karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (02/02/90)
>Response 1 of 1 (8458) by akcs.graf_e at tronsbox.UUCP on Wed 31 Jan 90 04:20 >[Graf Eberstein] >(42 lines) > >>Item: 67 by *Masked* at caesar.cs.montana.edu >>Author: [Williams] >> Subj: Mother-board questions >> Keyw: >> Date: Sun Jan 28 1990 15:03 >> Lines: 39 > >>My roomate is buying his first machine, and since I have a DOG 286 I have >>convinced him to get a REAL machine. He has an uncle that sell clones, and >>we > >>AMI >>bios. Has anyone heard of problems with either one (I remember hearing >Good piece of advice: Stay clear of AMI. > >Personally, I prefer PHOENIX BIOS, because most developers seem (to me, >anyway) to write code on machines with this BIOS. I assume it'd be safe to >call it the industry standard. With that in mind, I'd venture to say it's >the BIOS of choice. My machine is a 1024K (for now) ALR '386 with a late >'89 Phoenix BIOS. > >While I don't run (and steer away from) *NIX, I do intend to eventualy put >TheOS/386 on my machine -after I add another couple MB's for good measure- >which is also a Multiuser OS.] I have to vehemently disagree. We have seen >many< problems with Phoenix BIOS chips on 386 systems. On a 286 the Phoenix is one of the best -- but not on the 386 systems. Recent AMI Bios sets for the 386 are VERY good. Some even allow you to control the slot wait states independantly (by slot type, etc); nearly all will let you change things like memory wait states, BIOS shadowing, etc.... and all the features work. We sell compatibles with the AMI BIOS and the C&T Chipset, and have >never< had a problem with them under Xenix or Unix 5.3, or MSDOS for that matter. They just work. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"