mitch@amiga.UUCP (Mitchell R. Gass) (06/13/86)
I haven't seen much on the net about the AT&T 6300 Plus. Can
anyone tell me:
- how the UNIX available for it compares with versions of UNIX
that run on other micros (in particular, the PC-AT)
- how IBM-PC compatible it is (does it run all those PC-DOS
applications? Does it accept IBM expansion cards?)
- how reliable it is
Both praise and horror stories are most welcome. If you looked
at the 6300 Plus and decided on another machine, can you tell
me why?
Thanks!
Mitchell Gass
{decwrl,hplabs}!pyramid!amiga!mitchrussack@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Joe Russack%CGL) (06/13/86)
In article <1286@amiga.amiga.UUCP> mitch@horse.UUCP (Mitchell R. Gass) writes: >I haven't seen much on the net about the AT&T 6300 Plus. Can >anyone tell me: > > - how the UNIX available for it compares with versions of UNIX > that run on other micros (in particular, the PC-AT) > > - how IBM-PC compatible it is (does it run all those PC-DOS > applications? Does it accept IBM expansion cards?) > > - how reliable it is I have worked withe at AT&T quite a bit from a tecnicians point of view . It has some major problems. I work at a computer store which pushes them pretty heavily, and I have noticed that thr return rate is pretty bad. We are always about 3 AT&T's behind sechedule. But, when one opens up the machine, the reasson is obvious. The thing is CHEAP. Lots of sharp aluminum, things screwed to the motherboard, and other uglies. It is a two board computer with the mail logic board on the bottom and the bus on the top. Becasue of this configuration, (Or at least we think becasue of this) the RF is pretty bad. When the case is on, things are ok..... but with it off, phew! The pc compatibility is not too good. It is passing, (and much better than some unmentionable clones) but not as good as some others (like the ITT, compaq,etc). The worst thing about it is the nonstandard bus. For normal cards, it works fine. AT&T was generous enough to provide a 16 bit bus, not unlike the AT. But- and here is the funny part- the 16 bit extender is 6 inches from the regular bus. This means that the only 16 bit cards the AT&T can use are made by AT&T. No fun. In the unix depdt. I am ignorant- I have never used it. Hope all this stuff helped- Joseph Russack !ucbvax!ucsfcgl!russack
gpw@ihlpf.UUCP (Wilkin) (06/15/86)
> > In article <1286@amiga.amiga.UUCP> mitch@horse.UUCP (Mitchell R. Gass) writes: > >I haven't seen much on the net about the AT&T 6300 Plus. Can > >anyone tell me: > > > > - how the UNIX available for it compares with versions of UNIX > I have worked with the at AT&T quite a bit from a tecnicians point of view > . It has some major problems. I work at a computer store which pushes them > pretty heavily, and I have noticed that thr return rate is pretty bad. We > are always about 3 AT&T's behind sechedule. But, when one opens up the > machine, the reasson is obvious. The thing is CHEAP. Lots of sharp aluminum, FLAME FLAME FLAME (I JUST COULDN`T RESIST ) ;-)) What parts failed? Hard disks ? Floppies? Monitor? Assembling technician?? How about just a few facts???? JUST WHAT FAILS? I wonder what would make metal worse than plastic ? > things screwed to the motherboard, and other uglies. It is a two board computer You mean to say I could run all sorts of hot expansion cards and NOT fry the MAIN pc board. Neat, maybe I could buy one . > with the mail logic board on the bottom and the bus on the top. Becasue > of this configuration, (Or at least we think becasue of this) the RF is pretty > bad. When the case is on, things are ok..... but with it off, phew! > HEY GANG, RF is bad with the top off!!!! I'll be dammed! OH GOSH, What did you think the metal case was for anyway. > The pc compatibility is not too good. It is passing, (and much better than Mine seem to run all the majors, lotus.... also check the compatabiltiy of the ever popular IBM AT... I think we still do better than that machine. > some unmentionable clones) but not as good as some others (like the ITT, > compaq,etc). The worst thing about it is the nonstandard bus. For normal Try Olivetti, or Xerox, or AT&T for 16 bit cards, we have a few, video, memory ,otherwise why not use ANY 8bit card (THERE ARE A FEW THAT DON'T WORK, but not too many) > cards, it works fine. AT&T was generous enough to provide a 16 bit bus, not > unlike the AT. But- and here is the funny part- the 16 bit extender is 6 > inches from the regular bus. This means that the only 16 bit cards the AT&T > can use are made by AT&T. > No fun. > > In the unix depdt. I am ignorant- I have never used it. Hope all this stuff > helped- > You said it, not me. > Joseph Russack > !ucbvax!ucsfcgl!russack * GPW AT&T (DAMN RIGHT I'M BIASED) -- ____ _______ _____ _______ ------- George Wilkin / __ \ |__ __| / _ \ |__ __| -====------ AT&T Network Systems | (__) | | | \ \ \_\ | | -======------ ...!ihpn4!ihlpf!gpw | __ | | | / \ __ | | --====------- IH 4A-157 | | | | | | | (\ / / | | ----------- work 312-979-4317 |_| |_| |_| \_____/ |_| ------- Naperville, IL
dci2113@ritisis.UUCP (D) (06/17/86)
I have no hands on experience with the AT&T 6300-plus but I recall an article from PC Magazine Dec 1985 (I Think) which named the 6300+ as the product of the year. I beleive the article also included a review of the machine.
