sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) (06/05/90)
:From article <3532@wb3ffv.ampr.org>, by smarc@wb3ffv.ampr.org (Marc Siegel): > > I wonder how many other people out there work for companies that > have LARGE investments in 3b2 hardware and software. We have several > 3b2's that may not be supported very much longer. While nobody at > AT&T will actually confirm this, it seems that the 3b2 is a dead > product line. Do you mean the whole 3B2 line or the 310/400 models? I doubt the former and I believe the latter has already been announced. The low-end 3B2's are slower than 386's so why not phase them out. However, I have heard nothing to suggest that the rest of the entire 3B2 line is on its way out. -- Michael Sullivan uunet!jarthur!aqdata!sullivan aQdata, Inc. sullivan@aqdata.uucp San Dimas, CA +1 714 599 9992
terry@eesun1.eece.ksu.edu (Terry Hull) (06/05/90)
sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) writes: >:From article <3532@wb3ffv.ampr.org>, by smarc@wb3ffv.ampr.org (Marc Siegel): >> >> I wonder how many other people out there work for companies that >> have LARGE investments in 3b2 hardware and software. We have several >> 3b2's that may not be supported very much longer. While nobody at >> AT&T will actually confirm this, it seems that the 3b2 is a dead >> product line. >Do you mean the whole 3B2 line or the 310/400 models? I doubt the former >and I believe the latter has already been announced. The low-end 3B2's >are slower than 386's so why not phase them out. However, I have heard >nothing to suggest that the rest of the entire 3B2 line is on its way out. It takes a fair sized 3b2/1000 to be faster than a good '386 box. For the money you spend on the 3B, you can buy several '386s. In defense of the 3Bs though, they are very reliable. -- Terry Hull Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Kansas State University Work: terry@eece.ksu.edu, rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!terry Play: terry@tah386.manhattan.ks.us, rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!tah386!terry
kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) (06/05/90)
In article <1990Jun5.002131.11389@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu> terry@eesun1.eece.ksu.edu (Terry Hull) writes: >sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) writes: > >>:From article <3532@wb3ffv.ampr.org>, by smarc@wb3ffv.ampr.org (Marc Siegel): >>> >>> I wonder how many other people out there work for companies that >>> have LARGE investments in 3b2 hardware and software. We have several >>> 3b2's that may not be supported very much longer. While nobody at >>> AT&T will actually confirm this, it seems that the 3b2 is a dead >>> product line. > >>Do you mean the whole 3B2 line or the 310/400 models? I doubt the former >>and I believe the latter has already been announced. The low-end 3B2's >>are slower than 386's so why not phase them out. However, I have heard >>nothing to suggest that the rest of the entire 3B2 line is on its way out. > >It takes a fair sized 3b2/1000 to be faster than a good '386 box. >For the money you spend on the 3B, you can buy several '386s. In defense >of the 3Bs though, they are very reliable. > >-- > >Terry Hull >Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Kansas State University >Work: terry@eece.ksu.edu, rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!terry >Play: terry@tah386.manhattan.ks.us, rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!tah386!terry If the demise of the 3B2 is near, I don't think it will be because of pure hardware obsolescence so much as a marketing move: the price/performance niche can be filled by 386's at the low end (as Terry points out), and true* multiprocessing machines a little higher up. And even in its own shrinking class, 3B2's face stiff ongoing competition from NCR, Motorola et al. There is a software concern, as well. AT&T lacks a decent OA product for the 3B2, and offers only "generic" office packages (e.g. WP, Spreadsheet). Whether this is the chicken or the egg, is anyone's guess, however. But these are the bread and butter of a "departmental/branch"-class computer, and it doesn't help the 3B2's plight in the marketplace. I can't really comment on the reliability issue: I get to deal with all the ugly crashes on our extended network of 3B2's (>130), so my viewpoint is rather slanted. * I hesitate to call the multi-processing feature of the 3B2/1000 "true" - it is so asymmetric as to render it useless for almost all real applications. Speaking only for myself, and not for Chrysler or Chrysler Financial... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kevin@cfctech.cfc.com | Kevin Darcy, Unix Systems Administrator ...[mailrus!]sharkey!cfctech!kevin | Technical Services (CFC) Voice: (313) 948-4863 | Chrysler Corporation Fax: (313) 948-4975 | 27777 Franklin, Southfield, MI 48034 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) (06/05/90)
:From article <1990Jun5.002131.11389@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu>, by terry@eesun1.eece.ksu.edu (Terry Hull): > > It takes a fair sized 3b2/1000 to be faster than a good '386 box. Just try and put 20 users on a 386. 3B2's may not be the fastest around but they don't degrade nearly as fast as a 386. > For the money you spend on the 3B, you can buy several '386s. In defense Some places don't want several 386's. They just want one computer and putting a bunch of people on a single 386 isn't going to be fun. -- Michael Sullivan uunet!jarthur!aqdata!sullivan aQdata, Inc. sullivan@aqdata.uucp San Dimas, CA +1 714 599 9992
fst@gtenmc.UUCP (Fariborz "Skip" Tavakkolian) (06/07/90)
In article <23021@cfctech.cfc.com> kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darcy) writes: >In article <1990Jun5.002131.11389@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu> terry@eesun1.eece.ksu.edu (Terry Hull) writes: >>sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) writes: >> >>>:From article <3532@wb3ffv.ampr.org>, by smarc@wb3ffv.ampr.org (Marc Siegel): [deleted] >>>and I believe the latter has already been announced. The low-end 3B2's >>>are slower than 386's so why not phase them out. However, I have heard [deleted] >>It takes a fair sized 3b2/1000 to be faster than a good '386 box. >>For the money you spend on the 3B, you can buy several '386s. In defense >>of the 3Bs though, they are very reliable. >> >>Terry Hull > >If the demise of the 3B2 is near, I don't think it will be because of pure >hardware obsolescence so much as a marketing move: the price/performance niche >can be filled by 386's at the low end (as Terry points out), and true* [deleted] >I can't really comment on the reliability issue: I get to deal with all the >ugly crashes on our extended network of 3B2's (>130), so my viewpoint is >rather slanted. I wouldn't wish a network of 130 AT/386's running some generic STREAMS-based TCP, for anyone!!! (to use the term ``STREAMS-based'' loosely. very loosely) > >kevin@cfctech.cfc.com | Kevin Darcy, Unix Systems Administrator Given any serious application that my clients/customers/users count on, I would hesitate to suggest any AT/386 class machines. I would, however, suggest a 3B2-500 or some bigger 3B2. This would specially be true for unattended operations. 3B2s with which I have had experience (i.e. 400/500/600), have been very robust (with the exception of some 400s running SVR2.0.4!!). Most 386s (running Interactive or Xenix(R)) have very unreliable software or hardware or both (in no big way related to the OS itself). Most third party hardware for the AT class machines have been designed with the DOS in mind and their UN*X drivers are no help either. I like 386 machines, I just haven't learned to trust them. Skip -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fariborz "Skip" Tavakkolian -of- Automated Cellular Engineering Currently consulting -at- GTE Telecom, Inc. Bothell, Wa Mail: tiny1!fst@mcgp1 -or- fst@gtenmc
fmcgee@cuuxb.ATT.COM (~XT6561110~Frank McGee~C23~L25~6326~) (06/08/90)
In article <1990Jun4.224210.23804@aqdata.uucp> sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) writes: >:From article <3532@wb3ffv.ampr.org>, by smarc@wb3ffv.ampr.org (Marc Siegel): >> >> I wonder how many other people out there work for companies that >> have LARGE investments in 3b2 hardware and software. We have several >> 3b2's that may not be supported very much longer. While nobody at >> AT&T will actually confirm this, it seems that the 3b2 is a dead >> product line. > >Do you mean the whole 3B2 line or the 310/400 models? I doubt the former >and I believe the latter has already been announced. The low-end 3B2's >are slower than 386's so why not phase them out. However, I have heard >nothing to suggest that the rest of the entire 3B2 line is on its way out. Do you refer to support, or availability of new product ? Most people are primarily concerned with support, and that will be around for quite a while. In general, AT&T continues to support a product until 5 years after it has been manufacturer discontined (md'd) - ie, no longer orderable as a new product. The worst case for the 3B2 would be the 300/310, which was md'd last year I believe. I don't know if the 400 is still available, and the 500 and higher will probably be available for a long time to come, and then supported for about 5 years after they are no longer available. In fact, there are a lot of people in my building that work on support for 3B2's, and they'll be around for a long time to come. As for peripherals, most of the 3B's use SCSI, and the 6386 line introduced SCSI peripherals this year. The 6386 machines use the same SCSI peripherals as the 3B2, so they will be around for a long time as well. Frank McGee Entry Level Systems Support attmail!fmcgee (prefered) {att,attmail}!cuuxb!fmcgee -- Frank McGee, AT&T Entry Level Systems Support attmail!fmcgee (preferred) att!cuuxb!fmcgee (those that can't reach attmail)
abc@adm.BRL.MIL (Brinton Cooper) (06/12/90)
In article <4781@cuuxb.ATT.COM> fmcgee@cuuxb.UUCP (Frank W. McGee, attmail!fmcgee) writes: >In article <1990Jun4.224210.23804@aqdata.uucp> sullivan@aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) writes: >>:From article <3532@wb3ffv.ampr.org>, by smarc@wb3ffv.ampr.org (Marc Siegel): >>> I wonder how many other people out there work for companies that >>> have LARGE investments in 3b2 hardware and software. We have several >>> 3b2's that may not be supported very much longer. While nobody at . . . >>Do you mean the whole 3B2 line or the 310/400 models? I doubt the former >>and I believe the latter has already been announced. The low-end 3B2's >>are slower than 386's so why not phase them out. However, I have heard . . >In general, AT&T continues to support a product until 5 years after >it has been manufacturer discontined (md'd) - ie, no longer >orderable as a new product. The worst case for the 3B2 would be the >300/310, which was md'd last year I believe. I . .p >Frank McGee, AT&T >Entry Level Systems Support The disturbing thing about this discussion is that nearly all of the responses are from AT&T. Do they own this newsgroup? Are all AT&T computer owners completely dependent upon the company for all hardware and software support? There are many of these low-end machines (300/310, e.g.) lying around universities that cannot afford to replace themwith 386 machines. Is there NO third party hardware or software for this stuff? Are there no hackers, in the finest sense of the term, who write improved software for these machines? Folks who own IBM PC-class hardware certainly don't wait around for Big Blue to write the next $49 program and sell it for $1500. They don't wait for the Company to produce a $75 peripheral with a $995 price tag. Why do AT&T maching owners? The 3B2/300 and 310 may be slow machines and far behind the state of the art. But they're good computers; with a decent C compiler even the bottom of the line 300 could do some scientific work. Turbo C for PCs has sold for under $99 on occasion. Why don't we create a demand for such a product on our machines? Of whom are we afraid? B -- _Brinton Cooper BRL - Where "Research" is our Middle Name.
isolated@alix.UUCP (20 James D. Corder) (06/12/90)
In article <23609@adm.BRL.MIL> abc@adm.BRL.MIL (Brinton Cooper) writes: >The disturbing thing about this discussion is that nearly all of the >responses are from AT&T. Do they own this newsgroup? Are all AT&T >computer owners completely dependent upon the company for all hardware >and software support? > >There are many of these low-end machines (300/310, e.g.) lying around >universities that cannot afford to replace themwith 386 machines. Is >there NO third party hardware or software for this stuff? Are there no >hackers, in the finest sense of the term, who write improved software >for these machines? > >Folks who own IBM PC-class hardware certainly don't wait around for Big >Blue to write the next $49 program and sell it for $1500. They don't >wait for the Company to produce a $75 peripheral with a $995 price tag. >Why do AT&T maching owners? > >The 3B2/300 and 310 may be slow machines and far behind the state of the >art. But they're good computers; with a decent C compiler even the >bottom of the line 300 could do some scientific work. Turbo C for PCs >has sold for under $99 on occasion. Why don't we create a demand for >such a product on our machines? Of whom are we afraid? > >B > >-- >_Brinton Cooper BRL - Where "Research" is our Middle Name. I agree with what Brinton said. As I stated earlyer, I love my 3B2/300!!! I too wish that I could find inexpensive software for the 3B2 line of products. As for people writting software for the 3B2, I bet that there are many programers out there that do. But, that no software companies will publish it. Oh sure, large accounting packages or data bases that are already working on another system. However since the 300/310/ and soon the 400 are old and not to be sold anymore, I ass/u/me most of us have our MAJOR software for the system. We purchased it when we got our machines. Therefore, most of us want the neet little programs to add to our machines: utilities... I agree that many scools have 3B2s. However, I think that most are sitting in some storage room. I went to a Major university about a month ago to help them set up there SUN network. In one closet there was 4 3B2/300 and 2 3B2/310 stacked on the floor unpluged, unused:-( Since most systems donated to universities where 1meg ram and 30 meg disk they are all but useless. I know that I have a 2meg/80meg system and I have many problems with disk space and speed. The 3B2/300 system is my personal machine. However I have access to a 47mip Amdhal{sp} with gigs of disk space. So most of my development is on it. Then my 3B2 has SYSV2.x and the software that I write on the Amdhal does not port very easy As for most people that respond being from AT&T: I think that most low end 3B2s where sold to companies wanting turn key point of sales or accounting software. Therefore, they would not be on the net. Just my $.02 James D. Corder ...osu-cis!alix!jdc ...att!osu-cis!alix!jdc alix!jdc@cis.ohio-state.edu
njc@rick.att.com (Neil Cherry) (06/12/90)
In article <23609@adm.BRL.MIL> abc@adm.BRL.MIL (Brinton Cooper) writes: > >The disturbing thing about this discussion is that nearly all of the >responses are from AT&T. Do they own this newsgroup? Are all AT&T > No AT&T doesn't own this group, we just support these computers! As for Hacking A 300/310, if I could get 1 home I'd first hack the Ram memory so I could get better than 4 meg of ram into the thing. That is the main problem with the computer (IMHO!). I have been getting some of my other programs running on the 300 ( I have 2 in my cube). > >Folks who own IBM PC-class hardware certainly don't wait around for Big >Blue to write the next $49 program and sell it for $1500. They don't >wait for the Company to produce a $75 peripheral with a $995 price tag. >Why do AT&T maching owners? > Maybe most Unix users are software people. ;-) >_Brinton Cooper BRL - Where "Research" is our Middle Name. NJC
tr@samadams.princeton.edu (Tom Reingold) (06/12/90)
James Corder, tell us what it is you love about your 3b2.
--
Tom Reingold
tr@samadams.princeton.edu
rutgers!princeton!samadams!tr
201-560-6082
"Brew strength depends upon the
amount of coffee used."isolated@alix.UUCP (20 James D. Corder) (06/14/90)
In article <241@rossignol.Princeton.EDU> tr@samadams.princeton.edu (Tom Reingold) writes: >James Corder, tell us what it is you love about your 3b2. >-- > Tom Reingold Hmm? Hard one: First, understand that when I purchased my 3B2 it was state of the art for about a week:-) 286 was the top in the PC. I had a 286 XENIX machine. I kept the 286 for a few months. 5 megs of ram, 11 rs232, 50 megs hard drive: I thought I would make a BBS out of it. My 3B2 has SYSV2 2meg ram, 10 rs232, 80meg hard drive. Both where slow. However when one would compile "C" with more than one user on the system, the 3B2 would out preform the 286. It is my opinion that the 3B2's depletion of speed as more users and processes are added is less than most other machines in its class. I purchased the machine so that I could program at home on REAL UNIX:-) At the time 1200baud was FAST. Therefore, I would "vi" the program at home, compile it, test it, debug it,... then uucp it to the Dec 11/780 accross town. I did my best programing at home, as compared to work. Now 2400/9600 bauds is comon. I have access to a 47mip UNIX machine. Well?:-( The 3B2 is a darn good machine!!! Now it is outdated:-( I have not used the AT&T 3B2/1000 or bigger systems. However, I don't think I would purchase one again. The madning thing about the 3B2 line, if you only need a few users, the are priced so high. When I bought my system, the other machines where in the same ball park. Now, AT&T has not kept up with price and demand. Given the same amount of money and todays market, I would buy a SUN SPARC STATION. I guess why I love my 3B2 is past experiences with it. Also, My system's name is "alix" a person's name. Therefore, everyone talks about the system as if it was a "real" person. This builds an emotional bond with the system. I am amazed more BIG companies don't use names for systems, instead of numbers:-( It was something fantastic when I bought it!!! And, it's paid for:-) Thank you, James D. Corder ...osu-cis!alix!jdc ...att!osu-cis!alix!jdc alix!jdc@cis.ohio-state.edu
cjc@ulysses.att.com (Chris Calabrese[mav]) (06/14/90)
flint@gistdev.gist.com (Flint Pellett) writes: > know) the software floating point emulation was performing sin() functions > at the break-neck speed of 6 calls per second on an unloaded machine. I Face it, floating point on the 3b's always was terrible. Why do you need fast floating point on a phone switch? By the time Summit figured out that the thing wasn't being used as a phone switch any more, it was too late to add decent floating point. Same thing for virtural memory hardare. The original machines had fairly good VM for swapping based systems, but it took a long time for them to get the MMU right for paging. All in all, they're not bad macines for general office automation type use (the floating point's even pretty decent now). They're just too expensive for what they have to compete against. Name: Christopher J. Calabrese Brain loaned to: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ att!ulysses!cjc cjc@ulysses.att.com Obligatory Quote: ``Anyone who would tell you that would also try and sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.''
sar0@cbnewsl.att.com (stephen.a.rago) (06/17/90)
In article <13119@ulysses.att.com>, cjc@ulysses.att.com (Chris Calabrese[mav]) writes: > Face it, floating point on the 3b's always was terrible. Why do you > need fast floating point on a phone switch? By the time Summit > figured out that the thing wasn't being used as a phone switch any > more, it was too late to add decent floating point. Same thing for > virtural memory hardare. The original machines had fairly good VM for > swapping based systems, but it took a long time for them to get the > MMU right for paging. The 3B2 hardware was designed in Indian Hill, not Summit. Summit just put UNIX System V on it. Steve Rago sar@attunix.att.com