Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!wuarchive!psuvax1!psuvm!dxb132
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wednesday, 8 May 1991 13:54:58 EDT
From: <DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu>
Message-ID: <91128.135458DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: 2.0 Compatibility
References: <mykes.2036@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG> <913.28202b13@vger.nsu.edu>
 <91126.101931DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu> <dillon.7415@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>

In article <dillon.7415@overload.Berkeley.CA.US>, dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US
(Matthew Dillon) says:


>>>    good job in this department for 2.0).  Take a look at IBM's mainframes.
>>>    The code is incredibly bloated now because they insist on maintaining
>>>    compatibility all the back to day 1... it keeps the OS in the stoneage.
>>
>>Sounds like OS/2, if you've been following that. :-)

>    It seems to me that you have gotten in the habit of refuting everything
>    I say even if you have to resort to lying to do it.  I don't suppose
>    you've ever *programmed* for 2.0, eh?  2.0 is solid compared to 1.3,

Um, I meant OS/2 as in IBM OS/2, not Amiga OS 2.0. Relax. :-)

-- Dan Babcock