myb@philabs.Philips.Com (Michael Bakhmutsky) (11/25/87)
Which AT clones do not have problems ? Anticipated applications include: CAD work, record keeping, programming in C, games and fun. Monitor and card purchased: NEC MULTISYNC II and GENOA Super Hi Res.
myb@philabs.Philips.Com (Michael Bakhmutsky) (11/25/87)
Which AT clones do not have problems ? Anticipated applications include: CAD work, record keeping, programming in C, games, GEM, fun. Monitor and card purchased: NEC MULTISYNC II and GENOA Super Hi Res. A base system (preferrably 12 MHz) and a hard drive (40 Mb) is a question.
jbs@eddie.MIT.EDU (Jeff Siegal) (11/30/87)
In article <2001@briar.Philips.Com> myb@philabs.Philips.Com (Michael Bakhmutsky) writes: >Which AT clones do not have problems ? I've never had any problems (compatibility, reliability, etc.) with my AST Research Premium/286. Jeff Siegal
perkins@bnrmtv.UUCP (Henry Perkins) (12/01/87)
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.
rcw@qetzal.UUCP (Robert C. White) (12/02/87)
In article <3151@bnrmtv.UUCP>, perkins@bnrmtv.UUCP (Henry Perkins) writes: > Compaqs are quite reliable, guaranteed to be IBM-compatible, and > give better-than-IBM performance. They're also not cheap. FLAME ON A Compaq just about took a twenty story leap two weeks ago. I tried for a week to read the Compaq's 1.2 meg floppies, gave up, and had our guy send out the hard disk. I was expecting the hard disk to be like any other hard disk I'd ever seen on an AT. Foolish me. Unfortunately, the Compaq had a CDC type 17 drive in it and nonstandard connectors (the pin type as opposed to the edge connectors). If this is Compaq's cute idea of locking you into their hard drives, it didn't seem very funny as I drove 170 miles on icy roads in the middle of a snowstorm in the middle of the night to meet the rest of the Compaq in Burlington, Colorado to pick up the machine and meet a 9 a.m. deadline back in Denver the same morning. I get the damn thing back to the office, plug it in, and the disk drive makes some god-awful high pitched noises (found out later it'd been doing that in Kansas for two months! - Businessland couldn't fix it, but that is another flame), but was able to hardwire it to the trusty Microport IMS clone and transfer my 14 megabyte data file. Whew. Ok, you can flame me for wanting to play hardware boy, but I've done it for so long I don't really want to change my evil ways, and I don't appreciate manipulative tweaks by hardware manufactures. I'd expect it from IBM, but not clone makers. FLAME UP I'll never buy a Compaq product as long as I live and breathe. Ever. Save your moolah and buy an unabashed clone. FLAME OFF Robert White -- //////////////////286 Moderator -- comp.unix.microport\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Email to microport@uwspan for info on the newsgroup comp.unix.microport. otherwise mail to microport@uwspan with a Subject containing one of: 386 286 Bug Source Merge or "Send Buglist" (rutgers!uwvax!uwspan!microport)
jonm@killer.UUCP (12/07/87)
> rcw@qetzal.UUCP (Robert C. White) writes: > ... > Foolish me. > ... "Foolish you" indeed, is right! I'm sorry that Mr. White feels that Compaq is as he says "manipulatively tweaking" their hardware. As far am I'm concerned, nothing could be farther from the truth. Compaq is dedicated to compatiblity and customer satisfaction. Admittedly the customer service and support provided by the retail channels varies greatly, from superior to unacceptable, but if Mr. White had taken the time to contact Compaq directly he might have been able to avoid some of his misadventures. I should say, for everyone's information, that the views expressed in this article are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer, *Compaq Computer Corporation*. As a relatively new Compaq employee in a systems engineering group I can, I believe fairly unbiasedly, attest to the the high standards of "industry standard" compatibility which are applied to Compaq products. There is a lot of pride in the success of Compaq in competition with IBM and PC clone-makers in product performance and innovation. Mr. White seems to have had several distinct problems in transfering large data files from a Compaq system to some other system. I quote from his article: 1) [Mr. White] "...tried for a week to read the Compaq's 1.2 meg floppies..." 