Re: IBM-AT Compatibles?

Article View: net.micro.pc

Article #6684

#6684

From: James E. Mower
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1986 13:19

9 lines
964 bytes

In article <200@hscfvax.UUCP> pavlov@hscfvax.UUCP (840033@G.Pavlov) writes:
>
> The specs "faster than an AT" and "accept any boards for an AT" are contradic-
> tory, unfortunately, as many people are discovering.  
>   g.pavlov, fstrf, amherst, ny

In the May issue of Byte (I think it was May, anyway) I read a blurb suggesting
that the magazine would be including an article on AT clone comparisons within
the next few issues.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <72@sunybcs.UUCP>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!sunybcs!mower

References: <635@afinitc.UUCP> <200@hscfvax.UUCP>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!sunybcs!mower
From: mower@sunybcs.UUCP (James E. Mower)
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc,net.micro
Subject: Re: IBM-AT Compatibles?
Message-ID: <72@sunybcs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Jun-86 09:19:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: sunybcs.72
Posted: Wed Jun 11 09:19:08 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Jun-86 07:44:09 EDT
References: <635@afinitc.UUCP> <200@hscfvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: mower@gort.UUCP (James E. Mower)
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science
Lines: 9

Reply to Parent Message