1  2  |   Order by index

Jan 16, 2001, 10:57am

I think they should have just released 3.1 since many ppl had it (and it
kicked ass) They could have just started to work on a 3.2 to fix all of the
bugs that 3.1 have. And It looks like all of the beta testers are just
having fun with it, rather than actually doing anything with it because
everytime i go into one of those worlds they are just fucking around, and
they say they are testing while just standing there making a bunch of glass
windows move around, i would beleive thats a test, but there are like 500
other spinning glass windows that are already made, so it obvously works,
yet they build more. ok, i am done...........

Jan 16, 2001, 11:38am

Well, all I'm going to say is that, while the closed beta is a good idea, I
don't believe that the best group of testers was really picked... a number
of the testers seem to have little to no idea what they're actually doing,
and seem to be reporting just about anything without actually thinking, then
correcting themselves repeatedly by posting more messages, and so forth.

[View Quote]

Jan 16, 2001, 11:49am

You don't get it, do you? None of you people who snagged 3.1 out of turn
get it. There's a *reason* it's called a "beta" test. It's because it's
not ready to be released yet. That means BUGS! The *only* reason anyone
should have/use the beta is to find out why it's not working and find
out where the bugs are. That's the idea. But so many people are so damn
impatient that they DL the beta just so they can have it before everyone
else, and then they whine and wonder why it doesn't work the way it
should. :P That's the *reason* why this beta test was closed in the
first place, because the last time so many incompetent people just *had*
to have the beta, that the beta NG was filled with crap and Roland
couldn't filter through it and find the actual useful information.

I agree with Roland in that this beta has been 10 times more productive
than the last. Just from reading the posts in the beta NGs, it's
actually full of *useful* info. No one asking the same questions a
billion times. No one whining about posting styles. (*ahem*) No one
yelling at any newbies, because there *are* no newbies. Frankly, I think
Roland should keep the beta closed until it's ready for official
release. However, I do think he should invite a few more people into his
Inner Circle. There are plenty more people I know of who can help in the
beta test that I have yet to see post in the beta NG. I'm *very* curious
as to what standards were used when deciding who was allowed in the
closed beta. I'm not suggesting that the people who are currently in the
beta aren't worthy; far from it. But there are quite a few other people
who aren't involved that I think should be. Anyone care to enlighten me
as to why? (who actually *knows* why)

[View Quote] --
Goober King
Patience, young grasshopper...
rar1 at acsu.buffalo.edu

Jan 16, 2001, 12:00pm

That's the idea of testing. Messing around with something, to find out how
it works, where it doesn't work, how to make it better, etc. It's good to
have some fun while doing so.

Rolu

[View Quote]

Jan 16, 2001, 12:32pm

where avenger said 500 panels spining etc thing is some times a bug wont
show up till you have the same thing going on a bunch of times.als maybe you
should look at all the difrent panels and see if maybe the comand lines are
difrent on some of them in wich case the may look the same in the way they
move but maybe the speed is difrent or some other thing.
[View Quote]

Jan 16, 2001, 6:00pm

Also, I knew of some people who actually went and reported problems to
Roland through telegrams and emails also when they weren't even allowed
beta. :) Don't look at me, I was just selfish, I guess. I really needed the
pics and personal info for awnews.com and of course, you can't just leave me
to just look at the instructions blaring in front of my face through a
telegram and not eventually take it (hey, 3 hours is darn long for this
impatient lil norn). :P

Anyways, Goober IS right. :) closed betas for ANYTHING has long been more
productive than any other type of betas. If you recall from the actual
release of 3.0, there were updates and upgrades that occured that prolly
wouldn't have needed to happen IF the beta was closed. AWCOM dealt correctly
in providing us with a peek, and then shutting us out, also. :) Kinda
cunning I tihnk how they enticed us to stay in AW constantly in the next few
weeks now that we know all the cool things we can do.

