Xref: utzoo comp.unix.sysv386:1513 comp.os.minix:13007
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!unixhub!shelby!agate!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf.edu!root
From: root@cca.ucsf.edu (Systems Staff)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386,comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: 286 -> 386sx Upgrades
Summary: The NEC didn't pretend to be a clone.
Message-ID: <3208@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu>
Date: 23 Oct 90 02:35:35 GMT
References: <40019@cci632.UUCP> <1990Sep21.144108.1098@pmafire.UUCP> <1990Oct17.175700.24704@ico.isc.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: Computer Center, UCSF
Lines: 30

In article <1990Oct17.175700.24704@ico.isc.com>, rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes:
> 
> A while back I wrote a note that agrees with Kent about the cost.  However,
> it may not be as easy as you think to swap motherboards!  Contrary to
> popular wisdom, the innards of clones are not all plug-compatible.  Most
> are, but beware.  A tale of woe...
> 
> I tried several times to upgrade an old NEC APC-IV.  That's their basic AT
> clone from some years ago.

I don't think NEC ever claimed this was an IBM clone, did they?

The impression I got was that they thought they were big enough
to set a standard themselves. Maybe they did in their domestic
market.

They did do some nice video, though.


 Thos Sumner       Internet: thos@cca.ucsf.edu
 (The I.G.)        UUCP: ...ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf!thos
                   BITNET:  thos@ucsfcca

 U.S. Mail:  Thos Sumner, Computer Center, Rm U-76, UCSF
             San Francisco, CA 94143-0704 USA

I hear nothing in life is certain but death and taxes -- and they're
working on death.

#include <disclaimer.std>