Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!cbmvax!grr From: grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix Subject: Re: DECstation 3100 Message-ID: <6675@cbmvax.UUCP> Date: 22 Apr 89 04:02:54 GMT References: <4706@decvax.dec.com> <88320@felix.UUCP> <1903@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> <17023@mimsy.UUCP> Reply-To: grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA Lines: 30 In article <17023@mimsy.UUCP> steve@fnord.umiacs.umd.edu (Steven D. Miller) writes: > > I don't think that DEC is wrong for selling diskless 8MB DS3100 systems. > There might actually be some people Out There who can use them -- I can > think of a secretary down the hall who would probably be thrilled to have > one. The onus is on the purchaser to make sure that the system being > purchased will fulfill all the right requirements. That's why I have mostly > 12MB (or more) DS3100s, and that's why I have at least one RZ55 on each one. > (Sun will happily sell you a diskless Sun-4 of any variety, but would you > buy a diskless SPARCstation 390?) Yes, but the onus is also on DEC and it's salespersons to recommend appropriate configurations to fit their best understanding of the customers needs, and also to avoid misrepresentations, either explicit or implicit, that a hardware configuration with known limitations will satisfy the customers requirements, without clearly presenting the tradeoffs. Hopefully they are doing this, as DEC has no obvious need of "wadda ya mean, you wanted both an engine *and* tires?" sales tactics... Personally I feel diskless work stations are a little bit like cars without engines, sure you can get around as long as there is somebody to give you a tow, but you'd be an awful lot happier if you had bought the conventional configuration. -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@uunet.uu.net Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)