Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utah-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!hplabs!utah-cs!brownc
From: brownc@utah-cs.UUCP (Eric C. Brown)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Re: AT vs Z-100 - a myth
Message-ID: <3356@utah-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-May-85 12:05:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: utah-cs.3356
Posted: Fri May 31 12:05:16 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Jun-85 05:32:39 EDT
References: <11183@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: brownc@utah-cs.UUCP (Eric C. Brown)
Organization: Univ of Utah CS Dept
Lines: 22
Summary: 

Has anybody considered the possibility that IBM AT BASICA ver. 3.0 is 
a set of patches to IBM XT BASICA ver. 2.0, which is a set of patches to
IBM PC BASICA ver. 1.1, which is a set of patches to IBM PC BASICA ver. 1.0,
which is a set of patches to IBM PC Disk BASIC ver. 1.0, which is a set of
patches to IBM PC Cassette BASIC ver. 1.0?

I'm fairly sure that Z-100 ZBASIC is one unpatched piece of code, and it might
even be real 8086 code, rather than translated 8080 code (like IBM PC Cassette
BASIC).  A more meaningful comparison might be between IBM PC BASICA and
IBM AT BASICA.

For my two cents, I have noticed that the AT runs about 6 times faster than
the Zenith Z-100 when you run things like Pascal programs or compilers.  The
AT hard disk alone is a lot faster than the Z-100 hard disk, which speeds
compiles up a lot all by itself.

Personally, I'm waiting for my Zenith Z-200.  Zenith Reliability, AT 
Performance.  What more could you ask for?

Eric C. Brown
brownc@utah-cs
..!{ihnp4, seismo, decvax}!utah-cs!brownc