Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!ames!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!sdsioa!brunner
From: brunner@sdsioa.UUCP (Rob Brunner X42020)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: 3B2/300 Disk alternatives
Message-ID: <240@sdsioa.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Jun-87 14:58:22 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdsioa.240
Posted: Fri Jun  5 14:58:22 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Jun-87 04:01:03 EDT
References: <476@moncol.UUCP> <1239@gmwi1.UUCP>
Organization: # $ % ^ & * ( ) _ + ~
Lines: 26
Summary: AM 5's replaced

In article <1239@gmwi1.UUCP>, dklann@gmwi1.UUCP (David Klann) writes:
> in article <476@moncol.UUCP>, john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) says:
> > As a result, I am left with several questions of my own:
> > 	2) Why can't the 10meg in the 300 just be replaced with
> > 	   something larger (like a 70meg Priam)? Is there some
> > 	   limitation to what the controller can handle?
> I can't respond to question 1, or 3, but I'll take a shot to #2.  You
> may be able to drop a larger disk into the 300 iff the system board is
> an "AM 6" or later.  The "AM" number is indicated at the rear of the
> system board near the console/contty connections.
> 
> The way I understand it, the system board controller on earlier
> machines were not set up to handle the larger disks.

Didn't AT&T replace all the old AM 5's with AM 6's... I seem to remember that
when the X/M and similar devices (Absolute had one also) came out that they
(at least the Absolute) wouldn't run with the old AM 5 system board's.. AT&T
came out and replaced our sys-board... was this just because we were under
maintenance or did they do everyone's?

"I hate inews"

Rob Brunner                            "Use more honey.
brunner@sdsioa.UUCP                     Find out what she knows."
brunner%sdsioa@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu         -  John Whorfin, TAOBBATED
{backbone}!sdcsvax!brunner