Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Some 2.04?  (Read 2664 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16867
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: Some 2.04?
« Reply #14 on: September 25, 2005, 08:02:31 PM »
That was a confusingly generic comment.
int p; // A
 

Offline NarayanTopic starter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Sep 2005
  • Posts: 254
    • Show only replies by Narayan
Re: Some 2.04?
« Reply #15 on: September 25, 2005, 08:05:15 PM »
Furthermore 3.1 on incomplete (or as I tend to say this), not finished A1200 (does anyone remembers it - the thing had a 020 it didn't show) and on wastly too strong A4000 - empty as hell!!! always left me a tiny, tiny feeling of hungriness in my stomach. Something wasn't right, something was overpumped or not done right, and it was a bit uncomfortable to work on.

The Workbench 2.04 was a finished, up to that dates project. Small as any WB, but hey, what can you do with windows or in windows, and Amigas had lots games.

Now you go, and bring that beer here - if you want. (nothing otherwise)
 

Offline NarayanTopic starter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Sep 2005
  • Posts: 254
    • Show only replies by Narayan
Re: Some 2.04?
« Reply #16 on: September 25, 2005, 08:07:00 PM »
Quote

Karlos wrote:
That was a confusingly generic comment.


Not to say defaultless.

 

Offline doctorq

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2003
  • Posts: 2077
    • Show only replies by doctorq
Re: Some 2.04?
« Reply #17 on: September 25, 2005, 08:09:29 PM »
Quote

Karlos wrote:
That was a confusingly generic comment.


I'll second that. I can't understand what the f### he is trying to tell us. All I know is that I'm still as confused after reading it, as the first 3 times I read it.

Maybe it's this generic {bleep} my head can't cope with :-)
 

Offline doctorq

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2003
  • Posts: 2077
    • Show only replies by doctorq
Re: Some 2.04?
« Reply #18 on: September 25, 2005, 08:14:04 PM »
Quote

Narayan wrote:
Furthermore 3.1 on incomplete (or as I tend to say this), not finished A1200 (does anyone remembers it - the thing had a 020 it didn't show) and on wastly too strong A4000 - empty as hell!!! always left me a tiny, tiny feeling of hungriness in my stomach. Something wasn't right, something was overpumped or not done right, and it was a bit uncomfortable to work on.

The Workbench 2.04 was a finished, up to that dates project. Small as any WB, but hey, what can you do with windows or in windows, and Amigas had lots games.

Now you go, and bring that beer here - if you want. (nothing otherwise)


Now I would need to quote you something you said earlier in this thread.

Quote

Who said so ?? Where is the proof ??


And this slightly changed quote
Quote

Ok, this would be that what you do is right.
 

Offline NarayanTopic starter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Sep 2005
  • Posts: 254
    • Show only replies by Narayan
Re: Some 2.04?
« Reply #19 on: September 25, 2005, 08:17:21 PM »
Yours is to do not then.
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16867
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: Some 2.04?
« Reply #20 on: September 25, 2005, 08:22:52 PM »
Good grief. Even 420dude made more sense *after* smoking several times his own bodyweight in cannabis...
int p; // A
 

Offline Ilwrath

Re: Some 2.04?
« Reply #21 on: September 25, 2005, 09:19:36 PM »
Quote
OS2.0 was the single most important release of the system software (on 68K anyway) to date. Without it, no serious future compatible applications could have been developed.


True.  Though for the 1.3 family, you could argue 1.1 was that same key release.  Of course, you'll not find many people left who seriously want to use 1.1, nor do I think you'd find many people left who would seriously want to run 2.04.  

Indeed, 2.04 WAS a key release from a historical standpoint.  The A3000 and Workbench 2.04 were huge milestones to the early 90's Amiga.  But, really...  When Workbench 2.1 came out, why on earth WOULDN'T you upgrade to it, even back then?

Quote
Btw, what did you mean with "multiple (and alternative) serial.device handling"?
 

From Greg Donner's amazingly complete Workbench site, it's listed that Workbench 2.1 was the first release to have the new serial/parallel.device preferences support.  I think I remember this was a major factor in my own upgrading to 2.1 as I wanted to use a custom turbo serial.device that crashed out 2.04.  

(Of course, I might have missed the boat on this part, as my memory is a bit hazy when asking me questions about how I ran a BBS on an A500 back a good 12 years ago.  It might have been my CNet BBS software I had to update to run the optimized serial.device.  ;-)  )
 

Offline kd7ota

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2002
  • Posts: 1433
    • Show only replies by kd7ota
    • http://www.qrz.com
Re: Some 2.04?
« Reply #22 on: September 26, 2005, 02:54:28 PM »
Quote

Karlos wrote:
Good grief. Even 420dude made more sense *after* smoking several times his own bodyweight in cannabis...


I second that. I think wiping before you take a #2 makes more sense.  :-D  :-)

...Maybe there should be a 2nd name. Instead of Doommaster. Maybe Quakemaster?  :-)
-=-=-=-=-=-
Mine!  :-D
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16867
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: Some 2.04?
« Reply #23 on: September 26, 2005, 04:18:45 PM »
We already have a Quakemaster. Goes by the name of blobrana :-D
int p; // A
 

Offline kd7ota

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2002
  • Posts: 1433
    • Show only replies by kd7ota
    • http://www.qrz.com
Re: Some 2.04?
« Reply #24 on: September 26, 2005, 04:37:45 PM »
Quote

Karlos wrote:
We already have a Quakemaster. Goes by the name of blobrana :-D


 :-D Well, I guess we can chose another name for him.  Not sure what, because I haven't took the time to think on it.  :-)

In other notes... I used to have An Amiga 600.  Rocked when it worked, but the drive later broke, and then the Amiga soon just gave out. Awsome for its time.
-=-=-=-=-=-
Mine!  :-D
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16867
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: Some 2.04?
« Reply #25 on: September 26, 2005, 04:41:57 PM »
I share your sentiment.

My A600 just literally stopped working one day. There's no activity of any kind when you power it on. There's also no sign of any damage to the motherboard and I have tried several PSUs all of which were in working order.

It is still sitting there at my parents place, turning a deeper shade of yellow with each passing year :-(
int p; // A
 

Offline NarayanTopic starter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Sep 2005
  • Posts: 254
    • Show only replies by Narayan
Re: Some 2.04?
« Reply #26 on: September 26, 2005, 05:31:58 PM »
Such a shame for such quality computer.
 

Offline Managarm

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jan 2005
  • Posts: 263
    • Show only replies by Managarm
    • http://www.freewebs.com/robinslair
Re: Some 2.04?
« Reply #27 on: September 26, 2005, 05:52:29 PM »
A friend of mine had one years ago, I never liked the lack of numeric keypad to be honest. The built in modulator was a cool step forward from the A500 though.
 

Offline NarayanTopic starter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Sep 2005
  • Posts: 254
    • Show only replies by Narayan
Re: Some 2.04?
« Reply #28 on: September 26, 2005, 06:03:50 PM »
Ahaa, ahaa, and in the computer newspapers-magazine here (BUG) it said that it runs aero  simulations  .. like there's no tommorow ("sporo kao magla").

 

Offline NarayanTopic starter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Sep 2005
  • Posts: 254
    • Show only replies by Narayan
Re: Some 2.04?
« Reply #29 from previous page: September 26, 2005, 06:06:15 PM »
The computer is truly more of a like a whirlwind and the OS is still unbeatable in contrast to that 3.1 wonder.