Bill Yakowenko wrote:
>
> On 29 Sep 1999, somebody who should know better wrote:
> ] > Yesterday I scooped an AT&T PC 6300 Unix machine on its way
> ]
> ] It's not a Unix machine. (Or, at least, not a very good one.)
> ] Perhaps you're thinking of the 7300?
>
> Well, its former owner called it a 6300 Unix machine, its cover
> has "6300 PLUS" printed on it in nice big letters, and the
> floppies that I got with it have preprinted labels like this:
>
> AT&T
> Unix(R) System V Release 2.0
> AT&T Personal Computer
> 6300 PLUS
>
> What do you think? Is it a 6300 PLUS? Is it a Unix machine?
Yes, it's a 6300+. And yes, it's a Unix machine.
> Maybe it isn't a very good Unix machine. Still, I'd like to get
> it to boot and come to my own conclusions. Help is welcome.
For the time., it was possibly the best Unix PC (emphasis on PC)
around. SCO Xenix on the AT was unstable at best. There was no
really stable Unix on the x86 series until things were recompiled
for the 80386. (Despite the name, the "Unix PC", the 7300/3B1
series, was never priced as a personal computer nor did it have an
Intel cpu). I'm welcome to contrary opinions about the viability
of Unix in pre-'386 Intel. I got into Unix on the 68000 before
Apple produced the Lisa, courtesy of working for Radio Shack. T'was
Xenix, the first/last/only Microsoft OS I liked. Of course,
Microsoft never made an end-user package.
>
> Remember people, this is an "oldies" list. If some machine here
> isn't fast/good/new enough for you, maybe you accidentally
> subscribed to the wrong list? Please try to contain the knee-jerk
> put-downs.
Knee-jerk put-downers don't last long on this list. Those of us
inclined (like me on 6502 systems) wind up leaving, laying off, or
learning something.
--
Ward Griffiths wdg3rd_at_home.com <http://members.home.net/wdg3rd>
WARNING: The Attorney General has determined that Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms can be hazardous to your health -- and get away with it.
Received on Sun Oct 03 1999 - 15:26:35 BST