rasz_pl wrote on Today, 13:24:

[...]

Doesnt. Packard Bell was PPCHIPS level of quality very good reason why packard bells sucked

That topic is about the crappy software builds, which were a direct result of the market segment they targeted: low knowledge and low cost. Only a nostalgic masochist would try to install the original software on one, but that doesn't say anything about the hardware.

The hardware changed massively depending on who owned the company:
- in the early days Packard Bell was American and was infamous for using second hand returns in new systems. Quality was terrible. This is where PB's poor reputation came from, and was pretty exclusive to systems sold in the US.
- later (mid 1990s) they started using Intel OEM parts and actually had pretty solid hardware, even if completely unsuited for power users who wanted freedom to mess around. The systems mentioned here come from this period.
- PB was taken over by NEC, who were Japanese, but their PC line was managed from France. PB and NEC hardware started converging on more off-the shelf stuff with a lot of Biostar, MSI and Gigabyte boards. This was paradise for power users, only marred by (particularly the MSI stuff) being hit hard by the capacitor plague. Replace the caps and you're good to go though.
- Later PB was sold to Acer as their bargain basement brand. Quality dropped, as did market share.

Would any of them beat a good-quality home build? Of course not. But that doesn't mean "PCCHIPS level" is a fair appraisal and where they failed they did it for different reasons than PC Chips.

dionb wrote on Today, 14:05:

rasz_pl wrote on Today, 13:24:

...Packard Bell was PPCHIPS level of quality very good reason why packard bells sucked

That topic is about the crappy software builds

quote from topic "The computers themselves were very unreliable. They were the worst desktop computers from 1986-1996 according to consumer reports."

dionb wrote on Today, 14:05:

- later (mid 1990s) they started using Intel OEM parts and actually had pretty solid hardware, even if completely unsuited for power users who wanted freedom to mess around. The systems mentioned here come from this period.
- PB was taken over by NEC
paradise for power users

1997 era Packard Bell Multimedia E156 sporting mighty no L2 cache https://theretroweb.com/motherboards/s/intel- … -orlando,-tampa board. Covered by Ancient Electronics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg32eoBTvp8

dionb wrote on Today, 14:05:

Would any of them beat a good-quality home build? Of course not. But that doesn't mean "PCCHIPS level" is a fair appraisal and where they failed they did it for different reasons than PC Chips.

garbage high return parts, then refurbs, then selling Pentium 150MHz with no L2 cache. I would say this is pretty spot on PCChips level of behavior 😀

rasz_pl wrote on Today, 13:24:

PB

I was referring to my HP Vectra VL 5/100. I was considering swapping the CPUs of the two systems. But only worth it if the Vectra has pipeline burst cache and if it doesn't natively support standard Pentium MMX.

rasz_pl wrote on Today, 15:36:

1997 era Packard Bell Multimedia E156 sporting mighty no L2 cache https://theretroweb.com/motherboards/s/intel- … -orlando,-tampa board. Covered by Ancient Electronics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg32eoBTvp8

At least the Packard Bell I got does seem to have onboard cache. But it isn't pipeline burst, and there is no COAST slot to add it.

rasz_pl wrote on Today, 13:24:

Packard Bell was PPCHIPS level of quality very good reason why packard bells sucked

Whilst that is possibly true, some credit has to be given to this particular machine for still functioning after 25 years in a very dirty loft. It is absolutely caked in dirt.

Also it actually feels quite solid to me. The shell to remove when looking at the internals is extremely heavy. A lot of metal in it. The rest of the chassis seems similarly solid. As for the components though, I don't know. The aztech soundcard/modem seems kind of odd. The HDD is dead, but that's not too unexpected.