Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!rutgers!att!chinet!les
From: les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: Which SCSI adapter is better??
Summary: AT&T unix support
Message-ID: <1989Dec7.165518.9532@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: 7 Dec 89 16:55:18 GMT
References: <21@dynasys.UUCP> <4976@macom1.UUCP> <6435@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>
Reply-To: les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell)
Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX
Lines: 18

In article <6435@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) writes:

>The only downside being that AT&T nor INTEL are delivering a UNIX that can
>use the SCSI controller, Adaptec 1542A or otherwise.  It is, in my opinion,
>a serious deficiency in their product offerings.

This is no longer true.  I just had a blurb from AT&T faxed to me that
SCSI support is available for the 386 SysVR3.2.2.  The AT&T 6386E/33
(made by Intel)  has an internal SCSI as the boot device.  The other
models use ESDI for the the boot device but can add SCSI for secondary
devices.
I quote:
"AT&T 6386 WGS computers enhanced with SCSI support the suite of AT&T
3B2 SCSI peripherals."
Sounds encouraging to me (but then I'm not manufacturing 3B2's....).

Les Mikesell
  les@chinet.chi.il.us