NO on comp.sys.att.3b1 (yes on comp.sys.3b1)
Andy Fyfe
andy at cs.caltech.edu
Sat Dec 8 08:16:58 AEST 1990
In article <1990Dec7.174855.23824 at ccad.uiowa.edu> emcguire at ccad.uiowa.edu (Ed McGuire) writes:
>You don't think the machine is very important, and you conclude that it
>ought therefore to be correspondingly lower in the hierarchy?
Not quite. The 3b1 is a single machine for all practical purposes. It
is not a line of related computers. It hasn't been produced for years.
It's unlikely to ever have a successor. This makes it fundamentally
different from, say, a Mac, NeXT, or Amiga.
The 3b1 is a particular AT&T machine. The question is why is the 3b1 so
very important that is should be place at the top of the hierarchy, rather
than under comp.sys.att? Why bother to have a heirarchy at all if every
individual machine can go directly under comp.sys?
Andy Fyfe andy at cs.caltech.edu
More information about the Comp.sys.att
mailing list