Is the 3b2 dead?
Terry Hull
terry at eesun1.eece.ksu.edu
Tue Jun 5 10:21:31 AEST 1990
sullivan at aqdata.uucp (Michael T. Sullivan) writes:
>:From article <3532 at wb3ffv.ampr.org>, by smarc at wb3ffv.ampr.org (Marc Siegel):
>>
>> I wonder how many other people out there work for companies that
>> have LARGE investments in 3b2 hardware and software. We have several
>> 3b2's that may not be supported very much longer. While nobody at
>> AT&T will actually confirm this, it seems that the 3b2 is a dead
>> product line.
>Do you mean the whole 3B2 line or the 310/400 models? I doubt the former
>and I believe the latter has already been announced. The low-end 3B2's
>are slower than 386's so why not phase them out. However, I have heard
>nothing to suggest that the rest of the entire 3B2 line is on its way out.
It takes a fair sized 3b2/1000 to be faster than a good '386 box.
For the money you spend on the 3B, you can buy several '386s. In defense
of the 3Bs though, they are very reliable.
--
Terry Hull
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Kansas State University
Work: terry at eece.ksu.edu, rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!terry
Play: terry at tah386.manhattan.ks.us, rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!tah386!terry
More information about the Comp.sys.att
mailing list