In response to Goober's question, I don't know quite exactly how the
invitation for closed beta was worked out, BUT, there was a short period of
a first-come, first-serve basis for the closed beta to fill in the remaining
seats. Of course, most of us must've missed it, but it explains why some 3.1
users that could be considered less experienced are experiencing 3.1. :) Out
of all the invited beta testers I've met or know, they seem quite well
traveled in the universe, apparently well known and hardworking, but also
has close relations with AWCOM employees through the group they're in or the
worlds they own or contribution they've made. Nice variety from what i've
seen so far though.

I wish we could see the beta testing list. :) Not so I can rip all the beta
testers apart or anything, but just for kicks, and maybe more informative
answers to these 3.1 questions. :)

Nornny

[View Quote]

Jan 16, 2001, 6:55pm

I agree that the testers weren't the best choices. It was based more or less
on favoritism than on technical knowledge (eep) and system range. (You'll
mostly find AMD Athlon varients with 128mb of RAM and an ATI video card in
those beta systems). What Roland should have done was gone back and looked
at the 3.0 beta and picked the 20 or so most competant people with the
widest range of possible hardware configurations (and multiple systems
wouldn't hurt either) if he were going to draft. Now if he had gone the
intelligent route with a closed beta, he would have taken applications
asking for system specs, testing experience (Someone thats tested for say a
major game like Seirra's upcoming Tribes 2), and if you know how to access
the AW newsgroups. Then he would select the best looking applications and
determine who would do the best job. In the highly unlikely event that an
incompatibility with hardware exists, such as a problem with the motherboard
chipset it would help if one could say "Oh, the motherboard is an Asus A7V
which has a KT133 chipset" instead of saying "Oh, my chipset is a GeForce II
MX." which would require an amount of badgering before the moronic tester
knows WTF a motherboard is and then in a moment of inspiration says "I don't
know what my chipset is." and it finally dawns on us that they bought a
premade system and won't be of any help.


[View Quote]

Jan 16, 2001, 8:06pm

As far as I know, Eep isn't on the beta list.

-Agent1


[View Quote]

Jan 16, 2001, 8:30pm

Exactly. He SHOULD be there. He probably knows more about this software than
Roland does. He wants change. He also pushes the software to its limits with
his world. HEH, I can name several people that can do a better bug report
than whats demonstrated in some (not all) beta NG posts. Anyway, as soon as
AW3.1 goes to "open" beta, I feel that the uniserver block on non-beta
logins should remain (but possibly opened up to all citnums not equaling 0)
to keep the tourists out. Of course I can see this not getting past the
"men" in charge because they're after selling it and 3.1 is so much prettier
that they'll be more inclined to buy accounts if they can use the 3.1 beta
as well. This is OBVIOUSLY the wrong decision because theres potential for
software crashes and glitches (as with all beta software) that would ruin
the effect for the ankle biting tourists and turn them away.
[View Quote]

Jan 16, 2001, 10:49pm

Exactly. Take Young Phalpha. Who the fuck is s/he? I've never heard of him/her before since perhaps a couple months or so ago...and I've certainly been using AW longer (summer 1997) and have been beta testing AW for almost as long too, yet that unexperienced twirp makes the closed beta over me?? The only reason Roland didn't "invite" me is because I give him the straight dope without all the fluff and ass-kissing most people give him. He simply can't handle the ONSLAUGHT of my dead-on RIPS of his pathetic coding attempt that he'd rather simply not even deal with me at all, which is also why he mutes me at TechTalks and doesn't respond to my telegrams. He's had his wittle feelwings bwuised by the truth and now can't build up his self-esteem enough to deal with it. Pa-fucking-thetic.

[View Quote] > Well, all I'm going to say is that, while the closed beta is a good idea, I
> don't believe that the best group of testers was really picked... a number
> of the testers seem to have little to no idea what they're actually doing,
> and seem to be reporting just about anything without actually thinking, then
> correcting themselves repeatedly by posting more messages, and so forth.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 16, 2001, 11:30pm

I think that haveing some unexperianced people on the closed beta list is a
good idea.
AW is supposed to be user friendly to every one who comes to AW. If only
techies were allowed to beta test, then AW could end up only user friendly
only for techies. Not being able to figure out how to use the new features,
would in my opinion be a bug in its self.

Imagine


[View Quote]

Jan 17, 2001, 12:02am

Look at the beta NG. Young Phalpha is only one of the know nothings that
were drafted. Apparently Roland went more for community standing than for
knowledge.
[View Quote]

Jan 17, 2001, 12:37am

He had a short first come first serve period. Here, let me kinda explain
this as how I view it.

Ima Genius in beta for bots > Byte Me is friend of Ima, also in beta for
past experience and bots and TS objects > Byte Me is friends to like Me and
Agent1 type cast > YP is kind of like the loser kid that always hangs around
the "cool" kids and they don't really mind much, so Roland asked these
people, YP found out and asked Roland and Roland was still accepting
"applications" so he got in.

And I am sure Roland knows Eep's technical experience, he just was not
willing to deal with Eep's manner in the closed period. I do not agree with
this decision because I know Eep and he isn't that bad, but it was Roland's
decision.

-Myrth


[View Quote]

Jan 17, 2001, 3:43am

I woulda made a nice tester, I build every day, pretty much every day of the
year, for 2 years now ;)

I found a couple bugs in 3.1 that weren't reported, but since I couldn't say
anything I couldn't report it. The ones I found are reported now though,
regarding bump sounds for midis.

Jan 17, 2001, 6:06am

I miss it too SW. It's a damn shame that some twits couldn't figure out that if they aren't on the beta they shouldn't bug Roland.
They spoiled it for all of us. I had 3.1 for 2 days and found several bugs including the now famous MIDI bump (seems to be a botched
attempt to delay the transition between MIDIs) and 3.1's inability to handle texture names larger than 16 characters (which whited
out a lot of my textures). And some others that I worn't boar ppl with. I was sure that these bugs will be/have been discovered by
the real beta group and since I wasn't supposed to have 3.1 I didn't mention them to Roland.

I was just beginning to work out techniques for combining standard animation methods with the new move and rotate commands when I
lost the connection to the server. When I tried to re-enter I got the infamous "reason 79" message and knew what had happened. I was
really pissed at the idiots who spoiled my fun. You can still use 3.1 off-line but that sucks.

--
billyat (Bill the Yat)
"if you don't like polls -- LIE TO THE POLSTERS"
[View Quote]

Jan 17, 2001, 6:14am

sure - but that's no reason to leave out more experienced people.

[View Quote]

Jan 17, 2001, 8:28am

What imagine fails to understand (as usual) is that a CLOSED beta test is not FOR inexperienced (note the correct prefix) people.

[View Quote] > sure - but that's no reason to leave out more experienced people.
>
[View Quote]

Jan 17, 2001, 10:55am

heheh no ofence eep but you can be a little harsh :)
[View Quote]

Jan 17, 2001, 12:04pm

[View Quote]
Wrong. If you were not on the beta list, you shouldn't have gotten the beta. That's how simple it is. Another thing: How are you beta TESTing if you don't "bug Roland" with things you find wrong with the browser?

-Agent1






>I had 3.1 for 2 days and found several bugs including the now famous MIDI bump (seems to be a botched
> attempt to delay the transition between MIDIs) and 3.1's inability to handle texture names larger than 16 characters (which whited
> out a lot of my textures). And some others that I worn't boar ppl with. I was sure that these bugs will be/have been discovered by
> the real beta group and since I wasn't supposed to have 3.1 I didn't mention them to Roland.
>
> I was just beginning to work out techniques for combining standard animation methods with the new move and rotate commands when I
> lost the connection to the server. When I tried to re-enter I got the infamous "reason 79" message and knew what had happened. I was
> really pissed at the idiots who spoiled my fun. You can still use 3.1 off-line but that sucks.
>
> --
> billyat (Bill the Yat)
> "if you don't like polls -- LIE TO THE POLSTERS"
[View Quote]

