3 Oct
1999
3 Oct
'99
11:02 a.m.
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?
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.
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.
Bill.
3 Oct
3 Oct
8:26 a.m.
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(a)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.
12:41 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1323 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19991004/3dda8b4d/at…
3:10 p.m.
Haddock claims the 6300+ was introduced in October, 1985. It's supposed
to be a 286 machine.
I hadn't been aware that it was Unix capable. I suppose I should dig
into the stacks and find our carcass. Still, i think I'd rather a 7300,
if I could get a set of disks.
4:12 p.m.
On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, Merle K. Peirce wrote:
Haddock claims the 6300+ was introduced in October, 1985. It's supposed
to be a 286 machine.
I hadn't been aware that it was Unix capable. I suppose I should dig
into the stacks and find our carcass. Still, i think I'd rather a 7300,
if I could get a set of disks.
What disks do you need?
Bill
11:37 p.m.
The Unix installation set. I forgot how many, but there are a LOT. 12+.
On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, William Fulmor wrote:
On Sun, 3 Oct 1999, Merle K. Peirce wrote:
M. K. Peirce
Rhode Island Computer Museum, Inc.
215 Shady Lea Road,
North Kingstown, RI 02852
"Casta est qui nemo rogavit."
- Ovid
Haddock claims the 6300+ was introduced in October, 1985. It's supposed
to be a 286 machine.
I hadn't been aware that it was Unix capable. I suppose I should dig
into the stacks and find our carcass. Still, i think I'd rather a 7300,
if I could get a set of disks.
What disks do you need?
Bill
8:24 p.m.
Tony Duell wrote:
Sorry, Tony. I've been inactive here for a fair while, not even
reading much of the list for months on end (though I received the
whole lot and they're archived awaiting "copious spare time").
I was using the term "PC" as it was more or less used at the time.
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
Since when (either on this list, or 'back then') has 'personal computer'
implied an Intel CPU. I think you could justify calling the TRS-80 model 16
a 'personal
computer' and as you say below, it ran Xenix.
I had two Model 16s at the time, both personal and beloved to me
until the electric company murdered them and I replaced them with a
by-then-discontinued 3B1. The machines were scrapped due to my
ignorance and my then-wife's opinion that they were impossible to
salvage (she was the hardware person in the marriage, a field
engineer by profession). My current Tandy 6000 can't find its hard
drive and my present wife wants me to toss it, but she's just a
registered nurse with no expertise on silicon-based life forms.
When is 'for the time'? Torch (in the UK)
released the XXX not that much
later (1984?). That was a _strange_ machine -- it ran unix (well,
uniplus+), and had a machintosh-like frontend. But if you pointed and
clicked in the right place you got a real shell. The display was colour
and sort-of EGA resolution. Hardware was a 68010 (or 68020 with a
kludgeboard) CPU, 1Mbyte RAM (expandable with a daughterboard XOR VME
cards), 3 serial ports (at least one of which could do X25), optional
ethernet, etc. It also came with the most insulting set of manuals I have
ever seen for a workstation :-(.
I remember reading about those in Unix Review and Unix World. I
wanted one but the price was prohibitive. Were the manuals as
insulting as those for the AT&T 7300? That'd be a stretch.
Don't get me started on the joys of jumpstarting
one of these toys when
the battery goes flat ;-)
Well, I've really got to open my 7300s and replace their batteries.
Been
dead for several years. Yes, I've got the instructions on replacing the
NiCad with a clip for a couple of D cells. (As well as the instructions
for replacing the single hard drives with pairs of larger capacity).
--
Ward Griffiths wdg3rd(a)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.
4 Oct
4 Oct
6:07 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 3839 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/19991004/ca1112f8/at…
8:44 a.m.
In the 80'sm PC could, and it, sometimes refer to a professional computer.
Even today, I can assure you, my PC is NOT Intel based.
On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Tony Duell wrote:
Ah, but that's the point. Although today 'PC' seems to mean an
Intel-based box (that is _NOT_ 100% compatible with the original 5150,
but I digress), in the mid 1980s, I thought the term was used for all
sorts of other machines.
Since when (either on this list, or 'back
then') has 'personal computer'
implied an Intel CPU.
Sorry, Tony. I've been inactive here for a fair while, not even
reading much of the list for months on end (though I received the
whole lot and they're archived awaiting "copious spare time").
I was using the term "PC" as it was more or less used at the time.
9211
days inactive
9212
days old
8 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
at258＠osfn.org -
wdg3rd＠home.com -
wpfulmor＠dimensional.com -
yakowenk＠cs.unc.edu