Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!ked
From: ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: AT&T 6300: the Wrong Choice
Message-ID: <22169@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 28 Mar 89 07:13:26 GMT
References: <7634@killer.Dallas.TX.US> <1500002@scsmo1.UUCP> <4555@vpk4.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 10

In article <4555@vpk4.UUCP> hjespers@attcan.UUCP (Hans Jespersen) writes:
>In article <1500002@scsmo1.UUCP> tim@scsmo1.UUCP writes:
> 
>>You ask why buy an new 6300?  Well have have this "goverment contract" that

Perhaps Olivetti got sloppy. I can only speak from experience.  I have
a 6300 that has been running almost continuously for three years.  In
that time I've had two hardware problems: (a) the V-30 chip I had stuck
in in place of the 8086 died (can't blame that on ATT) and (b) the
numeral five (5) got bouncy (cure: pull the key and clean it).