Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site timeinc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!timeinc!dwight
From: dwight@timeinc.UUCP (Dwight Ernest)
Newsgroups: net.micro.att
Subject: Re: AT&T UNIX 7300 PC
Message-ID: <184@timeinc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 15-May-85 13:36:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: timeinc.184
Posted: Wed May 15 13:36:30 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 16-May-85 08:15:45 EDT
References: <575@hou2e.UUCP>
Reply-To: dwight@timeinc.UUCP (Dwight Ernest)
Organization: Time, Inc. - New York
Lines: 55
Summary: 

In article <575@hou2e.UUCP> ksl@hou2e.UUCP (a hacker) writes:

>The AT&T UNIX 7300, while it may have multi-user capability,
>was built for personal computing -- otherwise why
>do they call it the AT&T UNIX 7300 PC  (you don't
>call VAXes PCs, do you?).  In regard to the Popular Computing
>article, AT&T did not choose the N.S. 32xxx series
>due to the un-availabilty of the chip.  In fact,
>AT&T was going to have their AT&T UNIX 7300 machine
>on a 80286 chip, with UNIX ported by Digital Research,
>but later moved the job to Convergent Technologies.

I was referring to the WE32X00 chip set, which I don't think is the same
as the N.S. set. My information on the chip set choices were based
on the article in Popular Computing.

>Most of you net.people seem to think bitterly of
>the UNIX-PC, yet Personal Computing AND BYTE [...]

I don't think that's true. There have been one or two
voices saying "Gee, it's disappointing." And there have
been at least as many voices saying, "Gee, it's pretty great,
and I'm probably going to purchase one." Bitterness? Perhaps;
if so, then it's probably because we tend to expect a great
deal of innovation from AT&T, and while the Unix PC is a great
little box, and certainly the best price/performance deal many
of us are aware of currently, it falls short of what many of us
expected from AT&T innovation.

>Most of net.people against the AT&T PC are
>Time Inc. people.  What do Time people have
>against AT&T?

I'm certainly glad you said "TIME PEOPLE" rather than Time Inc.,
since the opinions expressed are those of individuals, as I'm
sure you understand. One of those most vocal is not, in fact,
on the payroll of Time Inc., but is loosely connected with one
department and uses a guest account (at our invitation) here.

At least we sign our names, "ksl," unlike you.

We have nothing against AT&T whatsoever. We'd appreciate a discussion
of some of the individual issues discussed, concerning the machine's
performance and limitations, on a technical level, however.

So how about it?
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
		--Dwight Ernest	KA2CNN	\ Usenet:...vax135!timeinc!dwight
		  Time Inc. Edit./Prod. Tech. Grp., New York City
		  Voice: (212) 554-5061 \ Compuserve: 70210,523
		  Telemail: DERNEST/TIMECOMDIV/TIMEINC \ MCI: DERNEST
"The opinions expressed above are those of the writer and do not necessarily
 reflect the opinions of Time Incorporated."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------