Xref: utzoo comp.misc:12824 comp.sys.misc:3422 comp.os.misc:1853 comp.sys.apple2:17055 comp.sys.cbm:7159
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!apple!voder!pyramid!csg
From: csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,comp.sys.misc,comp.os.misc,comp.sys.apple2,comp.sys.cbm
Subject: Re: Ohio Scientific
Message-ID: <157796@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Date: 4 Jun 91 23:28:39 GMT
References: <1991May21.210947.23057@endeavor.intel.com> <1991May22.202435.24605@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <RWELCH.91May22230850@isis.isis.cs.du.edu>
Followup-To: comp.sys.misc
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 11

In article <RWELCH.91May22230850@isis.isis.cs.du.edu> rwelch@isis.cs.du.edu (Randy S. Welch) writes:
>For it's day it was a decent system. 

Are we talking about the same machines here? I used OSI Challanger systems of
various flavors for three years, and they were just plain junk. Far inferior
to the systems you could get from Altair, Imsai, Processor Tech, or SWTPC at
the time of the C1P, and to the Northstar and Cromemco systems in the days of
the C4. Poor design, poor software, poor manufacturing. And I *liked* the 6502
processor. 

<csg>