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

[Lonny Pursell <atari@bright.net>]

on 7/23/2005 12:51 PM, olivier.landemarre@utbm.fr wrote:

> Selon Maurits van de Kamp <maurits@bassment.nu>:
> 
>>> 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.
> I not agree, Mint is not only an extension of TOS, and couldn't in fact,
> because
> TOS systems call was not able to support a preemptive system kernel as Mint.
> Mint replace completly (or near) gemdos (ex memory allocation, file system
> even
> on old GEM partition) because it's impossible to do without this, there is no
> contradiction in it. It's well know that Magic was able to run more old
> software
> (perhaps badly write too) than Mint and Multitos. A multitos slow and never
> finish, even never put on computer as the official system by Atari on the
> falcon, if it was Atari will put it in ROM.

Atari did sell it, so what if it was soft loaded.
They went out business before such things could be finalized or the like.
It does not take away from the facts, and the official documentation from
Atari.  Your arguing based on bias, not facts.

It also does not matter what is faster or slower or more compatible.
Documentation is documentation and simply that if you put aside personal
preference.  Not saying mint is perfect, or multitos, but be that as it may
there was standards set forth from Atari before they went bust.

-- 
Lonny Pursell    http://www.bright.net/~gfabasic/