Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!watdcsu!broehl
From: broehl@watdcsu.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: 6300 bugs?
Message-ID: <3900@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>
Date: Tue, 29-Sep-87 13:05:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.3900
Posted: Tue Sep 29 13:05:01 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 1-Oct-87 01:11:03 EDT
References: <290@gvgspd.UUCP> <862@sask.UUCP> <1409@homxc.UUCP> <2150@ihuxy.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: broehl@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Bernie Roehl)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 65
Xref: utgpu comp.sys.ibm.pc:7318 comp.sys.att:1160

In article <2150@ihuxy.ATT.COM> vg55611@ihuxy.ATT.COM (gopal) writes:
>
>Sure, it is not a 100% compatible - that is because it is better.

Really?  We have half a dozen of them, and we wish we'd bought PC-compatibles
instead.

>The problem
>with adding an EGA card etc. is due to the fact that the the 6300 comes with
>a built-in video display board (on the orig. IBM PC, you had to add a card !) - 
Being able to add any of a variety of video cards is really very handy; one
of the major mistakes IBM has made on the new PS/2 series machines is having
the video resident on the motherboard (the same mistake that AT&T made with
the 6300).  At least with the PS/2's, it's pretty straightforward to disable
that circuitry (though having to pay more for something you don't use is
annoying).

>naturally, when you want to disable something that is built-in, it may not
>always be easy.

It ought to be.  It is on the PS/2 series.

>You buy a 6300 and you don't have to worry about buying,
>and installing a video card

For all the users out there who are using PC-compatibles, this has been no
great hardship.  For those who have AT&T 6300's, the problems can be far
greater.

>A user that buys a 6300 can
>usually gets the final system he/she wants - can run most of the software...
 ^^^^^^^                                              ^^^^

It's not unreasonable for users to get what they want when they buy a
system.  All the time, not "usually".  A system that runs the software
that's available... all of it, not "most" of it.

>The compatibility you are talking about is perhaps better described by the
>words "mirror image".

No, when the original poster speaks of "compatibility" he means exactly
that.  And so do I.  A machine that is compatible with software and
hardware designed for the IBM-PC architecture.  If people didn't care
about compatability, they would have bought something else entirely;
an Amiga or an ST or a Mac or whatever.  They bought the 6300 at least
in part because it pretends to be a PC-compatible machine.

>AT&T sells a video bridge adapter and also a spider chip so that you may 
>install third-party video boards

Which is an additional expense, a nuisance, and far more complicated than
simply installing a video board the way you would with a true compatible.

>Think again.

If they'd thought in the first place, they may not have bought the 6300.

(In all fairness, there are other machines that have undocumented
incompatabilities.  We just recently bought 10 Packard-Bells, and have
had problems with the DMA on them, as well as with the video.  Nice
machines, good price, but it took a *lot* of fiddling to get some of the
stuff we've got to work right).

>Venu P. Gopal
>ihnp4!ihuxy!vg55611