Jan 17, 2001, 1:50pm

I think eep is a grade school teacher or a wanabee grade school teacher.
What eep fails to understand is I said *SOME unexperianced* please excuse my
bad spelling, I think you all know what I meant. I also think experianced
people should be there to root out the bugs aswell. However, I think not
inviteing eep to be a beta tester was was a good idea aswell. I really don't
think Roland wants to hear personal insults along with the bug report, which
most certainly would have been the case if eep had been a tester.

I thought I was put on eeps filtered list a while back? Hmmmm must be a
imaginary filtered list :)
Imagine


[View Quote]

Jan 17, 2001, 3:40pm

Well, and being polite once in a while is no option i guess ?

Even in your speech where you complain about him not inviting you to his
beta list, you can't stop insulting him. It does seem he deals very good
with it... apparently better than I do as I do not seem to keep my "ignore
eep" up...

Faber

"eep" <eep at tnlc.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3A64EAB5.5EF44C53 at tnlc.com...
> Exactly. Take Young Phalpha. Who the fuck is s/he? I've never heard of
him/her before since perhaps a couple months or so ago...and I've certainly
been using AW longer (summer 1997) and have been beta testing AW for almost
as long too, yet that unexperienced twirp makes the closed beta over me??
The only reason Roland didn't "invite" me is because I give him the
straight dope without all the fluff and ass-kissing most people give him.
He simply can't handle the ONSLAUGHT of my dead-on RIPS of his pathetic
coding attempt that he'd rather simply not even deal with me at all, which
is also why he mutes me at TechTalks and doesn't respond to my telegrams.
He's had his wittle feelwings bwuised by the truth and now can't build up
his self-esteem enough to deal with it. Pa-fucking-thetic.
>

Jan 17, 2001, 7:59pm

little note: it's epxeriEnced :-)

[View Quote]

Jan 18, 2001, 4:09am

You JUST figured that out? Put yourself in my shoes and you'd feel the EX=
ACT same way. Roland, if he decided to actually LISTEN to me, KNOWS I fin=
d bugs months, if not YEARS, before he and others do. Hell, the twit didn=
't even know MPEG3-encoded WAVs could be played in AW even though I've be=
en stating it for years...YEARS! If Roland is THAT oblivious to my bug re=
ports, newsgroup posts, and TechTalk commentary, he TRULY does NOT deserv=
e to be developing AW--PERIOD. He has CONTINUALLY proven to me to have ab=
solutely NO design direction, NO innovation, and NO intuitivity. He is a =
mindless grunt, pure and simple--perfect for Rick and JP's easy manipulat=
ion. At least Ron had the decency to challenge Rick and JP when he did--a=
nd left when they wouldn't give in due to their bigotry. Roland, on the o=
ther hand, played it "safe" and decided to stay on as a lackey for the "b=
ig evil masters" because he was probably too scared to look for another j=
ob.

He's NOT a very good programmer either. Just look at a recent response to=
such a fucking SIMPLE GUI call regarding making the AW 3.1 Windows serve=
r: "It's probably easy to make the admin tool come up when you double cli=
ck the system tray icon." PROBABLY easy? It IS easy, Roland, providing yo=
u actually KNOW how to program Windows GUI, which you obviously SUCK at l=
ooking at the slop you've done in AW thus far (and HamFon's dialogs aren'=
t much better).

Anyway, I'm getting off track. Yes, I CAN be harsh...but sometimes the tr=
uth IS harsh and if people can't handle it they shouldn't even THINK abou=
t fucking with me because I will stick to the truth ALWAYS and it WILL co=
me back to bite them if they don't CONSTANTLY keep it in check. That's li=
fe. Deal with it. Suicide IS an option.

