jhc@mtune.UUCP (07/25/86)
Continuing the discussion with Stephen Halpin (Squonk@UMass) about the AT&T UNIX PC... I have tried to give some context to my replies. For the scenario described (~30MB of database) one would indeed want a tape backup unit. Forgive my ignorance, is $2K a lot for such an item? Ethernet interface: I hear that this is in beta. Or close to it. No dates yet. Your figures (5-user system = 2 expansion slots taken up) are correct, unless you count 2 users between 1 screen and 2 phone lines. No? I didn't think so. I will happily 'not comment' on an expansion box. Actually I have no idea about any manufacturing plans for such an item. >Is the cheaper non-AT&T 40M drive in the 7300 that AT&T is willing >to sell me certified and will it be covered by the maintenance >contract? The fact that you need a new motherboard is news to me. >Knowing that 256k parts would be coming out (even BYTE suggested >AT&T would just pop in the 256k parts) it seems rather short sighted >not to include that in the design. I was wrong - you do not get a new motherboard. The drive is indeed certified (as far as I am aware AT&T does not make any disk drives). I cannot disagree about the many examples of 'short-sightedness' in the design. >The demonstration system I worked with was a 7300 with 1M ram, 20M >disk, and an VT100. When I was on the VT100 I wasnt able to use the >telephone functions to dial out. I also found entering <esc>1 for >function key one to be a minor annoyance. If you want to take >advantage of the graphics and mouse capablities you will need >something a little more advanced than a VT100.. I have heard of a 'dumb terminal' which looks and feels like a unix pc screen/keyboard but which works transparently. I can't remember whether this is real or not, though. (No, honestly, I really can't!) Re the 6300+ versus the unix pc: Bruce Burger put it very well when he said that the difference between them was that the unix pc was a unix engine that happened to be able to run MSDOS, and the 6300+ was an MSDOS engine which happened to be able to run unix. Having used both fairly extensively I would agree. >I still say that for a reduced price it could have sold very well as >a micro.. By 'micro' *I* mean something like an Apple 2 or some other home and games-oriented system. The daughter of a friend of mine (~7 years old) was showing a unix pc off to her friends. When asked 'Where's the colours, where's the game board' she replied "Oh, this isn't one of *those* computers, this is one that a bunch of men use at work!". We did remind her not to be sexist... If by 'micro' you mean (effectively) an IBM PC then I would reply that *nothing* competes with an IBM PC. Putting a machine up against an IBM offering generally results in getting stomped by Big Blue. >~~~~~~~~~~ <<Flame on>> Whooo! asbestos time. >Its my less than humble opinion that its a rediculous waste running >a multiuser micro. I absolutely agree. >Silicon is too cheap now to worry about running a CPU 100% of the >time. I can get 68000L8s qty1 for under $10. I can get 1M of 150ns >RAM for under $100 (these out of BYTE). The Unix PCs most >significant resources (graphics and phone interface) arent REALLY >sharable. Why buy a system that shortchanges 4 out of 5 users when >the technology is there to give them a full 'workstation' of their >own.. I tend to agree, but am less confident of AT&T's, or any other non-garage operation's, ability to provide such a 'workstation' at the same price. Remember, board cost runs about 4-5 times parts cost, and system cost is 3-4 times board costs. My strictly personal opinion is that as a System V UNIX engine the unix pc is a bit expensive, a bit late, and very short of peripherals. Of course, for the VAR/ISV market that the machine is at least partially aimed at nobody really cares that the 2-n'th users don't have all the goodies because it is being sold as a single-user station with electric mail capabilities. For the office automation market exactly the opposite is the case. Trying to reconcile these two markets does not sound easy to me. -- Jonathan Clark [NAC,attmail]!mtune!jhc My walk has become rather more silly lately.
mark@cbosgd.ATT.COM (Mark Horton) (07/25/86)
>I have heard of a 'dumb terminal' which looks and feels like a unix >pc screen/keyboard but which works transparently. I can't remember >whether this is real or not, though. (No, honestly, I really can't!) You are thinking of the AT&T 610. This terminal is, in my opinion, the best ordinary terminal AT&T has come out with yet. You get a choice of screen color (amber is the default, green and white are options), and a choice of keyboard. The monitor is Safari-styled (e.g. looks like the 6300 or UNIX PC monitor.) One keyboard has a sane layout (large control key to the left of A, other keys in the right places, although the caps lock is to the left of control, but ctrl is so big it shouldn't matter) the other keyboard is identical to the UNIX PC. The "feel" of the keyboard is very good - similar to the UNIX PC. An internal 300/1200 baud modem is an option. I don't know what these list for, but I'm told it's slightly less than the AT&T 5425/4425 it replaces. Mark