🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1i1lkpINNme0@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> molin@ptb.cl.msu.edu (Michael Olin) writes:
>I understand what you're saying about Atari and support...  But Intel???
>GAG ME WITH A CLI!  Intels are dinosaurs, there's no question about it.

Well, the dinosaurs can outperform everything Atari currently has out
there, so I don't know what you mean.  I'd rather have a dinosaur than
a fossil, personally.  Besides, one of the biggest arguments I see here
is "my computer does what I want, so I'm happy with it and don't need
anything else."  By calling Intel machines dinosaurs, you make it clear
that you don't believe this (otherwise why not be happy with a 1985 DOS
machine?), so explain how you could possibly be better off with a 1985
Atari Fossil than you would be with a 1993 Intel-based clone than runs,
oh, a hundred times faster.

>And the biggest stink about 'em is MS-DOS.  As I've said many wheres else,
>if my cat shits on the living room carpet, I don't spray perfume on it.
>I clean it up.  Ya know what Windoze is?  Perfume!  Perfume on stink.

Oh gee, and the GEM desktop is so much better.  Give me a break.  So
Windows is a piece of shit -- don't use it!  If you don't like DOS, get
4dos; it has command line completion, aliases, and lots of other good
stuff that "real" shells have.  "DOS" machines run more operating
systems than any other computers these days.  Don't bash the hardware
because you don't like one of the operating systems.

>Now....Give me one of those new '486/100MHz machines and give it a UNIX
>o.s., and THEN we're heading in a reasonable direction!

Right, so why do you dismiss the clones when you know they can run 
better operating systems than Atari computers?

Dave Baggett
--
dmb@ai.mit.edu           MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory                  
ADVENTIONS: interactive fiction (text adventures) for the 90's!
dmb@ai.mit.edu *** Compu$erve: 76440,2671 *** GEnie: ADVENTIONS