[View Quote] > heheh no ofence eep but you can be a little harsh :)
[View Quote] > wittle feelwings bwuised by the truth and now can't build up his self-e=
steem
> enough to deal with it. Pa-fucking-thetic.

> idea, I

> number

> doing,
ing,
> then
orth.
(and
> it
all
> of
just
> because
und,
> and
h of
like
> 500
y
> works,

Jan 18, 2001, 4:11am

Same way *I* tested it: by reporting bugs to people on the official beta test, like you, Agent, which I did. Duh. Don't make me smack you.

[View Quote] [View Quote]

Jan 18, 2001, 4:13am

Why should I be polite to him when he continually is impolite to me? It takes two to tango, Faber. I may be harsh at times, but if Roland can't handle the truth about what I say about AW, that's just too fucking bad because I'm not going to put up a front for him just so I can keep testing his shitty programming. Nope...Homey don't play dat. <thwap>

[View Quote] > Well, and being polite once in a while is no option i guess ?
>
> Even in your speech where you complain about him not inviting you to his
> beta list, you can't stop insulting him. It does seem he deals very good
> with it... apparently better than I do as I do not seem to keep my "ignore
> eep" up...
>
> "eep" <eep at tnlc.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:3A64EAB5.5EF44C53 at tnlc.com...
> him/her before since perhaps a couple months or so ago...and I've certainly
> been using AW longer (summer 1997) and have been beta testing AW for almost
> as long too, yet that unexperienced twirp makes the closed beta over me??
> The only reason Roland didn't "invite" me is because I give him the
> straight dope without all the fluff and ass-kissing most people give him.
> He simply can't handle the ONSLAUGHT of my dead-on RIPS of his pathetic
> coding attempt that he'd rather simply not even deal with me at all, which
> is also why he mutes me at TechTalks and doesn't respond to my telegrams.
> He's had his wittle feelwings bwuised by the truth and now can't build up
> his self-esteem enough to deal with it. Pa-fucking-thetic.

Jan 18, 2001, 4:16am

See? This is exactly just how clueless Imagine truly is. If she had one IOTA of intellect she would've realized I wasn't even RESPONDING to HER post, but to yours, Rolu. The twit also would have realized that just because she said SOME unexperienced people, it doesn't matter; unexperience is still unexperience and doesn't belong on a CLOSED beta test. Duh. Imagine won't be winning any Nobel prizes anytime soon...

[View Quote] > little note: it's epxeriEnced :-)
>
[View Quote]

Jan 18, 2001, 11:18am

Yes, but in my opinion, you shouldn't have to report bugs through "other channels". You should be on the beta list.

Anyway, you know what closed beta means, Eep. You're not on the list, so you don't get to test the browser (online, anyway). Not a great decision, but it is what has happened.


I don't really think that was the problem either. Many people were flooding Roland with bug reports, not knowing if they had already been submitted. Really, the browser/uniserver should have been doing this little check from the start of the beta.


-Agent1


[View Quote]

Jan 18, 2001, 7:14pm

[View Quote] > Yes, but in my opinion, you shouldn't have to report bugs through "other channels". You should be on the beta list.

Well duh. :P

> Anyway, you know what closed beta means, Eep. You're not on the list, so you don't get to test the browser (online, anyway). Not a great decision, but it is what has happened.
>
> I don't really think that was the problem either. Many people were flooding Roland with bug reports, not knowing if they had already been submitted. Really, the browser/uniserver should have been doing this little check from the start of the beta.

No, people not on the list simply shouldn't have been sending bugs to Roland. *I* had restraint...

[View Quote]

Jan 19, 2001, 12:37pm

[View Quote]

Jan 19, 2001, 4:05pm

If you're not testing the beta, you have no business having a copy of it, authorized or otherwise.

-Agent1








[View Quote]

1  2  |   Order by index