shap@bunker.UUCP (Joseph D. Shapiro) (06/17/86)
In article <9885@ucsfcgl.ucsfcgl.UUCP> russack@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Joe Russack%CGL) writes: > > The pc compatibility is not too good. It is passing, (and much > better than unmentionable clones) but not as good as some > others (like the ITT, compaq,etc). > >Joseph Russack > >!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!russack point of interest, the 6300 (although i'm not possitive about the plus) is made by Olivetti for AT&T. The comperable ITT machine is also made by Olivetti. Olivetti sells it themselves as the M24. All three machines are identical except for paint and such. None of this is secret, you can gather as much from the trade journals, but how can the ATT differ from the ITT in that respect? Must be a case of perspective. -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Joseph D. Shapiro "He who hesitates Bunker Ramo Information Systems is lunch" ...ittatc!bunker!shap ...decvax!bunker!shap
long@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (H. Morrow Long [CRT]) (06/18/86)
In article <1198@bunker.UUCP> shap@bunker.UUCP (Joseph D. Shapiro) writes: > point of interest, the 6300 (although i'm not possitive about > the plus) is made by Olivetti for AT&T. The comperable ITT machine is > also made by Olivetti. Olivetti sells it themselves as the M24. All > three machines are identical except for paint and such. > > None of this is secret, you can gather as much from the trade > journals, but how can the ATT differ from the ITT in that respect? > > ... > Joseph D. Shapiro "He who hesitates > Bunker Ramo Information Systems is lunch" The ITT Xtra line of IBM Personal Computer compatibles (and XP, XL) is NOT (!!!) manufactured by Olivetti. ----------- They are produced by ITT-ISD in Taiwan facilities and shipped to ITT ISD/QUME in San Jose California. From San Jose they are cross-shipped to distribution points throughout North America. European shipments were also passing through San Jose but should now be direct drop shipments to ITT European subsidiaries. Morrow -- H. Morrow Long Member Research Staff - Knowledge Based Systems ITT-ATC Advanced Technology Group 1 Research Drive Shelton, CT 06484 Phone #: (203)-929-7341 x. 634 path = {allegra bunker dcdvaxb dcdwest ucbvax!decvax milford mit-eddie psuvax1 qumix sii supai tmmnet yale}!ittatc!long
jeffd@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Jeff Denenberg) (06/18/86)
> In article <9885@ucsfcgl.ucsfcgl.UUCP> russack@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Joe > Russack%CGL) writes: > > > > The pc compatibility is not too good. It is passing, (and much > > better than unmentionable clones) but not as good as some > > others (like the ITT, compaq,etc). > > > >Joseph Russack > > > >!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!russack > > point of interest, the 6300 (although i'm not possitive about > the plus) is made by Olivetti for AT&T. The comperable ITT machine is > also made by Olivetti. Olivetti sells it themselves as the M24. All > three machines are identical except for paint and such. > > None of this is secret, you can gather as much from the trade > journals, but how can the ATT differ from the ITT in that respect? > Must be a case of perspective. > -- > -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ > > Joseph D. Shapiro "He who hesitates > Bunker Ramo Information Systems is lunch" > > ...ittatc!bunker!shap > ...decvax!bunker!shap The "comparable ITT machine" is the ITT XTRA XP. It is made by ITT, not Olivetti and is a totally different design. The XP uses a 80286 and is a true pc (not AT) clone with good compatibility. I have used the ITT XTRA XP and it is, in my opinion, the class of the pc clones. Jeff Denenberg ..decvax!ittvax!jeffd
gauldin@ihlpg.UUCP (Mark Gauldin) (06/18/86)
