Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!nosc!crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks
From: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Erik Funkenbusch)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to improve Workbench 2.0!
Message-ID: <4058@orbit.cts.com>
Date: 8 Feb 91 19:45:20 GMT
Sender: news@orbit.cts.com
Organization: People-Net [pnet51], Minneapolis, MN.
Lines: 25

dtiberio@csserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (David Tiberio) writes:
>In article <1659@crackers.clearpoint.com> jeff@fang.clearpoint.com (Jeffrey J. Griglack) writes:
>>
>>I think that the best way to improve WB 2.0 would be to release it for the
>>500, 2000 and 3000.  What's the holdup guys?
>>
>>Jeff Griglack
>>
>>--
>>
>>Jeff Griglack             |  Yea, I feel terrible.  I should be forced to
>>jeff@fang.clearpoint.com  |  see "Cats" again.  --From "30 Something"
>
>  WB 2.0 requires 1 meg of chip ram. The kickstart in itself is about 540k.

TOTALLY untrue.  what does the size of the kickstart have to do with the
amount of chip ram?  NOTHING since the kickstart will be in ROM.

>
>DavidTiberio SUNYStonyBrook2-3605 AMIGA TotoProductions DDDMEN


UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!chucks
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!chucks@nosc.mil
INET: chucks@pnet51.orb.mn.org