Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!torrie
From: torrie@cs.stanford.edu (Evan Torrie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: De-macification of the Amiga (Re: The Amiga's Future)
Message-ID: <1991Jun25.053133.671@neon.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 25 Jun 91 05:31:33 GMT
References: <1991Jun23.201625.18225@news.iastate.edu> <1991Jun23.204705.23687@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> <51086@ut-emx.uucp> <1991Jun24.100035.29314@Sugar.NeoSoft.com>
Sender: torrie@neon.Stanford.EDU (Evan James Torrie)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Ca , USA
Lines: 18

peter@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>In article <51086@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes:
>> If they don't use a feature, they're "old technology"

>No, they're "old technology" because they screwed up so badly on the original
>design. It's got nothing to do with "features". Multitasking isn't a "feature",
>it's a basic capability that should be the core of *any* system since about
>1965.

  Geez.  I didn't think the CBM Pet, or the C-64 had multitasking.  Guess
Commodore screwed up royally on those, huh?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Torrie.  Stanford University, Class of 199?       torrie@cs.stanford.edu  
"And in the death, as the last few corpses lay rotting in the slimy
 thoroughfare, the shutters lifted in inches, high on Poacher's Hill..."