AT VS 3B1

[Larry Taborek]

>From article <670 at ultb.UUCP>, by thw9759 at ultb.UUCP (T.H. White):
> 
> Which is better, an AT&T 3B1 or a PC/AT clone?
> 
> - a 3B1 is a real 32 bit machine has demand paging capability
> - a 3B1 runs UNIX 5.2 (a real unix) which runs GNU
> - a 3B1 costs a lot to repair and often times you can't repair
> - an AT runs Xenix, DOS, you name it, it runs it.
> - an AT is a 16 bit machine with no demand paging capability
> - can fix any part in an AT for around $200 or less
> 
> 
> What other differences are there? Which is better???

I'd take the PC/AT clone.  Today, PC/AT clones can include 386
machines.  With 386 PC's, you get a 3B1's 32 bit, you can get
5.2 with demand paging (again a real unix), AND an unsegmented
mmachine.  In short, if you were to go with a 386PC you would
have all of the advantages above of a PC and all of the
advantages that you give to the 3B1.

I have been looking through the AIM Benchmark Reports and they
rate a AT&T 3B2/400 (considerably more powerfull then the 3B1) at
76% of a VAX 780, and able to run 9 users.  They in turn rate a 
Compaq DP 386 at 139% of a VAX 780, and able to run 16 users.

It's MY belief that a 386 machine is a much better buy then a
3B1, and if you pick up a magazine like Computer-Shopper you can
probably get a 16MZ PC/AT/386 clone for about $1000.00.  By the
way the Compaq DP rated above was their 160MZ model.  Their 20MZ model
was even more impressive.
-- 
Larry Taborek	..!uunet!grebyn!macom1!larry	Centel Federal Systems
		larry at macom1.UUCP		11400 Commerce Park Drive
						Reston, VA 22091-1506
						703-758-7000