fact that you have to issue a bug fix, that's a fact of life, especially when a new release is a virtually total rewrite of the O.S. But the fact is that their bug fix introduced as many bugs as it fixed. The fix-to-the-fix-to-the-fixer did seem to get it right. Enough pontificating… Mike