wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (07/04/88)
Let me start out by prefacing trhat I am by no means a lover of IBM as a corporate entity, but I do have considerable respect for their current crop of "PS" style machines. I don't care much for the models 25 and and 30. These machines seem to be admissions that the original PC buss is still viable, and it would be indeed unwise for IBM to abandon the PC buss. In this area, I do agree that it would be wise to consider the turbo PC clone alternatives. The clones in particular are a wise way to go becasue they have been reduced to comodity items. It is much more cost effective to not bother with a service contract, but rather hedge one's bet and just pop in a new mother board for about $100 when something does go wrong. This, of course, assures that either ones self or his/her employer cas appropriate service expertise available. I had a lot of reliability troubles with the original IBM brand PCs and XTs, so I really didn't feel that too much was being lost with pople here buying clones. One thing that has always puzzled me is how abysmal most clone keyboards are. A few of the Japanese imports such as the Kyocera-built Epsons/Panasonics/Victors had usable keyboards. The DTK based machines usually have those horrendous sponge-press keyboards. Of course, the click-klack keyboard of the PC/XT was also a study in extremism. The models 50 and 60 PS machines are somewhat tougher calls. For now, the micro channel archetecture doesn't seem to gain much for these machines. In fact, for the moment, the models 50 and 60 are pretty restrictive in that they substantially reduce the choice of compatible peripheral cards because they do employ the micro channel. The 50s and 60s seem pretty well made, and IBM does offer quite competative service contracts though its own service organization of the 50 and 60. So the trade-off is between simplicity/cheap servicing and the flexibility/turbo performance of 286 and 386 clones. So far, I've been pretty unimpressed by many of the '386 AT clones. Most of the '386 clones can turn an impressive benchmark but are very poorly constructed. Since I am in a position where I have to make recomendations to inexperienced purchasers; I have to be careful to recommend something that isn't going to have subtle incompatibilities or be breaking down all the time. In cases where a guy/girl wants a turn-key accounting system or similar, I know that IBM can offer a reliable system with readily available local service ... these are the kind of people that eat my hide alive if their business is dependent on a desktop computer that has to go back to a P.O. box in Texas for servicing. Such people aren't doing intensive compiliing or ray-traced images, so the relatively pokey performance of a model 50 or 60 isn't going to be noticed. For savvy scientist type people that are [computer] speed-freeks, then one can take some liberty with a '386 clone. The IBM model 80 is also another isssue. The model 80 seems to still be the flagship of IBM's desktop line-up. In the case of the 80 (at least in the units we have) the "Made in USA" sticker is meaningful; unlike the 50s and 60s where off-shore boards are slapped in the case in the US. I have had reliability problems on Compaq 386s. In particular bad power supplies and 32-bit memory cards. In one case a bad power supply fried a tape dirve. The model 80 is very well put together; it is also extremely low in RF emissions. One can tell that IBM has currently over-designed for EMI/EMC specifications so that they'll be able to accomodate future higher bandwiths in the micro channel technology. Conversely, the cloners are having trouble staying in good stead with Uncle FCC. I'm not sure what the original poster meant by "400% performance hit" by adding a 32 bit memory board. I use an IBM brand 6 meg 32 bit card with 4 meg installed. My tests hsow that it has the same performance level as the indigenous memory. In this case, the machine is an "old" 16 MHz model 80. There are many 386 AT clones that do indeed out pace the model 80 in benchmarks, but the model 80 is a better choice where uptime is important. (I have an 9-user model 80 running SCO Xenix 2.2.2 with a Computone 8-port EIA board.) When one's reputation and/or continued employment are on the line, issues other than simply maximum MIPS must be considered. Delivering continuous computing is the bottom line measure. Continuous computing can be obtained by either installing name-brand machines that are backed by a big service organization, or by making the investment in spare parts to be able to deliver service yourself. Non hardware-savvy people, unfortunately, must choose name-brands; it isn't always blind following of the IBM carrot. --Bill impulse!wtm@neoucom.UUCP
pervect@bsu-cs.UUCP (Barrett Kreiner) (10/05/88)
Hiya net :-] I've been talking with my graphics professor, and he and I would like to TRY to create some custom .SYS drivers for the IBM-PC family. I figured the best place to start would be to see if anyone had the source to a "standard" display driver like ANSI.SYS or NANSI.SYS. So... Anyone.. Anyone.. ? Also.. Any info on stdin/stdout vs keyboard in/screen out and how ANSI/NANSI handles them would be appriciated. |---------------------------------------------------------------------|-----| | Barrett Kreiner UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!pervect | :-] | | Technical Manager, Fine Arts Computer Lab|--------------------------|-----| | Ball State University. Muncie, Indiana |This space left blank on purpose| |------------------------------------------|--------------------------------| | How am I computing? Let my parents know at ddsw1!kreiner (HI ma & dad) | | Disclamer: "I don't know them! I'm a student, nobody listens to ME!" | |---------------------------------------------------------------------------|