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