ksl@hou2e.UUCP (a hacker) (05/15/85)
The AT&T UNIX 7300, while it may have multi-user capability, was built for personal computing -- otherwise why do they call it the AT&T UNIX 7300 PC (you don't call VAXes PCs, do you?). In regard to the Popular Computing article, AT&T did not choose the N.S. 32xxx series due to the un-availabilty of the chip. In fact, AT&T was going to have their AT&T UNIX 7300 machine on a 80286 chip, with UNIX ported by Digital Research, but later moved the job to Convergent Technologies. Most of you net.people seem to think bitterly of thr UNIX-PC, yet Personal Computing AND BYTE both say that the 7300 is a useful computer. (How do you think the PC-7300 got into Personal Computing if it wasn't a PC [you don't see VAXes there do you?]) Most of net.people against the AT&T PC are Time Inc. people. What do Time people have against AT&T? __________ hou2e!ksl
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (05/15/85)
The original poster makes some claim about timeinc people being
against the PC.
Please be sure not to take what *I* say as being a position of timeinc.
The purpose of the disclaimer at the bottom of the article is to let
you know that any opinion I express is my own, and is not representative
of timeinc.
<Whew! Now the timeinc root user won't get mad at me, I hope!!!>
Now, I personally have nothing against the PC-7300. I only have something
against machines that are too expensive, don't function as advertised and
were rushed out the door full of bugs!
Let me know, after you have used a 7300, if you feel I'm off
the mark. I'm collecting a list of the bugs associated with the
7300 and we may need our own group (net.micro.att.bugs) to
discuss them. Won't be able to do that, though, until after Stargate
lets us at least double total net trafffic :-)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York
--------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<---------
Timeinc probably wouldn't acknowledge my existence, and has
opinions of its own. I highly doubt that they would make me
their spokesperson.
------
"If ever the pleasure of one has to be bought by the pain of the other,
there better be no trade. A trade by which one gains and the other
loses is a fraud." --- Dagny Taggartdwight@timeinc.UUCP (Dwight Ernest) (05/15/85)
In article <575@hou2e.UUCP> ksl@hou2e.UUCP (a hacker) writes: >The AT&T UNIX 7300, while it may have multi-user capability, >was built for personal computing -- otherwise why >do they call it the AT&T UNIX 7300 PC (you don't >call VAXes PCs, do you?). In regard to the Popular Computing >article, AT&T did not choose the N.S. 32xxx series >due to the un-availabilty of the chip. In fact, >AT&T was going to have their AT&T UNIX 7300 machine >on a 80286 chip, with UNIX ported by Digital Research, >but later moved the job to Convergent Technologies. I was referring to the WE32X00 chip set, which I don't think is the same as the N.S. set. My information on the chip set choices were based on the article in Popular Computing. >Most of you net.people seem to think bitterly of >the UNIX-PC, yet Personal Computing AND BYTE [...] I don't think that's true. There have been one or two voices saying "Gee, it's disappointing." And there have been at least as many voices saying, "Gee, it's pretty great, and I'm probably going to purchase one." Bitterness? Perhaps; if so, then it's probably because we tend to expect a great deal of innovation from AT&T, and while the Unix PC is a great little box, and certainly the best price/performance deal many of us are aware of currently, it falls short of what many of us expected from AT&T innovation. >Most of net.people against the AT&T PC are >Time Inc. people. What do Time people have >against AT&T? I'm certainly glad you said "TIME PEOPLE" rather than Time Inc., since the opinions expressed are those of individuals, as I'm sure you understand. One of those most vocal is not, in fact, on the payroll of Time Inc., but is loosely connected with one department and uses a guest account (at our invitation) here. At least we sign our names, "ksl," unlike you. We have nothing against AT&T whatsoever. We'd appreciate a discussion of some of the individual issues discussed, concerning the machine's performance and limitations, on a technical level, however. So how about it? -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- --Dwight Ernest KA2CNN \ Usenet:...vax135!timeinc!dwight Time Inc. Edit./Prod. Tech. Grp., New York City Voice: (212) 554-5061 \ Compuserve: 70210,523 Telemail: DERNEST/TIMECOMDIV/TIMEINC \ MCI: DERNEST "The opinions expressed above are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Time Incorporated." -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (05/16/85)
I had the opportunity to play with a UNIX PC this evening, and for the
life of me, I cannot figure out what our friend from TimeInc is complaining
about. The machine I was using was a 1mb/20mb machine, and it was really
quite speedy, especialy considering the price and the type of hard disk
it used. It isn't a VAX780, but again it's anywhere from 1/25 to 1/50th the
price of a 780! And, for God's sake, it's a PC; while it can accomodate
more users, it really shines best as a single-user, multi-process machine.