2) "...the Compaq had a CDC type 17 drive in it and nonstandard connectors" 3) "the disk drive makes some god-awful high pitched noises" I don't understand the nature of the problem Mr. White had reading the 1.2 meg floppies. If he was attempting to read 360K format floppies written on a 1.2 meg drive on the Compaq with a 360K drive on the destination system, then he may well have had difficulty, but that problem is not realted to Compaq's reliability or compatibility. The 360K floppy disk has 48 tpi, the 1.2 meg floppy disk has 96 tpi. When the 1.2 meg drive writes a 360K formatted disk, the information is written to the correct track location, but the track is only half as wide. The resulting disk may or may not be readable on a 360K drive, depending on the alignment of the reading and writing drives. Both IBM and Compaq have documented this "limitation", but as a matter of fact, I routinely transfer data on diskettes between the 1.2 meg floppy drive on a Compaq 286 Deskpro and generic 360K floppy drives with few problems. If on the other hand he was trying to read 1.2 meg images on the destination machine, there is a distinct possiblity that the problem was the result of alignment differences between the two 1.2 meg drives. Mr. White does not specify the Compaq system configuration and mentions the destination system only obliquely as "the trusty Microport IMS clone". It takes two to tango, though, and the problem might well have been with the destination system and not with the Compaq. If either system's drive were badly out of alignment or if the two system's drives were out of adjustment in opposite directions, then certainly read errors could make diskette data interchange between the systems difficult. As for the incompatibilty of the fixed disk drive connections, the most obvious point is that fixed disks are not intended to be data exchange devices,-- particularly when separated from their controllors and software device driver routines. These points and the stories of how may miles Mr. White drove through the ice and snow because of his own naivete' not withstanding, there are many possible reasons for the differences among the many fixed disk drives which Compaq supports. Fixed disk drives used in portable computers must not only be small enough to fit into the portable case, but must also be able to survive the bumps and shocks received in transport. Since Mr. White did not describe the Compaq system, I don't know if the unit with which he had a problem was intended for use in a portable system. The 40 or 50 fixed disk drive types currently supported by Compaq have a variety of operating characteristics and applications. The most recent additions to the list include high performance/high capacity fixed disk drives using a 1:1 interleave factor. While the drive with which Mr. White had difficulty was not one of these new drives, I doubt that anyone would expect to be able to simply plug one of these drives into a "foriegn" system (controllor/ROM/driver) and have the data be accessible. The same holds true for many of the earlier Compaq fixed disk drives. With regards to the "high pitched noises", it sounds (pun intended) as though the hard disk drive may be failing. Fixed disk drives have a projected operating life expectancy and eventually *will* fail. The exact nature of Mr. White's complaint is unclear. Does he feel that the fixed disk drive failed because of poor quality control or is his complaint mainly with the poor sevice which the retail dealer provided? If the Compaq system were still in warranty and the dealer could not correct the problem then a call to Compaq customer support would obtain information on other service channels for repair under warranty. As with all consumer product service problems, if the dealer cannot resolve the difficulty, the customer should esclate the complaint to the dealer's "home office", the distributor, and then the manufacturer. Mr. White's flamage is colorful, but short on fuel to keep the fires really burning brightly. If these were the worst complaints concerning compatibility of a non-IBM PC, then all the Korean and ROC manufacturers would "wish that they had it so bad..." Mr. White's oath to never purchase a Compaq product seems a little silly when compared to the trade journals' and general market's view of Compaq,-- particularly the new 386 systems. The decision of which PC to buy should be made on a variety of criteria including price, performance, compatibility, support and in some cases name brand. Yes, there are still some places where "nobody ever lost his/her job for buying an IBM product." Compaq also has a name and reputation which make it an attractive source for PC's. As for prices, Compaq's suggested list prices are comparable with their competitor, IBM. In general, Compaq's distribution channels and marketing strategies take their products out of competition with PC-clone importers and mail order computer system integrators. It may well be that a low cost PC-clone provides the best price/performance/reliability match for a particular situation. The quality of customer support, especially for non-technical users, and dealer and manufacturer reputations may, however, make a larger initial investment payoff in the long run. JonM
berger@clio.las.uiuc.edu (12/08/87)
Where are you getting your replacement supplies: My boss's Compaq just
died for the first time since we bought it more than 3 years ago. It's
fully loaded, including 640K ram, two floppy drives, and a hard disk.
