frank@isrnix.UUCP (Frank Burleigh) (07/04/88)
In article <562@splut.UUCP> jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) writes: >In article <12400004@cpe> neese@cpe.UUCP writes: >a real paean to the alleged superiority of Tandy products. > >What he didn't tell you the first time around that his machine: >> Roy Neese >> UUCP @ ihnp4!sys1!cpe!neese > ^^^ >is a system owned by Tandy's Computer Products Engineering group. > >Come now, Roy...didn't you want to admit that you were just plugging >your own products? > >[mentions bad experience with tandy, ineptitude of tandy retailers, inability of tandy to offer satisfactory support.] >-- >Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC...>splut!< | Never ascribe to malice that which can >uucp: uunet!nuchat! | adequately be explained by stupidity. > hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- >{killer,bellcore}!tness1! | Birthright Party '88: let's get spaced! the tandy favoratism was noticable, but more unfortunate was the false claim that 32 bit mca memory expansions exact a 400% performance penalty on a model 80. infoworld compared mca memory expansions several issues ago, including the ast advantage/2-386. they found that board to be equal to the planer board memory speed. my inquiries to other board makers abt this claim turn up only denials of any penalty. also unmentioned was the newly announed model 70-a71, running at 25mhz and using memory cache. they may be late, but it can't be argued (as it was) that ibm can't or won't make performance-competitive products. -- Frank C. Burleigh Institute for Social Research - Indiana University - Bloomington, IN 47405 ihnp4!inuxc!isrnix!frank {pur-ee,kangaro,iuvax}!isrnix!frank
neese@cpe.UUCP (07/05/88)
>>What he didn't tell you the first time around that his machine: >> Roy Neese >> UUCP @ ihnp4!sys1!cpe!neese > ^^^ >is a system owned by Tandy's Computer Products Engineering group. > >Come now, Roy...didn't you want to admit that you were just plugging >your own products? > >the tandy favoratism was noticable, but more unfortunate was the false >claim that 32 bit mca memory expansions exact a 400% performance penalty >on a model 80. infoworld compared mca memory expansions several issues >ago, including the ast advantage/2-386. they found that board to be equal >to the planer board memory speed. my inquiries to other board makers abt >this claim turn up only denials of any penalty. > >also unmentioned was the newly announed model 70-a71, running at 25mhz >and using memory cache. they may be late, but it can't be argued (as it >was) that ibm can't or won't make performance-competitive products. Actually, I was not plugging our product, but simply stating the performance hits we have noticed with our Model 80-111 and the AST MC Memory Board running SCO Xenix. Regardless of what infoworld stated, there is a penalty for accessing memory that occupies an MC slot. This is by design. Planar memory will always be faster than MC memory. I mentioned the 5000MC because it is the only other MC system I have to compare to the 80-111. It does run circles around that system, which happens to be my opinion and fact as well. While the posting may have favored toward Tandy, I haven't seen much to refute what I stated and still stand behind it. Roy Neese UUCP @ ihnp4!sys1!cpe!neese
frank@isrnix.UUCP (Frank Burleigh) (07/07/88)
In article <12400008@cpe> neese@cpe.UUCP writes: > >> >>on a model 80. infoworld compared mca memory expansions several issues >>ago, including the ast advantage/2-386. they found that board to be equal >>to the planer board memory speed. my inquiries to other board makers abt >>this claim turn up only denials of any penalty. >> > >Actually, I was not plugging our product, but simply stating the performance >hits we have noticed with our Model 80-111 and the AST MC Memory Board running >SCO Xenix. Regardless of what infoworld stated, there is a penalty for >accessing memory that occupies an MC slot. This is by design. Planar >memory will always be faster than MC memory. so, here is a claim. the engineers may see the logic immediately; i don't. please explain how it is "by design" the mca memory is *slower* (by noticable degrees) than planer memory; how xenix itself might affect the benchmarks (infoworld used dos and dos applications for their tests); why it is reasonable to say "regardless of what infoworld says"; whether infoworld's use of the 16mhz model 80 instead of the 20mhz model 80 conditions their tests of the ast board; why 386^max' memory speed test doesn't reveal this 400% "performance hit" (or any, qualitas says). i am not personally interested in whether mca is *faster* for existing applications. i am more interested in the claims that it is *slower*. > > Roy Neese > UUCP @ ihnp4!sys1!cpe!neese -- Frank C. Burleigh Institute for Social Research - Indiana University - Bloomington, IN 47405 ihnp4!inuxc!isrnix!frank {pur-ee,kangaro,iuvax}!isrnix!frank
jcb@loral.UUCP (Jay Bowden) (02/17/90)
Anyone know of a dirt cheap FAX card for a PS2-type
machine? Or maybe as an alternate, are there any EXTERNAL
modems with FAX xmit-only (or xmit & receive would be ok)
capability?
Thanks for all replies!
- Jay
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Bowden, EE/Consultant; see also Bowden Engineering
Currently contracted at Loral Instrumentation, San Diego
{ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest, akgua, decvax, ihnp4}!ucsd!loral!jcb