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.