One of our local Compaq dealers had two different power supplies
available for replacement ($ 125 for either option). One company
rebuilt supplies, and offered a 1 year warranty. Compaq offered
new supplies, with a 90 day warranty.
Initially they gave us a rebuilt supply, which never worked right
from the beginning. Within three days, it was dead from a shorted
diode. The dealer told me that, although a lot of customers found
the longer warranty more attractive, they had a higher failure
rate with the rebuilt supplies. The factory-new supply, a different
design than the original, works fine.
Be sure that you're getting a new Compaq factory supply, and that
it's the latest design. Your dealer might fix old supplies for
resale, or get them from the same rebuilder as our local dealer.
Mike Berger
Center for Advanced Study
University of Illinois
berger@clio.las.uiuc.edu
{ihnp4 | convex | pur-ee}!uiucuxc!clio!bergerphil@amdcad.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (12/08/87)
Ok, you Compaq lovers, how about this? My Compaq DOS manual wouldn't
fit into its binder because the holes punched didn't match the ring
spacing. How hard can it be to get this right?
And why can't Compaq use the same size manuals as everyone else?
--
I speak for myself, not the company.
Phil Ngai, {ucbvax,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!phil or amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.comjohnm@auscso.UUCP (John B. Meaders) (12/08/87)
In article <19478@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > >Ok, you Compaq lovers, how about this? My Compaq DOS manual wouldn't >fit into its binder because the holes punched didn't match the ring >spacing. How hard can it be to get this right? > >And why can't Compaq use the same size manuals as everyone else? Come on can't you come up with a better gripe. This is petty. I have had a Compaq Deskpro (8086) since Dec of 85. For the past year it has been running non-stop except for occasional shutdowns to upgrade the machine and install operating systems. My only reply to your incessant whining is: Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (little baby screaming) -- John B. Meaders, Jr. 1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX 78752 ATT: Voice: +1 (512) 451-5038 Data: +1 (512) 371-0550 UUCP: ...!ut-ngp!auscso!jclyde!john \johnm
pavlov@hscfvax.UUCP (G.Pavlov) (12/09/87)
In article <2363@killer.UUCP>, jonm@killer.UUCP (Jon Meinecke) writes: > > ...... long "defense" of his employer, Compaq ..... ending with: > It may well be that a low cost PC-clone provides the best > price/performance/reliability match for a particular situation. The > quality of customer support, especially for non-technical users, and > dealer and manufacturer reputations may, however, make a larger > initial investment payoff in the long run. > > JonM Alternatively, one can (should, actually, if spending someone else's money) consider offerings from other comapnies, particularly AST, which I believe are at least equal to Compaq's ("reputation" for) quality, have wide distri- bution, exhibit innovative design, yet are significantly cheaper. greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny
haapanen@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) (12/10/87)
In article <483@hscfvax.UUCP> pavlov@hscfvax.UUCP (G.Pavlov) writes: >In article <2363@killer.UUCP>, jonm@killer.UUCP (Jon Meinecke) writes: >> It may well be that a low cost PC-clone provides the best >> price/performance/reliability match for a particular situation. The >> quality of customer support, especially for non-technical users, and >> dealer and manufacturer reputations may, however, make a larger >> initial investment payoff in the long run. > Alternatively, one can (should, actually, if spending someone else's money) > consider offerings from other comapnies, particularly AST, which I believe > are at least equal to Compaq's ("reputation" for) quality, have wide distri- > bution, exhibit innovative design, yet are significantly cheaper. A case in point: I have an AST/286, a friend has a Compaq 286. Neither of them has any sort of reliability problems. But, we both decided to install 3.5" disk drives in the machines. Here's what happened: AST: Remove