From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi  Sat Jul 23 11:18:47 2005
X-Original-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de
Delivered-To: fnaumann@mail.boerde.de
From: Maurits van de Kamp <maurits@bassment.nu>
Organization: Revee Creative Productions
To: mint@fishpool.com
Subject: Re: [MiNT] FW: WCOWORK vs WINDOM for components
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:16:36 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2
References: <BF0772B1.1897A%atari@bright.net> <1122109208.42e20718e8454@webmail2.utbm.fr>
In-Reply-To: <1122109208.42e20718e8454@webmail2.utbm.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200507231116.36874.maurits@bassment.nu>
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi
Errors-To: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi
X-original-sender: maurits@bassment.nu
Precedence: bulk
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=help>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:mint-request@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <mint.lists.fishpool.fi>
X-List-ID: <mint.lists.fishpool.fi>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at relay.boerde.de
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on relay.boerde.de
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 tagged_above=-50.5 required=7.0 tests=AWL,
 BAYES_00
X-Spam-Level: 

> 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.