Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdahl!bnrmtv!perkins From: perkins@bnrmtv.UUCP (Henry Perkins) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: No problem AT clones Message-ID: <3151@bnrmtv.UUCP> Date: Mon, 30-Nov-87 19:34:17 EST Article-I.D.: bnrmtv.3151 Posted: Mon Nov 30 19:34:17 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 4-Dec-87 04:45:16 EST References: <2001@briar.Philips.Com> Organization: BNR Inc., Mountain View, California Lines: 20 Keywords: no problem Summary: Compaqs are reliably IBM-like In article <2001@briar.Philips.Com>, myb@philabs.Philips.Com (Michael Bakhmutsky) writes: > Which AT clones do not have problems? Compaqs are quite reliable, guaranteed to be IBM-compatible, and give better-than-IBM performance. They're also not cheap. However, if you want an AT-type machine that's clearly better than IBM's AT, you'll get that in a Compaq. In general, most "name brand" AT-type machines are pretty compatible these days, with occasional problems for which there are usually workarounds. No-name clones tend to have more frequent problems, and you're likely to have to expend more effort to find out the workarounds (if any) to problems that arise. Basically, the more you know, the cheaper the machine you can afford to buy. -- {hplabs,amdahl,ames}!bnrmtv!perkins --Henry Perkins It is better never to have been born. But who among us has such luck? One in a million, perhaps.