Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!oliveb!tymix!antares!pnelson
From: pnelson@antares.UUCP (Phil Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Bridgecard video speed?
Summary: Bridge is OK PC
Message-ID: <276@antares.UUCP>
Date: 22 Nov 88 00:00:46 GMT
References: <901@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM>
Reply-To: pnelson@antares.UUCP (Phil Nelson)
Organization: Tymnet QSATS, San Jose CA
Lines: 32

In article <901@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM> rogers@ncrcce.StPaul.NCR.COM (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes:
>
>I need information on how well the Bridgecard performs.  I understand that the
>CPU speed is as "fast" as an IBM PC.  But what of the video (CGA) performance?
>I seem to recall reading a magazine review that said it was slow and jerky, and
>for best results a PC graphics board should be installed.  A local dealer told
>me that it performed as well as a CGA board if the task priorities were set up
>correctly.  Yet another local dealer claimed that it outperformed a CGA card.
>What's the real story?  How good a PC is the Amiga with Bridgecard?
>-- 


I use the bridge regularly, it has been pretty good. The display is slow and
jerky, although it's not so bad if you run mono (I use 8-color CGA emulation
mostly). I have been able to live with the display, since the rest of the PC
runs at normal speed. It's better than having a separate PC, at least for me.


The worst problem I have had is losing all my disks when the PC crashes,
because they are  on the *bm bus (including the Amiga partition). I would
recommend using an Amiga-side SCSI disk if you can afford it.


>
>Bob Rogers                    rogers@stpaul.ncr.com  or  rogers@pnet51.cts.com
>NCR Comten, St. Paul, MN      GEnie: R.C.ROGERS


-- 
Phil Nelson at (but not speaking for)
Tymnet, McDonnell Douglas Network Systems Company      POTS:408-922-7508
UUCP:{ames|pyramid}oliveb!tymix!antares!pnelson   LRV: Component Station