cover (screws are pretty tight). Uh-huh, have to remove hard disk to get at screws for floppy disk (6 screws for hard disk, 4 for floppy). Install revised cable on floppy, install drive. Replace hard disk, plug in cables, replace cover. Run setup, select 720K for drive 1. AST's MS-DOS works with no problem. Driveline isn't supposedly supported, but when I added drivparm=/d:1 /f:2 it was OK. Compaq: Remove cover. Oops, need a Torx, get one from Canadian Tire. Oh, #10 won't work. Go back, exchange for #15, and remove cover. Where to install -- cable will only reach to the left side. Must remove all expansion cards (more Torx) and fron indicator panel. Remove blank panel. Aha, drive needs rails. Install rails (included) --- but hey, Compaq doesn't use the IBM-standard rails! After an hours' worth of customizing, rails will fit and attach, although not as steady as IBM or AST. Find a power connector since Compaq doesn't supply spare power cables. Make connections, replace cards, panel, cover. Setup has no option for 720K drives, Compaq DOS 3.1 won't recognize it. Switch to generic MS-DOS 3.2, add drivparm line to config.sys. Drive now works, but on boot the machine complains that setup has not been run. Try Phoenix setup, but appears that Compaq uses non-standard setup. Conclusion: The AST is more nicely built, has good service, standard components, and is significantly cheaper than Compaq. Of course, this is just my (and my friend's!) opinion. \tom haapanen haapanen@watdcsu.uucp I have no association with AST, except as a satisfied user of their products.
jonm@killer.UUCP (Jon Meinecke) (12/11/87)
In article <483@hscfvax.UUCP>, pavlov@hscfvax.UUCP (G.Pavlov) writes: > In article <2363@killer.UUCP>, jonm@killer.UUCP (Jon Meinecke) writes: > > > > ...... long "defense" of his employer, Compaq ..... > ending with: > > ...[ quote from my posting ] ... > > greg pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny If you've dismissed all my comments on this subject as merely partisanism by a Compaq employee, "hit 'n' now"!... My response to Mr. White's posting regarding problems that he had transferring data from a Compaq PC was not meant to be a "defense" of my employer, but rather a response to what I believed was a poorly formed assessment of a PC manufactuer's compatibility and corporate motives. I would have taken just as much exception, though perhaps not as much interest, to the "put-down" of any PC-compatible system on the basis of Mr. White's complaints. Examine my responses to the specific problems discussed by Mr. White and if the responses have no merit, dismiss them. You will get no argument from me that there are many excellent PC-compatible systems which cost less than a comparable Compaq system. If I were purchasing a system for my own use, I would probably buy the lowest cost system which met my performance, compatibility, and support requirements. Such a system might well *not* be a Compaq if I were buying an AT class desktop computer. There is intense price competition among the makers of such systems, with prices reducing some of the other concerns regarding long term support and service. If I needed a portable 386 or high-end desktop 386 system, then the story might be different... These systems won't be "obsolete" (hopefully) as soon as the PC and AT class machines and therefore comprise a longer term investment and a different set of puchasing criteria. Some of the largest rocks concerning compatibility and ease of service of Compaq systems are thrown (internally) by Compaq employees. When these stones hit their target, the problem is corrected, usually before the system "hits the street". Read my postings with appropriate skepticism, if you will, but hopefully I can contribute some perspective on PC issues. Compaq is not the first manufaturer of PC hardware for which I have worked and I believe that my background is broad enough to add to the "signal" rather than the "noise" component of this news group. I'm a software engineer, not a hardware designer or marketeer,-- primarily a "consumer" of PC hardware rather than a "supplier". Thanks for reading this response, JonM These are my own views (really!), and do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.
