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.