The only disappointment I felt was its VT100-emulation window, which, when
using the modem at 1200 baud was just plain pokey--just like using "cu"
on a VAX, you can see the scheduler's behavior.
IBM comes out with a watered-up version of its PC, and people are oohing
and ahhing over it, while for the same price, AT&T comes out with something
which really does redefine the "standard" for price/performance, even at
its list price, and all you hear are complaints. I think this bellyaching
reflects how spoiled people are by their present mainframe UNIX systems,
and not at all on AT&T's achievement. Now, if they ever come out with
their PC-compatibility board (market considerations being what they are)
it will truly be most things to most people!
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbnccv.ARPAcaf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (05/16/85)
>Most of net.people against the AT&T PC are >Time Inc. people. What do Time people have >against AT&T? Perhaps because they see the potential of the unit with 256k ram chips populated to 1MB, a real disk drive, and something useful to replace the 329kb floppy. I saw a manual mention a configuration with an Atasi drive (fast access, >29 MB)l is that really available?? What is there to replace the 320k drive, which is quite inadequate for backing up a 40 MB disk? A 7300 configured with 1MB RAM, a big fast HD, something useful for backup, and a v.22BIS 2400 bps modem is where it's at. You're so very close. -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ..!tektronix!reed!omen!caf Omen Technology Inc 17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD Portland OR 97231 Voice: 503-621-3406 Modem: 503-621-3746 (Hit CR's for speed detect)
sdyer@bbnccv.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (05/17/85)
> Bitterness? Perhaps; > if so, then it's probably because we tend to expect a great > deal of innovation from AT&T, and while the Unix PC is a great > little box, and certainly the best price/performance deal many > of us are aware of currently, it falls short of what many of us > expected from AT&T innovation. > Someone please tell me where AT&T has been so innovative that the UNIX PC is a letdown? The company which still uses discrete devices in its desk phones? The UNIX PC would be a fine machine from any manufacturer; considering that AT&T only got into the market 1 1/2 years ago, it is an extremely good accomplishment. (I still marvel at the fact that they managed to get all those plastic index tabs correct for their voluminous documentation.) -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
bc@cyb-eng.UUCP (Bill Crews) (05/19/85)
It would be very helpful if those who post to net.micro.att would include information in the subject line other than simply the type of machine. Since 90% of the articles right now are about the Unix PC, I have to read every one of them to find out if they are worth reading! Thank you in advance. -- / \ Bill Crews ( bc ) Cyb Systems, Inc \__/ Austin, Texas [ gatech | ihnp4 | nbires | seismo | ucb-vax ] ! ut-sally ! cyb-eng ! bc
panda@wucs.UUCP (R. A. Rouse) (06/06/85)
> It would be very helpful if those who post to net.micro.att would include > information in the subject line other than simply the type of machine. Since > 90% of the articles right now are about the Unix PC, I have to read every one > of them to find out if they are worth reading! > > Thank you in advance. > > > -- > > / \ Bill Crews > ( bc ) Cyb Systems, Inc > \__/ Austin, Texas > > [ gatech | ihnp4 | nbires | seismo | ucb-vax ] ! ut-sally ! cyb-eng ! bc t help *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** gin Interrupource %source~/.login login +++ +++ === +++ ~
george@mnetor.UUCP (George Hart) (06/10/85)
> > It would be very helpful if those who post to net.micro.att would include > > information in the subject line other than simply the type of machine. Since > > 90% of the articles right now are about the Unix PC, I have to read every one > > of them to find out if they are worth reading! > > > > Thank you in advance. > > > > > > -- > > > > / \ Bill Crews > > ( bc ) Cyb Systems, Inc > > \__/ Austin, Texas > > > > [ gatech | ihnp4 | nbires | seismo | ucb-vax ] ! ut-sally ! cyb-eng ! bc > > t > > help > *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** > gin > > Interrupource > > %source~/.login > > login > > > +++ > > > +++ > > > > > === > +++ > ~ Very interesting. Using a Hayes modem by any chance? :-) -- Regards, George Hart, Computer X Canada Ltd. {cbosgd, decvax, harpo, ihnp4}!utcs!mnetor!george