jamesa@amadeus.TEK.COM (James Akiyama) (12/12/87)
Mr. White Writes: > Unfortunately, the Compaq had a CDC type 17 drive in it and nonstandard > connectors (the pin type as opposed to the edge connectors). > If this is Compaq's cute idea of locking you into their hard drives, > it didn't seem very funny as I drove 170 miles on icy > roads in the middle of a snowstorm in the middle of the night > to meet the rest of the Compaq in Burlington, Colorado to pick up > the machine and meet a 9 a.m. deadline back in Denver the same morning. There are other possible explanations for Compaq choosing this "nonstandard" connector scheme. I believe you will find that this connector is really a modified (and stripped-down) IBM PC/AT style interface. This interface is actually very close to the interface used on many of the "hard-card" drives. The "standard" interface today is the ST506/412 interface using MFM encoding. This "standard" is beginning to become outdated. Major limitations include: 1. Approximately 160 MEG capacity limit due to head, cylinder, and and track density limitation imposed by standard. 2. Maximum transfer rate of 5 megabits/second (1/2 megabyte/second) transfer rate. By having the interface AT-style and placing the fixed disk controller on the fixed disk itself, these limitations can be overcome in future disk drives. Compaq has already done this with their 100 MEG drive option in the Portable 386. This 3 1/2" drive (made by Connors Peripheral) uses an embedded SCSI controller using 2,7 RLL encoding. This allows an effective transfer rate five times faster than the "standard" AT-style controller (since AT's normally require an interleave of 2:1). It also allows better optimization of the controller to the fixed disk often times yielding a better average seek time and overall performance. Note that this drive may be plugged into any Compaq which supports the drive type number WITHOUT CHANGING THE CONTROLLER BOARD. This drive would require a new controller card in most AT-clones, which is nearly impossible in Compaq's portables since they include other functions on the controller board (I assume for size reduction reasons). Other advantages could be stated including manufacturing cost reduction on computers configured without fixed disks (including a "diskless" node to a network) since such a unit does not have a useless fixed disk controller included. As for adding a "non-Compaq" fixed disk; you might try contacting a local Western Digital dealer. I believe that they actually do manufacture the embedded controller for ST506 MFM drives used on Compaqs. I believe the controller is their WD1003-IDX controller and is again similar to the controller they use on their hard cards. I am not sure whether Western Digital sells these outright or just to OEMs but it's probably worth a try. I realize that this may be make third party upgrades inconvenient and difficult but as a design engineer myself I know that often times tradeoffs must be made between overall performance and ease of option installations. Note that I am not affiliated in any way to Compaq computers (I work at Tektronix, Inc.) other than owning a Compaq computer myself. This information is my own options and does not necessarily reflect the view of Tektronix, Inc. I hope this information is helpful. James Akiyama
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (12/13/87)
We are now buying Compaq computers. But all our older machines are IBM. And we didn't want to waste money on stocking both "standard" and Compaq hard drives for spares. (With over a hundred machines, spares are _not_ a luxury!) The solution is rather simple. On the Deskpro 286, you flip _one_ dip switch which disables the hard drive controller on the multifunction board. Then add a (cheap) WD controller and you have a Compaq running a standard drive and controller pair. -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'. You know... I'd rather be a hacker."
jallen@netxcom.UUCP (John Allen) (12/18/87)
In article <636@qetzal.UUCP> rcw@qetzal.UUCP (Robert C. White) writes: >In article <3151@bnrmtv.UUCP>, perkins@bnrmtv.UUCP (Henry Perkins) writes: >> Compaqs are quite reliable, guaranteed to be IBM-compatible, and >> give better-than-IBM performance. They're also not cheap. > >FLAME ON > > [Stuff about floppy trouble, incompatible HD interface, > Compaq price gouging, etc.] > >... but was able to hardwire >it to the trusty Microport IMS clone and transfer my 14 megabyte >data file. Whew. Contains mild IMS flames... Sorry, but this is where I really get lost. I own a clone. I now use several varieties of clone at the office as well. Two of the ones at the office are IMS machines, and we have Microport running (sort of) on an NCR. The IMS has been the very least compatible with respect to the floppy. We can also cause its keyboard to hang *at will*. The Compaq machines, while they may not be physically hardware compatible, are a much higher quality machine than the IMS. Further, the hardware differences would all appear to have been included for performance, and *not* for pricing. Do you really think the PC market is sophisticated enough to need that type of justification for Compaq's price structure? I don't. In short, I wouldn't buy one for home, but the Compaq is the best match for some jobs. BTW, specifics about our IMS troubles are available on request. John Allen ========================================================================= NetExpress Communications, Inc. uunet!netxcom!jallen 1953 Gallows Road, Suite 300 (703) 749-2238 Vienna, Va., 22180 =========================================================================