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"