Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:5934 comp.sys.ibm.pc:26572 misc.consumers:9400
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ucsd!sdcc6!sdcc7!ss60x
From: ss60x@sdcc7.ucsd.EDU (ss60x)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,comp.sys.ibm.pc,misc.consumers
Subject: Re: AT&T 6300: the Wrong Choice
Keywords: Consistent memory board failures, repair ripoffs
Message-ID: <1242@sdcc7.ucsd.EDU>
Date: 25 Mar 89 17:58:46 GMT
References: <7634@killer.Dallas.TX.US>
Reply-To: ss60x@sdcc7.ucsd.edu.UUCP (ss60x)
Followup-To: comp.sys.att
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 20

>> Flame on 6300  >>

Obviously the 6300 is hardly state of the art. But we have been
running
about 30 6300's for around 5 years with essentially no maintenance
costs. (I am sure the machine gods will cause massive failures over
the next week to teach me about hubris). 

We bought the 6300's when the competition was a 4MH IBM PC with
extra costs for a CGA. ATT has 640x400 res - it is a shame that
everhyone went for hercules standard, but I still think the 6300
was a good choice. Why anyone bought one in the last year or two is
a mystery to me.

BTW Credit for the machine is not due to ATT but Olivetti. Perhaps
the new problems are due to ATT.

Neal Beck
Dept. of Pol. Sci.
beck@ucsd.edu