> I haven't seen much on the net about the AT&T 6300 Plus. Can > anyone tell me: > > - how the UNIX available for it compares with versions of UNIX > that run on other micros (in particular, the PC-AT) > > - how IBM-PC compatible it is (does it run all those PC-DOS > applications? Does it accept IBM expansion cards?) > > - how reliable it is > > Both praise and horror stories are most welcome. If you looked > at the 6300 Plus and decided on another machine, can you tell > me why? > > Thanks! > > Mitchell Gass > {decwrl,hplabs}!pyramid!amiga!mitch I had planned to just reply via email, but after seeing some of the other responses on the net, I felt I needed to try to even out the tone. The 6300+ is a 80286-based IBM compatible manufactured by Olivetti for sale by AT&T. It and the 6300 are the same machines that Olivetti markets in Europe (and which are, I believe, the best selling compatibles in Europe). There are three basic configurations available: - dual floppy (not sure what size floppies) - 20Mb hard disk + 360K floppy - 20Mb hard disk + 1.2Mb floppy All three configurations come with 512K RAM on the motherboard and can be expanded to 1Mb by simply plugging 256K chips into empty sockets on the motherboard. There are two keyboards available: an IBM-style (CNTL key by your left pinkie, fcn keys down the left side) and an AT&T (or whatever) style (CNTL key southwest of 'Z', fcn keys across the top). Both keyboards have a mouse port on the back. Both a monochrome (green) and color monitor are available. You can also plug in a 80287 coprocessor chip. The 6300+ comes with MS-DOS 3.1 and GW-BASIC. I have a 6300+, and we have four (soon to be five) others in our department, as well as a number of others throughout our organization. All of them worked right out of the box and we've had no problems since. The hard disk is very fast (my perception, not measured) and very quiet. The 1.2Mb floppy is great - fast, quiet, and you don't have huge piles of disks laying around. We've run the following software packages with no problems: Lotus 123 (both Release 1 and 2) dBase III Sidekick Turbo Lightning Superkey Supernotes Crosstalk XVI Microsoft Windows Desqview Norton Utilities (which gives a performance index of 6.3 times a PC - and yes, I know that's misleading :-)) Harvard Total Project Manager Primavera PC vi The only software I've had any problems with is Fastback, and I suspect that's because Fastback isn't set up to deal with the 1.2Mb drives. We haven't added any expansion boards yet, although we plan to soon. However I do know several people who have added some of the more popular boards to their 6300's (e.g. the AST family, Hayes-type modem boards, etc.) with no problem. UNIX for the 6300+ is UNIX System V Release 2 with OS Merge. OS Merge is a utility that lets you run MS-DOS (or MS-DOS application programs, such as Lotus) as a UNIX process. Files can be traded back and forth between UNIX and DOS, and you can have a DOS-only partition on your hard disk for programs that are copy protected in such a way as to make them incompatible with the joint UNIX/DOS file system (this DOS-only partition is accessible as drive e: when you're running a DOS process). I had a preproduction version of UNIX, but it had the sort of bugs you'd expect in preproduction software, and I'm not currently using it. My production version is on it's way. All in all, I'm very pleased with the 6300+. Yes, I know I work for AT&T, but I'm in a part of the company far removed from PC development or sales and I'm trying to give an honest review as a user. There's no way I'd put myself through the punishment of using a system I didn't like day after day - there are just too many alternatives. Mitch, if you have any other questions, send me email and I'll help if I can. By the way, if you want to see more about the 6300+ (or the 6300, or the 7300) on the net, take a look at net.micro.att. Mark Gauldin AT&T Bell Laboratories ...ihnp4!ihlpg!gauldin (312) 979-5377
rab@smu (06/18/86)
DOUBLE FLAME! the at&t pc is much superior to most anything in the marketplace -- speed, graphics, expandibility -- you name it. we have been almost exclusively pushing the 6300 on our campus due to the fact that the machine is one hell of a performer and EXTREMELY reliable. and with the advent of the 6300 plus, we just might get some things done around here with a REAL operating system, namely UNIX. in the area of compatibility, we have no real problems at all. as a matter of fact, we see it a little differently. the ibm pc is the REAL incompatible. i truly wish people would give qualified responses to requests for information. there is a lot of that out there and it doesn't help at all to further confuse the issue. rick barrett convex!smu!rab
