Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Information on Amiga Technical Reference Seri
Message-ID: <1991Jun17.143559.3122@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Organization: Sugar Land Unix -- Houston, TX
References: <3036@public.BTR.COM> <VINSCI.91Jun14003452@nic.nic.funet.fi> <22455@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1991 14:35:59 GMT

In article <22455@cbmvax.commodore.com> peter@cbmvax.commodore.com (Peter Cherna) writes:
> >What *may* scare CBM is clones of the OS. Now it has
> >already happened to the PC BIOS, Apples ROMS,

> Apple II ROMs and PC BIOS ROMs are quite trivial compared with the
> Amiga ROM.

Let me add that the reason that the IBM-PC and Apple-II bogged down, and were
unable to make significant enhancements beyond the early '80s, was because of
all the software that took advantage of knowing the internals of what I will
charitably term their operating systems. Apple, with the IIGS, was able to
dump all this old software and launch a new set of system software that didn't
depend on the old ROMs. IBM has been trying to do it with OS/2, but have lost
out because OS/2 was too ambitious and complex.

On the Mac, however, they have been able to make enhancements in some areas
that weren't documented. They are still stuck with a lot of backwards-
compatibility problems, though, because they haven't been fascist enough
about breaking stuff.

I'm glad that Commodore has, and don't want them to change.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'   <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>.
                   'U`    "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
