🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1410044@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM> charles@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM (Charles Brown) writes:
>> If you guys want to give Commodore the mandate to go ahead and drop
>> backwards compatibility completely for the sake of memory protection,
>> then go ahead and say so, but keep in mind that the above two points
>> are the Gospell truth.
>>	Valentin
>
>I am in favor of this.  There will be a period of pain, but in the end
>the Amiga will become a much more robust computer.
>
>Rather than calling it 1.4 or 1.5, your should probably call it 2.0
>since it will not be compatible.
>--
>	Charles Brown	charles@cv.hp.com or charles%hpcvca@hplabs.hp.com
>			or hplabs!hpcvca!charles or "Hey you!"
>	Not representing my employer.


	I think you are all missing an important point. The Amiga
barely has enough software as is. MOST amiga owners don't want memory
protection. If you go to a completely incompatible 2.0 which is slower
than 1.3, you will find software developers abandoning the Amiga right
and left, some refusing to support 2.0, and no new sales. Geesh! Even
IBM, with 25 million machines AND backward compatibility can't
successfully introduce a new operating system, and they are giving
people a choice! Before you say that OS/2 takes a super-expensive
computer, you should realize that real memory protection will almost
require a MMU, which implies a 68020/30 system and thus an expanded
computer. This also means that there can't be any such thing as an
A500, which currently is the backbone of Commodore (ain't nothing else
profitable 8). If you want full protection, the unix amiga should be
out real soon now!
	-- Ethan

Ethan Solomita: es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
Compu$erve    : 70137,3271
Anyone giving away Amigas or Sharp Scanners???

	"I'm a polititian. I lie and steal. When I'm not hugging
babies I'm stealing their lollypops"
		-- Red October (probably mungled)