From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Gateway vs. Austin questions
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:17:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.144306.18594@inmet.camb.inmet.com> lipsett@lido.camb.inmet.com (Roger Lipsett) writes:
>
>I am in the process of shopping for a possible new clone.  I have called
>both GW2000 and Austin computers, and they have offered me the following
>alleged deals:


	Might try one of the ney Hyundai machines.  Nice quality, 
	cheap, and allof the features (ATI Ultra Pro LB) that Gateway
	is offering.


>Austin: 486 DX2/50, 8Mb, 210Mb WD hard disk, WD Paradise card (1024x768x256

			This video card is so/so.  The ATI 
	ultra pro on the Gatrway will toast it, and the local
	bus implementation just makes it more so.


>NI, "GUI accelerated"), and a CTX 14: CPS5468NI (upgrade to 15" flat-screen
>CPS1560 for $150).  Price is $2386 plus shipping with the 14" monitor.  I
>would almost certainly get the 15" monitor, which would make the price $2536
>plus shipping.
>
>Gateway: 486 DX2/50, 8Mb, 250Mb WD hard disk (local bus IDE), ATI Ultra Pro


	Get the DX-2/66.  the price difference makes it worth it.  If
	you can't get the DX2/66, get the DX/33.  Don't bother with the
	DX-2/50.  Furthermore, if you can afford it, go ahead and
	get 16 megs on both systems.  


>local bus video, 15" Mag flat-screen MX15 without autosizing (this,
>according to the GW salesperson, is the only difference between the GW 15"
>monitor and the standard MX15, and "it's no big deal").  Price is $2695 plus
>shipping. 
>
>I am (perhaps overly, perhaps not) worried about monitor clarity and
>quality, having been burned by my first purchase, the standard GW2000
>Crystal Scan 1024NI, which is, putting it politely, not very good.


	So don't buy from either.  The Gateway monitor is so/so.  I found
	better quality (flatter, darker-black screen, sharper) in a 
	Sampo Alphascan 15.  (It doesn't support refresh rates as high,
	tho).  My Nec monitor is even nicer.  If you can, go with the
	Nec.  There are basically two things you're stuck with once
	you buy your system--processor and monitor--always buy the best
	that you can for both, because the cost of replacing them is 
	much higher than for anything else (memory, storage, video card).

	Also, check that all systems you're looking at have the 16550
	and not 8250's.  (Or at least have socketed 16450s)..


>So, in addition to soliciting general advice about these two systems, I have
>the following specific questions:
>1.  Is the ATI Ultra Pro card the same as the ATI Graphics Ultra Pro?  I
>    assume not, but it's impossible to tell from the advertising.  If not,
>    what are the differences?


	Same card, but the local bus version easily whips the
	ISA version, even more so when comparing straight VGA
	programs (for instance, two or three copies on a 16 meg
	DX266 under OS/2 of Wing Commander all run too blindingly
	fast to play on the LB machine, while an identical non-LB
	machine bogs down)


>2.  How does GUI acceleration compare to local bus implementations in terms
>    of overall Windows performance?  My family tends to be rather heavy
>    Windows users.  Another question:  how stable are the VESA local bus
>    standards, and do they really provide enough end-user benefit that they
>    will survive even for the presumed useful life of this machine?


	Well, there's the rub.  However, you're already getting a video
	card that is probably going to be adequate for several
	years.  After that, you'll want to replace a lot more than 
	just the video card--monitor and cpu come to mind.  I wouldn't
	worry about it.


>3.  How is the WD Paradise card compared to the ATI Ultra Pro card?
>    Interesting comparisons are: performance, RAM, refresh rates,
>    resolutions, etc. 


	The ATI, IMHO, is better.  OTOH, if you're going to be running OS/2,
	neither will help because there aren't any drivers.  If OS/2 is
	a priority, consider a different card.

	Gateway will promise OS/2 drivers--DO NOT BELIEVE THEM.

	Might try Zeos--they claim drivers too, but I don't know if I 
	trust them.  They were unwilling to give me details about a 
	lot of their system (they wouldn't even tell me the answer to the
	16550 question) so I chose not to order from them.


>4.  How about the monitors?  I have seen the CTX 15" at a store, and it
>    appeared to be pretty good in terms of clarity.  I've never seen the MAG
>    15".  What I really want is an NEC 3FG (or 4FG), but probably can't
>    afford it.  Does anyone have experience with both of these monitors?
>    How do they compare for clarity, reliability, etc.?  Should I try to
>    stretch to a 3FG?


	Go ahead.  To be honest, anything more than 800x600 on a 14"er
	is kind of a waste.


>Finally, I more or less know what I'm getting from Gateway - I already have
>one of their systems.  How is Austin as a company?  Do they have decent tech
>support?  My experience with GW has been that I generally know more about
>the problem than the person to whom I end up speaking, but they have been
>responsive in terms of sending out updated drivers, mounting rails, etc.
>Their hold time problems seem to be much better these days too.
>
>Are there any other mail-order companies I should be looking at?


	Zeos, Dell.  Dell, especially.  Also, take a look at the new
	systems from IBM and Compaq--they're not that bad.  And if you're
	looking at a non-LB ISA system, consider skipping the hassle of
	mail order altogether and buying local from a company like Accel--
	I can find better deals local on such generic systems than I can
	find in Computer Shopper.



-- 
	Blaming society for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
	---
	Do I even need to point out that my views do not represent
	those of my employer, institution or relations?
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware