On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 14:39:40 -0500 (EST), James Witte wrote:
>> Yeah, today that is true. I think the author meant the NOS 1.x
>> recognition, which was a pain.
> But didn't the article mention (or show) a 2100? The original HW was
>bad (but might still have been better than anything else out there), but
>the 210 improved on it greatly as well as having a faster processor.
No. Ther was a image of an MP2000. Which is the really funny side of
The author obviously writes something that is true about the first
illustrating this with the Newton that is much better.
So my conclusion on this: The author is at best totally ignorant, no
more, no less.
-- Read the List FAQ/Etiquette: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html Read the Newton FAQ: http://www.guns-media.com/mirrors/newton/faq/ This is the NewtonTalk mailing list - http://www.newtontalk.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 14:02:37 EST