Amiga.org
Amiga.org specific forums => Amiga.org Discussion and Site Feedback => Topic started by: Narayan on September 25, 2005, 03:22:51 PM
-
How about some 2.04 screenshots? Or at least put some 2.04 style sliders and windows in 3.9 and 4.0.
Hm?
http://www.amiga.org/gallery/index.php?n=636
-
Found one.
http://www.amiga.org/gallery/index.php?n=483
I don't believe there can be talk about 2.04' superiority over 3.1.
Over wb3.1.
-
There is a reason why people upgrade, instead of downgrade...
-
Ok, this would be that what everyone does is right. This has been proven wrong on number of times. Such facts should be known and well regarded (at least) here on Amiga.org.
-
Ok, this would be that what everyone does is right.
Have I said so??? There is a reason why OS2.04 isn't the prefered OS on Amiga. Now you do the rest of the math...
If you prefer to use OS2.04 rather than OS3.9 then fine by me; I'm never turning back.
-
doctorq wrote:
Ok, this would be that what everyone does is right.
Have I said so??? There is a reason why OS2.04 isn't the prefered OS on Amiga. Now you do the rest of the math...
If you prefer to use OS2.04 rather than OS3.9 then fine by me; I'm never turning back.
Why do you think WB2.04 isn't the prefered OS on Amiga ?? Who said so ?? Where is the proof ??
Where do you see os 3.9 ??
-
Why do you think WB2.04 isn't the prefered OS on Amiga ?? Who said so ?? Where is the proof ??
Well, for old (KS 1.2/1.3) games, Workbench 2.04 DOES give you about the same level of backward compatability as OS3.9. And for applications, you have approximately as much API support as Workbench 1.3 offers.
(Of course, that distant sound may be this joke sailing over your head.)
-
Why do you think WB2.04 isn't the prefered OS on Amiga ?? Who said so ?? Where is the proof ??
Where do you see os 3.9 ??
Sounds to me now, that all you want to do at this point is to start an argument, and I simply can't be bothered...
I can give you no proof, but start a poll and see how many of the users here that uses WB2.04 as their everyday Amiga OS. Then you will have your proof, and I will even bet you a beer on it. By the way, I prefer Danish beer.
-
@Ilwrath:
2.0 is a big step up from 1.3. Much software works on 2.0 because except from datatypes support, it has more or less the same features as 3.0/3.1.
With 2.0 AmigaOS became what it is today. In comparision, 1.3 is a desert for both the user and most notably the developer.
/Patrik
-
2.1 is not far away from 3.0, but has not the same support from developpers.
2.04 should be upgraded at least to 2.1 i think, if you have 2.0 roms.
-
Much software works on 2.0 because except from datatypes support, it has more or less the same features as 3.0/3.1.
Ehh... Sort-of. Along with datatypes, it's lacking RTG support, CrossDOS support, multiple (and alternative) serial.device handling, and a few other really nice things, IIRC. Really 2.04 was pretty much an incomplete 2.1.
Of course it DID feature the last versions of translator.library and narrator.device, which is the only reason I can see for wanting a copy of Workbench 2.04, anymore. :-)
-
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. Games developers aside, 2.0 really marked start of the amiga as a serious platform, IMNSHO :-D
-
@Ilwrath:
What I reacted to was the statement that 1.3 and 2.0 offered approximately the same API for applications. Two dimensions I would say. 2.0 is a major overhaul, most stuff is rewritten and much stuff is added. The difference between 2.0 and 3.0 is nothing compared to the difference between 1.3 and 2.0.
Btw, what did you mean with "multiple (and alternative) serial.device handling"?
/Patrik
-
doctorq wrote:
Why do you think WB2.04 isn't the prefered OS on Amiga ?? Who said so ?? Where is the proof ??
Where do you see os 3.9 ??
Sounds to me now, that all you want to do at this point is to start an argument, and I simply can't be bothered...
I can give you no proof, but start a poll and see how many of the users here that uses WB2.04 as their everyday Amiga OS. Then you will have your proof, and I will even bet you a beer on it. By the way, I prefer Danish beer.
You shouldn't be bothered, noone is trying a copmpetetion in anything, my amigo.
There's no Internet to surf on, email to read, news to write read, or anything else to do on comps, much less Amigas or any kind of letter a anywhere, and you _are_ really talking about everyday use of wb1.3 in vast majority and of vastly better quality and feel than that socially by dumbasses not approved 2.04.
Hey?
Amiga.org - ring any bells?
No sociopathy - remember.
p.s.
What I want to say about 3.1 is that it's a dream 1200/4000 WB, (as is every other one at that), however in the early nineties or by the time when the Amiga show was over arround the world lacked the cultness, the firmness of peace, the laying of 2.04. And *still*, mu choice is 2.04 over 3.1. I'm confirming that here.
