[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [MiNT] FW: WCOWORK vs WINDOM for components

To: mint@fishpool.com
Subject: Re: [MiNT] FW: WCOWORK vs WINDOM for components
From: Maurits van de Kamp <maurits@bassment.nu>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:16:36 +0200
Delivered-to: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de
In-reply-to: <1122109208.42e20718e8454@webmail2.utbm.fr>
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=help>
List-id: <mint.lists.fishpool.fi>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:mint-request@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: Revee Creative Productions
References: <BF0772B1.1897A%atari@bright.net> <1122109208.42e20718e8454@webmail2.utbm.fr>
Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi
User-agent: KMail/1.6.2

> It's your point of view of Mint user, it's not the point of view of Magic
> user. Magic was more compatible with TOS than Mint + Multitos, don't forget
> this.

No it wasn't. I don't even see how it could be, seeing that MiNT just extended 
TOS and MagiC replaced it. Besides, MagiC made up its own AES specs and API 
extensions for features that Atari defined in AES 4.x. "MagiC was more 
compatible to TOS than Multitos" is a contradiction in terms.

Maurits.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [MiNT] FW: WCOWORK vs WINDOM for components
  - From: "olivier.landemarre@utbm.fr" <Olivier.Landemarre@utbm.fr>

References:
- Re: [MiNT] FW: WCOWORK vs WINDOM for components
  - From: Lonny Pursell <atari@bright.net>
- Re: [MiNT] FW: WCOWORK vs WINDOM for components
  - From: "olivier.landemarre@utbm.fr" <Olivier.Landemarre@utbm.fr>

Prev by Date: Re: [MiNT] FW: WCOWORK vs WINDOM for components
Next by Date: [MiNT] SV: WCOWORK vs WINDOM for components
Previous by thread: Re: [MiNT] FW: WCOWORK vs WINDOM for components
Next by thread: Re: [MiNT] FW: WCOWORK vs WINDOM for components
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread