Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:3726 comp.sys.ibm.pc:17054 comp.dcom.lans:1560
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!chinet!les
From: les@chinet.UUCP (Leslie Mikesell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: Does anybody know anything about PMX/Term from AT&T?
Summary: Starlan in general
Message-ID: <5957@chinet.UUCP>
Date: 7 Jul 88 20:32:30 GMT
References: <740@cgh.UUCP> <1094@nusdhub.UUCP>
Reply-To: les@chinet.UUCP (Leslie Mikesell)
Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix
Lines: 31

In article <1094@nusdhub.UUCP> rwhite@nusdhub.UUCP (Robert C. White Jr.) writes:
>
>The unpleasant issue of the day, STARLAN OSI protocols!
>
>THINGS YOU WILL LOOSE:
>3B1 Connections (by omission, no word as to the future?)
  ^^^
Thanks for the input - I raised the issue because I had reached the same
conclusion from looking at the descriptions of the new products.  The
AT&T sales people that I deal with were unable (or unwilling) to give
an answer about a 3B1 version for OSI.  

>The 386 software and hardware is far superrior for use on the STARLAN
>and STARLAN 10 networks. 
>...
>As far as the 3B1 are concerned, the best answer I have gotten on that
>is "that hardware is no longer supported."
>
>Oh well.....

At the same meeting where the 3B1 issue was brought up, I asked the
AT&T sales people why I should buy their 6386 machine as opposed to
the many others on the market.  Their answer: "Well, you want to buy
from a company that is going to be around to support it's equipment,
don't you?"

>Disclaimer:  This is my research, not "official" AT&T party line;
>	The first, however, is damn close to the second.

Anyone have an "official" reply?

  Les Mikesell