Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!pilchuck!dataio!gtenmc!fst
From: fst@gtenmc.UUCP (Fariborz "Skip" Tavakkolian)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: Is the 3b2 dead?
Message-ID: <774@gtenmc.UUCP>
Date: 7 Jun 90 07:34:00 GMT
References: <3532@wb3ffv.ampr.org> <1990Jun4.224210.23804@aqdata.uucp> <1990Jun5.002131.11389@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu> <23021@cfctech.cfc.com>
Reply-To: fst@gtenmc.UUCP (Skip Tavakkolian)
Distribution: usa
Organization: GTE Telecom, Inc.  Bothell, WA
Lines: 51

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