shap@bunker.UUCP (Joseph D. Shapiro) (06/19/86)
Ok, so I once wrote: >> >> point of interest, the 6300 (although i'm not possitive about >> the plus) is made by Olivetti for AT&T. The comperable ITT machine is >> also made by Olivetti. Olivetti sells it themselves as the M24. All >> three machines are identical except for paint and such. >> and lots of people told me I was wrong concerning ITT XTRA XP. I consider myself flamed, and I probably deserve it, you see my company (Bunker Ramo) was just bought by Olivetti, and they gave us alot of hype about how they are the #2 manufacturer of PC's volume-wise in the world, right behind IBM, and manufacture ATT's 6300, ITT's somethingorother, and one other major company's offering, I forget who. Either it wasn't true or it is some other ITT PC, not the XTRA XP. I dont know and I shouldn't have guessed. I do know that the 6300 is the same as the Olivetti M24, though. Sorry. -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Joseph D. Shapiro "He who hesitates Bunker Ramo Information Systems is lunch" ...ittatc!bunker!shap ...decvax!bunker!shap
gpw@ihdev.UUCP (G. P. Wilkin) (06/19/86)
> > The 6300+ is a 80286-based IBM compatible manufactured by Olivetti > for sale by AT&T. It and the 6300 are the same machines that > Olivetti markets in Europe (and which are, I believe, the best > selling compatibles in Europe). There are three basic > configurations available: > > - dual floppy (not sure what size floppies) > - 20Mb hard disk + 360K floppy > - 20Mb hard disk + 1.2Mb floppy > > Mark Gauldin There is a fourth config., 1 360K floppy, 1 1.2 meg floppy, it not a popular combination but in light of the newest options worth considering. Also note that there is an expansion chassis avialable (20meg HD/60 Meg Tape) and a 2 meg memory expansion board, made by AST I think. A description will follow. Probably in net.micro.att gpw -- ____ _______ _____ _______ ------- George Wilkin / __ \ |__ __| / _ \ |__ __| -====------ AT&T Network Systems | (__) | | | \ \ \_\ | | -======------ ...!ihpn4!ihdev!gpw | __ | | | / \ __ | | --====------- IH 4A-157 | | | | | | | (\ / / | | ----------- work 312-979-4317 |_| |_| |_| \_____/ |_| ------- Naperville, IL
hsc@mtuxo.UUCP (h.cohen) (06/20/86)
Mark Gauldin's detailed reply was very constructive. One small correction, just for historical accuracy: The AT&T PC6300 is essentially an Olivetti design, and the equivalent product is sold by Olivetti and others. The AT&T PC6300 PLUS is entirely an AT&T design, and is manufactured by Olivetti under a simple contract. The design is proprietary, and make the Simul-Task integration of MS-DOS and UNIX practical. Harvey S. Cohen, AT&T PC6300 PLUS prodcut mgmt., mtuxo!hsc
dan@prairie.UUCP (Daniel M. Frank) (06/20/86)
In article <2071@ihlpg.UUCP> gauldin@ihlpg.UUCP (Mark Gauldin) writes: >The only software I've had any problems with is Fastback, and I >suspect that's because Fastback isn't set up to deal with the >1.2Mb drives. Nope. Fastback deals with 1.2 Megabyte drives beautifully, transferring over 2Mb/min. on an AT or compatible (works fine on my Compaq 286 ...). -- Dan Frank {seismo, topaz, harvard, ihnp4}uwvax!geowhiz!netzer!prairie!dan -or- dan@caseus.wisc.edu
aptr@ur-tut.UUCP (The Wumpus) (06/20/86)
