From: ten0772@halcyon.com (Timothy E. Neto) Subject: Re: help with system to run unix Date: 30 Aug 1993 19:37:16 -0700
>> 6) AMI bios and ? motherboard. (Would a Pheonix bios be better?)
root@fusion.cuc.ab.ca (Superuser) writes:
>If she plans to run Unix exclusively, it doesn't much matter, but
>if she plans to run DOS as well, she should consider another brand
>of BIOS if available (Even the latest version of AMI has some bugs,
>and it has too many setup options for non-techies. AMI is also one
>of the slower BIOS' available. Personally, I won't even consider
>anything with an AMI BIOS- almost anything else is acceptable, but
>I like Phoenix the best- Phoenix has been around the longest, and
>you're likely to have fewer troubles with a Phoenix BIOS. Unfortunately,
>Phoenix BIOS motherboards may be hard to find, AMI BIOS is cheaper
>to license than Phoenix, so most motherboard manufacturers provide
>AMI BIOS instead).
Hmmm, I have a GW2000 that has Phoenix BIOS on it. While Linux has no
trouble with it, my MS-DOG dislikes it extremely. MS-DOG won't boot
unless the BIOS performs a memory check first. I've talk to GW and they
haven't a clue. (I keep getting the grunts or trainees.) So, I'm not
sure which is the problem. My view now is that both BIOS's have
problems. Both work but they have their quirks. It seems that even
after 15+ years the Intel based PC's are still beta products. No wonder
businesses curse them and hackers love them. Don't get me wrong, my
GW200 486-66MHz is a real nice system.
Summary: base your puchase on memory, disk space, cpu speed,
accessories, service, then the BIOS.
Note: I'll agree on the SCSI recommendation, but because it allows for
more devices than the other drive formats.
-- Indecision is the key | Timothy E. Neto 1 000 to flexibility. | Neat'o Gadget & Widget Works 1 0. .0 You can't E-Mail God. | Unix & X Applications Development 1 0 _ 0 Opinions are all mine. | Seattle, WA ten0772@halcyon.com 1 000