Nothing more, mate, a stand, a statement, an argument, a personality, a computer, happy and away, no me no you no hostile troops. (:pissed:)
-
That was a confusingly generic comment.
-
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)
-
Karlos wrote:
That was a confusingly generic comment.
Not to say defaultless.
-
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 :-)
-
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.
Who said so ?? Where is the proof ??
And this slightly changed quote
Ok, this would be that what you do is right.
-
Yours is to do not then.
-
Good grief. Even 420dude made more sense *after* smoking several times his own bodyweight in cannabis...
-
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?
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. ;-) )
-
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? :-)
-
We already have a Quakemaster. Goes by the name of blobrana :-D
-
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.
-
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 :-(
-
Such a shame for such quality computer.
-
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.
-
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").
-
The computer is truly more of a like a whirlwind and the OS is still unbeatable in contrast to that 3.1 wonder.
-
uhm yeah what he said.
you are pretty tough to follow narayan i dont know about cannabis but something is definitely off
do you run windows 3.0?
>Yours is to do not then.
>The computer is truly more of a like a whirlwind and the OS is still unbeatable in contrast to that 3.1 wonder.
im going home now
-
Im in class right now in College, and all I got to say is....
Whats a goin' on? :-D
Also, My Amiga would actually just heat up, and then the colors would flicker clors and bars would come up, and after it flickered like crazy, then it froze...
The problem is solved by just keeping the chip cool.
I cant remember if I still have it around or not. I do know I still got my Amiga 1200, but just mainly the HD disk drive and the mainboard along with the Dataflyer XDS.. I think its the XDS, the one where you are able to use the 3.5 ide harddrives from PC. :-)
-
2.04 is military grade... :lol:
2.1 is still somewhat usable if you only use older apps, and I guess 1.3 is good for compatability with old games, but 2.04? Why? I softkicked my A600 to 3.1 after I found out 2.04 didn't have CrossDOS...
-
@Narayan
i don't know why you are still in the dark ages. i chunked 2.04 many many moons ago on my a500. now i switch between 1.3 and 3.1. :-)
BTW: there is nothing wrong with 2.04 but 3.1 has more features. and newer os distributions require 3.1 (Well except 4.0 but that is a different story). :-D
-
jkirk wrote:
@Narayan
i don't know why you are still in the dark ages. i chunked 2.04 many many moons ago on my a500. now i switch between 1.3 and 3.1. :-)
BTW: there is nothing wrong with 2.04 but 3.1 has more features. and newer os distributions require 3.1 (Well except 4.0 but that is a different story). :-D
For you my friend, I can only quote an entire message I wrotein comp.sys.amiga.misc about this very thread. Thank you not.
Now, I had this idea in which I'm first writng the subject then I'm off to the message. I've written the
subject, however stopped a bit. The guy is unbeliveable.
What are you, all against me?
So there's this thread on amiga.org "Some 2.04?" and I've written a few about it. Then the story goes and goes
and mainly, when 2 other '020 programs are set aside, and that that's all there were after "everything 1.3,
2.04, 3.1", it leaves us that we have these three OSes on Amiga and that one of them is 2.04.
Unfortunately, I am wrong here, and a very unapreciated member, a very socially unexepted stand to say the
least, when I say that I see the 2.04 superior to 3.1, and this
not because the 3.1 is less good or god forbid bad,
but because it was not finished as such, and a bit bonvivans WB, a bit unfinished, not all over and set.
So in the thread there was doctorq and everything was all right so far. He said his, I've said mine, and the
truth was clearly visible. The 2.04 as it is, with a black stripe for menues, a definite superiority over 3.1.
The thread continued and everything was more or less digested and it was allright, it was as it is.
Only to expect a low blow, one which is expecting that the thread is forgotten, and now that things weren't as
tightly explained as they were in the begining or while the thread lasted, this one comes in and more or less,
motherssonly says like it's not too important but that it's still the other way arround than it is, and with
that closes.
BTW The language (English) is completely and utterly unmanouvrable.
-
i don't understand you. it sounds in your post like you are taking a dig at me because i posted something you didn't agree with. if that is true DON'T POST someone will always have differing opinions. if this is not true then i apologize for reading too much into that post.
you seem to think 3.1 was not finished. tell me what is not complete. 3.1 IS 2.04/2.1 with additional features that are supported today whereas 2.x is not supported by progs using these features (such as datatypes.)
now if you want to believe that 2.X is better go ahead i won't stop you. i was giving the opinion most users have concerning these two os versions. 3.5 and 3.9 are the stopgap versions of amiga os which was 3.1 with bundled 3rd party software.
-
Wb 1.3 powah!!!!!!!! :lol: :-D
-
I immediately switched the a500 to 2.04 the second I seen it suffering with 1.3 :-)
-
:lol:
yea the only reason i used 1.3 was for old games. for anything else i used 3.1.