🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1028@tau.sm.luth.se> Karl-Gunnar Hultland <d87-khd@tau.luth.se> writes:
>In article <13183@cbmvax.commodore.com> jesup@cbmvax (Randell Jesup) writes:
>>In article <1027@tau.sm.luth.se> Karl-Gunnar Hultland <d87-khd@sm.luth.se> writes:
>>>I've finally gotten my hands on a 3000 (borrowed until my own arrives)
>>>but I have some problems with it.
>>
>>	Warning: If this is a preproduction (dealer-demo) model it will not
>>have a release version of 2.0, it will have Beta 5 (probably).  The release
>>version is signifigantly better than Beta 5, in general.
>
>Beta 5????
>the version command gives 36.141 and 36.68
>If this is Beta when will the REAL stuff come out?

	36.141 and 26.68 are the release version of 2.0.  I wasn't certain
what a dealer would have in Europe, since they haven't started shipping
A3000's yet.

>>	The caches are on the CPU (same as the 2500/030).  Use SetCPU, or
>>the 2.0 command CPU.
>
>Sorry if I didn't express myself clearly but I want a utility that
>works AFTER a boot so I can load those programs which have those
>crazy copy/protections that uses selfmodifying code.

	I know of no such tool, though they could be written.

>>	Unix has not been released, nor has any date been set.  In any case,
>>it's highly unlikely to be in ROM (Unix is not small).
>
>Well I've heard that the UNIX package would include hardware
>to restrain illegal copying. And then 512 kB ROM wouldn't be
>such a bad copyprotection. ( this one is from my dealer )

	Any Unix will require lots of hardware to make it useful (you need
~100 Meg of disk, ~200 is better, and a SCSI tape drive for loading
release tapes, etc).

	As to hardware to explicitly limit copying, this seems unlikely, given
the Unix market and the hardware the most Unixes require.  I've never seen
a Unix with explicit hardware protection.

-- 
Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering.
{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com  BIX: rjesup  
Common phrase heard at Amiga Devcon '89: "It's in there!"