Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga.advocacy:3300 comp.sys.amiga.programmer:3993
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!widener!ukma!psuvax1!psuvm!dxb132
From: DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re: Operating Systems
Message-ID: <91148.231728DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: 29 May 91 03:17:28 GMT
References: <1991May14.145528.23369@neon.Stanford.EDU>
 <1991May14.165718.19646@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
 <1991May14.180148.23635@athena.mit.edu>
 <1991May28.121145.8618@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 15

In article <1991May28.121145.8618@sugar.hackercorp.com>,
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) says:

>machines. If Commodore (1985+) had been able to effectively market it, it
>would have sold much more. But just marketing isn't enough: the Atari ST
>has very similar hardware, but system software that's bug-for-bug compatible
>with the IBM-PC. It had much better marketing from the word go, but it's

I have to disagree....the Amiga hardware is vastly better than the ST.
Personally I bought the Amiga for its hardware, as do most people.
(well, non-Unix people ?!)
I never paid any attention to the OS until after I bought it.....
(Not to downplay the OS, which is really excellent these days).

-- Dan Babcock