Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!pogo!rickc From: rickc@pogo.GPID.TEK.COM (Rick Clements) Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm Subject: Re: Questions about 128 Reliability (Considering upgrade from C64) Keywords: 128 vs. 64 reliability Message-ID: <6008@pogo.GPID.TEK.COM> Date: 21 Sep 88 05:01:56 GMT References: <3750@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM> Reply-To: rickc@pogo.GPID.TEK.COM (Rick Clements) Distribution: na Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Wilsonville, OR. Lines: 28 In article <3750@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM> ralph@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM (Ralph Hightower, x6758) writes: >[...]the repair shop mentioned that the 128 was less >reliable than the 64 (they mentioned about the 3 systems, 64, 128, CP/M, >competing among themselves; sort of "Dueling Systems"). There are two CPU's (only one is enabled at a time), and three ROM sets. >Can anybody refute the shop's argument that the C128 is less reliable than >the C64? I have had the power supply fail on my C64 once. I need to fix the one of shift keys on my C64. I have had no problems with my C128. > I would use 64 mode compatibility primarily for my two workhorse >applications, Multiplan, and Consultant; but I probably could use the CP/M >mode also (if it is a "true" CP/M implementation). I hear the 128 version of Multiplan is much better. It loads the program in one bank and data in the other. This eliminates having to read from the program disk every time you execute a different command. Of course, I have never seen this version in the stores. I have not done much with CP/M, but if you want to read disk 5 1/4" disk in other foormats you need a 1571. Also, CP/M is disk intensive and the 1541 is ssssslllllooooowwwww. The 1571 is spec'ed as being 10 times faster in CPM mode. -- Rick Clements (RickC@pogo.GPID.TEK.COM)