🚀 go-pugleaf

wmtwen@urc.tue.nl writes:
>Yoopeeeeyeah!
>Finally the fight we have all been waiting for. Finally two of our best
>Atari-bashers :) are flaming each other.
>Who wants to place any bets?
>The odds are a bit better for Mark K, but I have more respect for Darek
>M's opinions because he seems more knowledgable.
>But as we all know in flamewars facts are not as important as CAPITAL
>STATEMENTS!!!! 
>
>lets just hope this will make an end to all bashin of people in this
>newsgroup so we can continue to share information.
>
>Erlend.


My question was plain and simple. Was GEMulator tested under OS/2. Mr.
Mihocka's response was that it was not his responsibility to test it even
though he teste it with:

A) MS-DOS
B) DR-DOS
C) Windows

He pointed out to me that the GEMulator is targeted at, "cheap Atari users
buying cheap 386 and 486SX clones." I am not in this cathegory since I own two
PC systems, both loaded with 16 and 32 MB of RAM and one 486/50 and the other
486/33, both DX system.

He stated that I can return the GEMulator board if it doesn't work but if I
would do it, I want it in writing. Mr. Mihocka, I can understand your
arguments up to the point when you bring it and accuse me of spreading FUD.
Furthermore, stating that it is my own uncertainty of OS/2 running DOS
programs. It is no news that OS/2's DOS is better than DOS but like with many
Microsoft folks, and they have done it before, they are very famous to buil
"traps" so certain programs will not function with OS/2. Latest example is NT
and OS/2 and their multi-boot facilities.

While a little more professionalism would be appropriate, the answer was more
or less understandable.

Best Regards,
Mark K.