Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu From: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: Why buy an Amiga? Message-ID: <45249@ut-emx.uucp> Date: 7 Mar 91 07:59:16 GMT References: <223@usna.NAVY.MIL> <1991Mar07.004452.1738@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp Reply-To: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Organization: The University of Texas at Austin Lines: 30 [Please respect the Followup-To: line. After all, this stuff has a proper home, not that I don't enjoy a good chance to flame a MessyDOS box.] In article <1991Mar07.004452.1738@ddsw1.MCS.COM> whos@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Ben Feen) writes: >I know this really isn't nice, but... I like IBM's because they break down >more cleanly. Ibm's don't GURU - They "Run-time error at ..." and drop to >dos. Uh, I hate to tell you, but any when you have errors like the type that cause Guru's on an Amiga on a MessyDOS machine, it just dies. I don't call a trashed screen, a locked up keyboard, and sometimes the need to power down the machine a "clean" break down. I've experienced too many of these to count (Why? I develop for them -- hey, it pays the bills). The types of recoverable errors that occur under MessyDOS are about as equally recoverable under AmigaDOS. You sometimes get more crashes because some poor sap doesn't understand that more than one program might want some resource at the same time, but that's a liability under a multitasking OS. AmigaDOS 2.0 is much more stable than even 1.3, so I don't think it's going too far to say it's several times as stable as MessyDOS 3.3. As for 4.01 and up, I don't really have to say it, do I? :) Greg -- Greg Harp |"How I wish, how I wish you were here. We're just two |lost souls swimming in a fishbowl, year after year, greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|running over the same ground. What have we found? s609@cs.utexas.edu |The same old fears. Wish you were here." - Pink Floyd