Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!nrl-cmf!ames!lll-tis!oodis01!figueroa From: figueroa@oodis01.ARPA (Andrew Figueroa) Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm Subject: Re: Questions about 128 Reliability (Considering upgrade from C64) Summary: Aspersions on Reliability of the C-128 Keywords: 128 vs. 64 reliability Message-ID: <114@oodis01.ARPA> Date: 20 Sep 88 12:04:28 GMT References: <3750@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM> Reply-To: figueroa@oodis01.ARPA (Andrew Figueroa) Distribution: na Organization: Ogden Air Logistics Center, Utah Lines: 14 I have never heard of any reliability problems with the 128. The two I have owned are still working well, and I abuse the heck out of them. Similar experience is being enjoyed by others I am aware of. The idea from your "maintenance man" of the C-128 suffering from "dueling systems" aka C-128 nativ mode, CP/M, and C-64 is ludicrous. Yes, the CP/M is a good solid implementation. It is CP/M plus (aka CP/ 3.0). It is a bit slow, about 1/2 speed of a Kaypro II, which ain't all that bad! Disclaimers - of course I don't work for CBM, I just use the stuff. "figueroa@lognet2.arpa"