🚀 go-pugleaf

In reply...

1) Brand: Zeos Pantera Pentium 60 MHz (10 Bay case, Tape Backup, 2x
CD-ROM, 8 Meg RAM )

2) Why? Rated in top 3 in most categories at the time...speed, customer
support, power, reliability.

3) Satisfied? Yes. Very much so.

4) Upgrades? From no modem to USR 14.4 Internal Sportster to USR 28.8
Internal Sportster w/voice messaging; from 8 Meg RAM to 24 Meg RAM; from a
Western Digital 528M IDE HD to an additional Conner 1.275G IDE HD; and
from no network card to a 3Com EtherLink III network card.
Spent to upgrade? Hmmm...Prob. $700-$800.
Upgrade easy? For the most part. After getting Windows 3.11 tweaked to
perfection the Win '95 upgrade was the worst as far as getting it to
recognize and configure my hardware. (Hardware Wizard should be Hardware
Mage Apprentice in Training). ;-]

its@xmission.com (Travel CD) wrote:

>for people who have purchased IBM compatible computers.  If you would answer
>these four questions, I would greatly appreciate it.  If possible, please
>reply to 671572@little-bobby.byu.edu.

>Thanks in advance...You can keep your answers as brief as possible, too.

>1)   What brand of compatible did you purchase (IBM, Dell, whatever...)

>2)   Why did you choose that brand?

>3)   Are you satisfied with your selection?

>4)   Have you upgraded/added anything to your system
>       - (cpu/modem/ram/disks/etc)?
>     About how much have you spend to upgrade?
>     Did you consider the upgrading easy to do?


Hope the following answers assist you.

1)  Micron 486DX2-66

2)  Positive rating from previous owners and PC magazines.

3)  I've had the computer for a little over a year and I don't regret
purchasing this brand at all.

4) I have added/upgraded the following:
    a.  8MB RAM for 16MB Total
    b.  28.8 modem
    c.  Logitech color hand scanner
    d.  Diamond Stealth Video Card w/ 2MB DRAM
    e.  Yamaha YST-M10 powered speakers
    f.  Windows 95

    Total approx cost for above: $820.00.  I found all the upgrades
extremely easy to do.

Again, hope it helps,

Jose
jcamargo@huey.csun.edu

In article <pms49.42.30AD6C5B@omni.voicenet.com>, Paul M. Schuer wrote:
>In article <48hmdd$c4j@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> camargo@primenet.com (Jose Camargo) writes:
>>its@xmission.com (Travel CD) wrote:
>>>for people who have purchased IBM compatible computers. 
>
>First of all, IBM compatible is a misnomer. What you are saying is "MSDOS 
>machines with Intel processors".  The IBM machine we thought of for years was 
>running Microsoft's (ala bill gates) msdos on an 80x86 intel processor. Now 
>things may be different but... the 80x86 processor from intel appears to be 
>the standard. IBM is NOT the standard pc any more. READ AND HEAD the pc  
>magazines. Please disassociate IBM with the standard, the world had changed 
>and IBM went the way of the S100 buss and CP/M.

Well, I disagree.  There were 'MSDOS machines with Intel processors', but
they went the way of the S100.  All the software came to depend not on DOS
and the BIOS but on the surrounding hardware.  All computers now are still
compatible - they have compatible floppy controller chips, UART chips,
Programmable Interrupt Controller chips, etc.  There was/is a LOT more to
compatibility than running DOS; remember when all the computer ads bragged
that their clone would run MS Flight Simulator 2?  Not too many DOS calls
in that guy...

We are saddled with the albatross of IBM PC compatibility for some time to
come.  DOS and the IBM hardware set are our legacy on PC's as COBOL  and
big round tapes are on mainframes. 

That is, as long as you insist on running DOS or Windows ;^>

Cheers,
Garrett
--
Garrett P. Nievin                             | http://osf1.gmu.edu/~gnievin
12/95 Wired magazine says --                  | Any opinions stated here are 
Tired:   Microsoft Windows 95  Wired: Linux   | probably not shared by anyone, 
How can the new guy be tired already?         | least of all my employer.

pms49@omni.voicenet.com (Paul M. Schuer) wrote:

>In article <48hmdd$c4j@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> camargo@primenet.com (Jose Camargo) writes:
>>From: camargo@primenet.com (Jose Camargo)
>>Subject: Re: SURVEY for college student
>>Date: Fri, 17 Nov 1995 09:59:40 GMT

>>its@xmission.com (Travel CD) wrote:

>>>for people who have purchased IBM compatible computers. 

>First of all, IBM compatible is a misnomer. What you are saying is "MSDOS 
>machines with Intel processors".  The IBM machine we thought of for years was 
>running Microsoft's (ala bill gates) msdos on an 80x86 intel processor. Now 
>things may be different but... the 80x86 processor from intel appears to be 
>the standard. IBM is NOT the standard pc any more. READ AND HEAD the pc  
>magazines. Please disassociate IBM with the standard, the world had changed 
>and IBM went the way of the S100 buss and CP/M.

Deja vu all over again! Remember when Hollerith cards were called "IBM
Card"???

MAO

*************************************
*** No good deed goes unpunished! ***
*************************************