Xref: utzoo comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d:6790 comp.sys.ibm.pc:45515
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!dogie.macc.wisc.edu!vms.macc.wisc.edu
From: anderson@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: everex
Message-ID: <3264@dogie.macc.wisc.edu>
Date: 2 Mar 90 00:22:59 GMT
Sender: news@dogie.macc.wisc.edu
Followup-To: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center
Lines: 38

In article <23188@usc.edu> kjh@pollux.usc.edu (Kenneth J.
Hendrickson) writes:

[various complaints about Everex products, broadcast to
 six newsgroups.  If you follow up to *my* article,
 please edit the newsgroups line to direct your response
 to comp.sys.ibm.pc only.]

I don't in any way take issue with the experiences Ken
reports, nor with his reporting them.

But I think in condemning Everex *as a whole*, he could be
exposing himself to litigation.  I'm not a lawyer, and free
speech lets one say quite a lot.  But a person making
sweeping generalizations on the basis of quite specific
evidence in a more limited context *might* be asking for
legal trouble.

I have puchased two Everex computers (1800B, AT clones) and
still own one of them, and I found both to be *superior*
products, by which I mean better than any other clone I
could find, even before taking price into account.

Of course, since then, more advanced models have come on the
market, but based on my own experience I would certainly not
hesitate to buy another Everex product.  If I bought from
another vendor and found that Everex components were used, I
would consider that an asset, not a liability.

So my experiences are almost diametrically opposite the ones
Ken reports.

Disclaimer:
My employer sells true-blue IBMs and Apple Macintoshes,
but I have no connection with our sales programs.  My only
connection with Everex is as a small-scale customer.

---