🚀 go-pugleaf

I would like to bring up a rather confusing subject, though I'm certain it has
been discussed in detail before.  

It used to be compatibility was measured in the bios.  For clones, Pheonix
was the right choice.  Compaq did a good job too.  There were lots of others
out, none of which had a fantastic, error free reputation.  Today, many clone
makers have gone to AMI.

What I know about the bunch is rather basic.  
1. IBM is the one to clone for bios compatibility.  Lately, very little 
support of all of the wonderful new periphs and drives, or diags.

2. Compaq.  Very software compatible, rapidly becoming more hardware
proprietary. (My Compaq P1 bios drive table won't properly support a
Seagate ST-151 - according to Seagate !)

3. Pheonix, long the standard for clone compatibility, lately being   
overshadowed (no pun intended).  I've never had nor heard of problems with
Pheonix.

4. AMI is rapidly becoming the new clone-in-a-box standard, apparently
because of its built in diags and setup routines.

OK. I probably left out a few good ones here, so feel free to post additions
as you see fit.  The ten-thousand-dollar question is:
    Which bios (for clones) is most functional [notice I did not say better]
    for hardware and software compatibility and support ? Why?

Let's try to save the net some bucks and keep posted responses short and
direct.
Please save long responses for E-mail - I'll post a summary. 

- Marc Levinson

-- 
LEVINSON,MARC LOUIS
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp: ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!gt0159a
ARPA: gt0159a@prism.gatech.edu