Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ittatc!ittvax!jeffd
From: jeffd@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Jeff Denenberg)
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc,net.unix
Subject: Re: How Good is the AT&T 6300 Plus?
Message-ID: <607@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Jun-86 09:19:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: ittvax.607
Posted: Wed Jun 18 09:19:48 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Jun-86 19:44:02 EDT
References: <1927@osu-eddie.UUCP> <350@omen.UUCP> <1286@amiga.amiga.UUCP> <9885@ucsfcgl.ucsfcgl.UUCP> <1198@bunker.UUCP>
Organization: ITT-ATC, Shelton Ct.
Lines: 35
Xref: watmath net.micro.pc:8720 net.unix:8217

> In article <9885@ucsfcgl.ucsfcgl.UUCP> russack@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Joe
> 	Russack%CGL) writes:
> >
> >	The pc compatibility is not too good. It is passing, (and much
> >	better than unmentionable clones) but not as good as some
> >	others (like the ITT, compaq,etc).
> >
> >Joseph Russack
> >
> >!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!russack
> 
> 	point of interest, the 6300 (although i'm not possitive about
> the plus) is made by Olivetti for AT&T.  The comperable ITT machine is
> also made by Olivetti.  Olivetti sells it themselves as the M24.  All
> three machines are identical except for paint and such.
> 
> 	None of this is secret, you can gather as much from the trade
> journals, but how can the ATT differ from the ITT in that respect?
> Must be a case of perspective.
> -- 
> -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
> 
> Joseph D. Shapiro			"He who hesitates
> Bunker Ramo Information Systems		 is lunch"
> 
> ...ittatc!bunker!shap
> ...decvax!bunker!shap

The "comparable ITT machine" is the ITT XTRA XP. It is made by ITT, not
Olivetti and is a totally different design. The XP uses a 80286 and is a true
pc (not AT) clone with good compatibility. I have used the ITT XTRA XP and it
is, in my opinion, the class of the pc clones.

                         Jeff Denenberg
                         ..decvax!ittvax!jeffd