Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!eecea!terry
From: terry@eecea.eece.ksu.edu (Terry Hull)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: AT VS 3B1
Message-ID: <626@eecea.eece.ksu.edu>
Date: 16 Apr 89 05:05:16 GMT
References: <670@ultb.UUCP>
Reply-To: terry@eecea.eece.ksu.edu (Terry Hull)
Distribution: na
Organization: Kansas State University, Manhattan
Lines: 19

In article <670@ultb.UUCP> thw9759@ultb.UUCP (T.H. White) writes:
>
>Which is better, an AT&T 3B1 or a PC/AT clone?

The problem with the 3B1 is it will never get new software.  AT&T is
not going to put SysV R3.2 or streams on it.  It will also not get
SysV R4.0.  

My money is on an AT bus '386 machine.  They are not that much more
expensive than '286 based ATs, are MUCH faster, and will run programs
that demand a large address space.  The '386s will also get SysV R4.0
next year. 

If I had to choose between the 3B1 or a '286 machine, I think I'd take
the 3B1, just because of the unsegmented architecture.   
-- 
Terry Hull 
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Kansas State University
Work:  terry@eecea.eece.ksu.edu, rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!terry
Play:  tah386!terry@eecea.eece.ksu.edu, rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!tah386!terry