Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ucsd!ucsdhub!jack!nusdhub!rwhite
From: rwhite@nusdhub.UUCP (Robert C. White Jr.)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: 3b2/300 or 3b1 ----> I PREFER 3B1 BY A LONG SHOT!!
Message-ID: <1103@nusdhub.UUCP>
Date: 14 Jul 88 19:27:55 GMT
References: <471@cogent.UUCP>
Organization: National University, San Diego
Lines: 28

in article <471@cogent.UUCP>, mark@cogent.UUCP (Captain Neptune) says:
> 
> In article <279@jackson.UUCP> egranthm@jackson.UUCP (Ewan Grantham) writes:
>>Have recently been looking at trying to acquire a 3b1 system when a
>>local vendor contacted me with a 'deal' on a 3b2/300. The 3b2/300
>>comes with 1 meg ram, 30 meg HD, and Unix V.3
>>
>>Since the price of the system is $2350, I'm wondering if this is a better
>>deal than the 3b1. Is the 3b2/300 better supported by AT&T? Will I be able
>>to do more with it?
> 
> We had a 3B2/300 in our office for quite a while.  We eventually returned
> the piece of junk because it was excruciatingly slow - as long as 30 minutes
> to comile a fairly large program!

The 3B2/300 dosn't have a full-logic-on-a-chip CPU present in all
the other 3B2s, and is quite a dog.  It is not "unsupported," but
the only real "support" you are going to get is an offer to let
you buy an upgrade kit to make it a 3B2/310.

There is a world of difference between the 300 and the 310.  It seems
that the CPU logic on the 300 was a duaghter board with a clocking
kludge, which made it mucho-stupido and slug-like.  The banishment
of the daughter board was a good thing, though I dont remember the
price.

Rob.

Disclaimer:  this is not "offical" AT&T party line, but it's close.