In article <2071@ihlpg.UUCP> gauldin@ihlpg.UUCP (Mark Gauldin) writes: >> I haven't seen much on the net about the AT&T 6300 Plus. Can >> anyone tell me: >The 6300+ is a 80286-based IBM compatible manufactured by Olivetti >for sale by AT&T. It and the 6300 are the same machines that >Olivetti markets in Europe. > >You can also plug in a 80287 coprocessor chip. The 6300+ comes with >MS-DOS 3.1 and GW-BASIC. > I thought I had better mention that the AT&T 6300 and the 6300+ are different machines. The 6300 uses a 8086 while the 6300+ uses an 80286. This difference is most notable because it that you use an 8087 for the 6300 and an 8027 for the 6300+. The Wumpus UUCP: {seismo,allegra,decvax}!rochester!ur-tut!aptr BITNET: aptrccss@uorvm Disclaimer: "The videotapes are rigged! The witnesses are corrupt! The prosecutors are Nazi drunkards and my client was framed! By By the way, he was born-again last Tuesday. And I have no further comment since I certainly wouldn't want to see this case tried in the media." -Steve Dallas "Yet another triumphant performance of the famed 'Delorean Desperation Defense'" -Opus
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (06/23/86)
In article <2071@ihlpg.UUCP> gauldin@ihlpg.UUCP (Mark Gauldin) writes: >The only software I've had any problems with is Fastback, and I >suspect that's because Fastback isn't set up to deal with the >1.2Mb drives. I assume you meant the particular copy you were using wasn't so configured, in which case I'm wondering why it wasn't installed correctly. Anyway, lest someone get the wrong impression, I regularly use Fastback to backup the AT I'm currently typing on, and it does indeed work just fine with a 1.2 meg drive. I like Fastback, but I wish the $#@%& publisher wouldn't copy protect it... -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
russack@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Joe Russack%CGL) (07/02/86)
In article <551@ihlpf.UUCP> gpw@ihlpf.UUCP (Wilkin) writes: > > > >What parts failed? Hard disks ? Floppies? Monitor? Assembling technician?? >How about just a few facts???? JUST WHAT FAILS? >I wonder what would make metal worse than plastic ? Well, we have problems with three things. The worst is by far the keyboard. I am aware that AT&T has redone the keyboard to compensate for the multiple failures of the old model, though. The other two problems are the disk drives (I think the main problems are with the mountings- thry tend to interfere with the internals of some drives) and the monitor. We have many a dead AT+T monitor. They go out with alarming regularity, although with varying symtoms. > >> things screwed to the motherboard, and other uglies. It is a two board computer > >You mean to say I could run all sorts of hot expansion cards and NOT fry the >MAIN pc board. Neat, maybe I could buy one . Not necessarily true- the expansion board has very little in the way of its own electronics. Any bad boards would still fry the mail logic board. > >> with the mail logic board on the bottom and the bus on the top. Becasue >> of this configuration, (Or at least we think becasue of this) the RF is pretty >> bad. When the case is on, things are ok..... but with it off, phew! >> >HEY GANG, RF is bad with the top off!!!! I'll be dammed! OH GOSH, >What did you think the metal case was for anyway. RF is often a symtom of a bad design- that was why I mentioed it. A good example of a similar configuration (and problem) would be the TRS-80 model I, which was removed from the market because of extreme RF problems (Plastic case). > >> The pc compatibility is not too good. It is passing, (and much better than > >Mine seem to run all the majors, lotus.... also check the compatabiltiy >of the ever popular IBM AT... I think we still do better than that machine. Aggreed. It won't run any machine-specific code (Some excelent machines will) but other than that it is pretty good. (So says owner of PC-AT) >> some unmentionable clones) but not as good as some others (like the ITT, >> compaq,etc). The worst thing about it is the nonstandard bus. For normal > >Try Olivetti, or Xerox, or AT&T for 16 bit cards, we have a few, video, memory >,otherwise why not use ANY 8bit card (THERE ARE A FEW THAT DON'T WORK, but not >too many) > True- but It won't work with the majojority of the 16 bit cards. 8 bit workd just fine, though. I was complaining about the lack of 16 bit compatability becasue one can get very inexpensive 16 bit cards for the AT from alternate sources. However, I found out after my post that the AT&T was released BEFORE the AT, so this is no fault of AT&T engineers. Although an update might be in order. Joseph russack uucp: !ucbvax!ucsfcgl!russack