🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Apr7.154431.9692@exu.ericsson.se> exuhag@exu.ericsson.se (James Hague) writes:
>Wait a minute--wasn't the Falcon/Sparrow supposed to be
>a game system?  That's the impression I got from the net.
>I wasn't expecting another entry in the ST line of computers.
>
>That aside, why the heck did they go with TOS compatibility?
>They had the chance to break free and do things RIGHT.  Not
>that TOS was total garbage, but it is of the age that gave
>birth to MS-DOS.  I'm surprised that Atari has chosen to
>stick with this route.

Well, it's not plain-old TOS any more, it's TOS with MiNT
extensions. It sounds to me like it'll be a pretty good
system, especially good for porting BSD Unix apps.
>
>From what I've seen of the ST world, it is very
>fragmented.  Some software is monochrome monitor only,
>some color only.  Some machines have blitters.  Some
>machines have enhanced graphics and sound.  TOS comes
>in both vanilla and Rainbow flavors.  And so on.  A
>fresh start would have been nice--I'm hoping Atari isn't
>overly concerned with backward compatibility.

None of the above-mentioned things really have anything to do with backward
compatibility or revision levels of anything. Machines with a blitter are
still driven by the same graphics calls as machines without. Machines with
monochrome displays are driven by the same routines as color, etc... 
-- 
  -- Howard Chu @ Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA