Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!ihnp4!ihlpf!gmark
From: gmark@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Stewart)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: 3b2/300 or 3b1 ----> I PREFER 3B1 BY A LONG SHOT!!
Summary: 3B1 compared to 3B2?
Keywords: 3B2 = expensive slow junky boat-anchor
Message-ID: <5288@ihlpf.ATT.COM>
Date: 14 Jul 88 15:04:41 GMT
References: <279@jackson.UUCP> <471@cogent.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 17

In article <471@cogent.UUCP>, mark@cogent.UUCP (Captain Neptune) writes:
> In article <279@jackson.UUCP> egranthm@jackson.UUCP (Ewan Grantham) writes:
> >Have recently been looking at trying to acquire a 3b1 system when a
....
> Incidentally, I've seen benchmarks where the 3B2s and 3B5s came in at
> the bottom of the whole bunch, including $-per-performance ratings. 

Say, Cap (and anyone else), out of curiousity, how did the 3B1 compare
to the 3B2 in terms of speed?  (I've gotten observations on this before,
but you know how benchmarks are...)  Thanks in advance!

				- Mark

				G. Mark Stewart
				ATT_BTL, Naperville, Ill. ix1g266
				ixlpq!gms (312)979-0914
				(please include phone in response)