Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!unisoft!bdt!david
From: david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: bios function 0x7f
Message-ID: <474@bdt.UUCP>
Date: 6 Jan 89 20:59:22 GMT
References: <1263@atari.UUCP> <3774@druhi.ATT.COM> <1268@atari.UUCP> <470@bdt.UUCP> <3212@sugar.uu.net>
Reply-To: david@bdt.UUCP (David Beckemeyer)
Organization: Beckemeyer Development Tools, Oakland, CA
Lines: 20

In article <3212@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>May I direct you to the following two articles (you can look them up
>yourself, or if enough people care I'll post). Why can Commodore do this
>but Atari can't?

[Rest deleted. By "this" he means upgrade the ROMS and break old programs]

Exactly my point.  Commodore can do it for the Amiga because they have
enough support from enough developers who can upgrade their software.
My point was that Atari won't do it because they can't afford to break
applications that nobody will fix.  I agree that they *should* do it so
that those of us that *are* willing to fix anything that breaks don't
have to live with the bugs/limitations.  But I bet they won't do it
until they can be sure of getting the broken stuff (that they care about)
fixed.
-- 
David Beckemeyer (david@bdt.UUCP)	| "Lester Moore - Four slugs from a .44
Beckemeyer Development Tools		|  no Les, no more."
478 Santa Clara Ave. Oakland, CA 94610	|   - Headstone at Boot Hill
UUCP: {uunet,ucbvax}!unisoft!bdt!david	|     Tombstone, AZ