Some 2.04?

[doctorq]

There is a reason why people upgrade, instead of downgrade...

[doctorq]

Ok, this would be that what everyone does is right.

Have I said so??? There is a reason why OS2.04 isn't the prefered OS on Amiga. Now you do the rest of the math...

If you prefer to use OS2.04 rather than OS3.9 then fine by me; I'm never turning back.

[doctorq]

Why do you think WB2.04 isn't the prefered OS on Amiga ?? Who said so ?? Where is the proof ??

Where do you see os 3.9 ??

Sounds to me now, that all you want to do at this point is to start an argument, and I simply can't be bothered...

I can give you no proof, but start a poll and see how many of the users here that uses WB2.04 as their everyday Amiga OS. Then you will have your proof, and I will even bet you a beer on it. By the way, I prefer Danish beer.

[doctorq]

Karlos wrote:
That was a confusingly generic comment.

I'll second that. I can't understand what the f### he is trying to tell us. All I know is that I'm still as confused after reading it, as the first 3 times I read it.

Maybe it's this generic {bleep} my head can't cope with :-)

[doctorq]

Narayan wrote:
Furthermore 3.1 on incomplete (or as I tend to say this), not finished A1200 (does anyone remembers it - the thing had a 020 it didn't show) and on wastly too strong A4000 - empty as hell!!! always left me a tiny, tiny feeling of hungriness in my stomach. Something wasn't right, something was overpumped or not done right, and it was a bit uncomfortable to work on.

The Workbench 2.04 was a finished, up to that dates project. Small as any WB, but hey, what can you do with windows or in windows, and Amigas had lots games.

Now you go, and bring that beer here - if you want. (nothing otherwise)

Now I would need to quote you something you said earlier in this thread.

Who said so ?? Where is the proof ??

And this slightly changed quote

Ok, this would be that what you do is right.