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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!vax135!timeinc!greenber From: greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) Newsgroups: net.unix Subject: Re: Problems with the 7300 Message-ID: <174@timeinc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 13-May-85 09:07:24 EDT Article-I.D.: timeinc.174 Posted: Mon May 13 09:07:24 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 16-May-85 07:27:34 EDT References: <166@timeinc.UUCP> <1160@cbosgd.UUCP> <169@timeinc.UUCP> <228@phri.UUCP> Reply-To: greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) Organization: Time, Inc. - New York Lines: 56 In article <228@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: (Quoting me) >> Now this machine only had 512K [...] with machines that were >> configured as such toys *UNLESS* they actually consider that to be >> what people will buy. > > The AT&T guys were vary careful to point out several times >during the presentation and in the Q&A that followed that for the type >of use most of the audience would have for the machine (i.e. program >development) that you should almost certainly only consider the >full-blown 2Mb RAM, 20Mb winnie system, with the optional utilities >package (C compiler, etc). There was no hint of trying to deceive the >audience that the stripped down version would be satisfactory for the >intensive environment you seem to have in mind. I tend to disagree with you. I feel that a system that is buggy and as slow as this system was/is should not be put out by AT&T. Lets be honest: weren't we expecting a machine that would blow your socks off?? I mean, with AT&T coming out with a UNIX machine !!! And then we get this toy with the caveat that if you want to do any productive work, well then the machines that were brought to a UNIX user group really aren't the ones for you.....you need the version that they neglected to bring. Corporate users of the 7300 still need decent response time, and a (as much as possible) bug-free system. And I really wasn't thinking of an "intensive environment". I was thinking about "normal" uses (whatever the heck that is!) > [...] > My personal opinion is that as a stand alone it is probably >worth it, but I'd rather sink a few more $k into a diskless Sun. > And therein is the problem: how can we get corporate management to accept UNIX in personal computers when we can't even reccommend the 7300 to them. It would have been nice to have a machine so powerful and inexpensive that the biggest problem would have been which of the clones to choose from. Do you see that happening? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- Timeinc probably wouldn't acknowledge my existence, and has opinions of its own. I highly doubt that they would make me their spokesperson. ------ "If ever the pleasure of one has to be bought by the pain of the other, there better be no trade. A trade by which one gains and the other loses is a fraud." --- Dagny Taggert