Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!gatech!psuvax1!news From: melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: Why are Amigaoids hell bent on proving the Amiga is better ? Message-ID: Date: 30 Jun 91 16:34:06 GMT References: <1991Jun27.170049.21231@grebyn.com> <1991Jun29.005127.17803@grebyn.com> Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet) Organization: Penn State Computer Science Lines: 25 In-Reply-To: greg@pfloyd.lonestar.org's message of 30 Jun 91 04: 01:17 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: sunws5.sys.cs.psu.edu In article greg@pfloyd.lonestar.org (Greg Harp) writes: I can understand maybe not trusting answers you got before the crash, but that's not a feature that sells computers. Buyers are more confident about machines that don't crash as much, which is why the Amiga had such a poor reputation early on. When you're multitasking and you don't have memory protection (which is a problem we're going to have to live with, at least on the lower end Amigas -- there's not a good way to do it) you're going to experience some crashes. A lot of software out there (on all platforms) has bugs, and buggy programs don't get along well with multitasking at all. How often do you see "Segmentation Fault" on Unix boxen? I see it a lot when I use buggy programs like Unix LHarc. As for MSDOS machines, I'm so used to hitting Ctrl-Alt-Del all the time that I catch myself doing it on my Amiga. Actually, there aren't any Amigas that have memory protection. There is a Unix machine by Commodore, but now that really isn't an Amiga with memory protection is it? Amigas don't have virtual memory either. Even Macintoys and Windows 3.0 have this. -Mike