Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!function.mps.ohio-state.edu!vidynath
From: vidynath@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Vidhyanath K. Rao)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Assembler File Requester?
Message-ID: <1990Nov2.002737.4851@zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 2 Nov 90 00:27:37 GMT
References: <1990Oct24.163551.19219@engin.umich.edu> <2403@trlluna.trl.oz> <1990Oct29.063758.17779@engin.umich.edu>
Sender: news@zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu
Organization: Me? Organized?
Lines: 18
Nntp-Posting-Host: function.mps.ohio-state.edu

In article <1990Oct29.063758.17779@engin.umich.edu> 
	milamber@caen.engin.umich.edu (Daryl Scott Cantrell) writes:
[regarding not using features of 2.0]
>  That is exactly the attitude that got IBM's OS/2 where it isn't today..
>  Actually, this isn't a very fair comparison to Commodore.  Programs that
>were written correctly for 1.3 will WORK under 2.0.  But there's really no
>point asking CBM for all these neat features if you're not going to use
>them.  You wanna use 1.2 and 1.3 forever?

In c.s.a.hardware, one guy said that 500 users should not be allowed to
upgrade to 2.0 or 1meg chip ram. Rumors that CBM marketing has similar views 
have surfaced in the past. but, to the best of my knowledge these rumors have
not been denied in print. Given this, no one should be blamed for not using
2.0 features.
--
Vidhyanth Rao			It is the man, not the method, that solves
function.mps.ohio-state.edu	the problem. - Henri Poincare
    (614)-366-9341		[as paraphrased by E. T. Bell]