X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.novell
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:14:13 PST
Reply-To:     Novell LAN Interest Group <NOVELL@SUVM.BITNET>
From:         Richard Warner <rick@SJSUMCS.SJSU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: microchannel vs eisa
              McCathern" at Nov 9, 92 2:23 pm

> I prefer microchannel to esia.  I have a model 95 as a server and 55,56,57,70
> 80, and 90s as workstations.  Alot of the decision comes down to personal
> preference.  Some benckmarks will place MCA as a higher performance others
> EISA higher.  Based on a few more or less "eye ball" comparisons my 25Mhz
> 486sx compares very favorably to a colleague's Dell 33Mhz EISA 486.  He
> swears by EISA like I do MCA.  He has had more problems with his network.

I think that personal preference is it for now, on servers at least.  Better
3rd party card support may give the nod to EISA for network nodes, IMHO.

> As far as quality of an IBM, they are rock solid.  I have nearly 100 PS/2s
> ranging better 30-286s up to 95s.  In 2 1/2 years I have had to replace 2
> monitors and a floppy drive.  I had to replace 3 monitors and a hard drive
> on my 10 Dell computers.  I won't even discuss they few zeniths I've worked
> with.

I think that the myth of IBM reliability is over-blown.  They have had
their share of disasters, but people tend to forget them.  Take the
following examples:

   - IBM 8513 monitors.  Almost every one built in 1987-89 was defective.
     We bought hundreds at the company I used to work for, and it was a
     total disaster.  25% out of box failure rate, >50% failure in first
     year, 100% failure within 4 years.  We were a big customer, so IBM
     kept extending our warranty, but we finally decided they were not
     worth the hassle and replaced all of them with Sony's.

   - The original IBM 8570-A71 (Model 70 386/33 with 120 Mb hard drive).
     100% failure rate in the first week, all attributable to a poorly
     built, IBM-manufactured hard-drive.  IBM had to take this off the
     market for a while as they fixed their hard-drive manufacturing
     facility.

   - The original IBM AT with the flaky 20 Mb CMI hard-drive.  CMI was
     driven out of the computer business (into movie production) due
     to that fiasco, but the damage was done - and made worse due to
     IBM's failure to acknowledge the problem.  (anyone else remember
     CORE's response - the trade-in deal with the old CMI's being
     dumped off the coast next to IBM/Boca Raton to form an artifical reef).

The PS/2 line also suffers from a large number of incompatibilities.  The
ESDI drives in the 60's and early Model 80's are non-standard.  As far
as memory upgrades go, an 80-041 != 80-071 != 80-111 != 80-311 != 70-061 !=
70-A21 etc. etc. - e.g., each and every 386 box had a different memory
upgrade path.  IBM is finally getting better in this regard, but anyone
with a fleet of PS/2's knows what a hassle it is to upgrade them.

> I'm not sure if MCA is proprietary or not.  There are other people who
> sell MCA computers.  I have a NCR MCA computer and it seems to be completely
> compatible.  Microchannel components and adaptors are also widely available.

It is IBM proprietary.  One of the reasons it did not catch on, is that in
order to license MCA from IBM a vendor had to agree to pay post hoc license
fees on all ISA machines sold in the past.  So Compaq, et. al., decided to
create their own extended, bus-mastering bus architecture - EISA.

> Christian McCathern
> Systems Analyst
> George Washington University Medical Center
> Dept. Health Care Sciences
>
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------+
|   Richard M. Warner   |   Internet:  rick@sjsumcs.sjsu.edu  |
|                       | CompuServe:  71121,2257             |
+-----------------------+-------------------------------------+
|  ** DISCLAIMER:  All opinions are strictly my own.  I work  |
|                  hard enough at forming them!               |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+