Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!eesun1!terry
From: terry@eesun1.eece.ksu.edu (Terry Hull)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: Is the 3b2 dead?
Message-ID: <1990Jun5.002131.11389@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu>
Date: 5 Jun 90 00:21:31 GMT
References: <3532@wb3ffv.ampr.org> <1990Jun4.224210.23804@aqdata.uucp>
Sender: news@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu (The News Guru)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Kansas State University
Lines: 25

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