edwin_l_king@cherokee.cis.ohio-state.edu (04/11/90)
Help me deal with a salesman: We're putting in a network (ethernet) of Macs and I figured in a IIcx as a server for a couple big disks 300-600mb on a TOPS network (yeah, I know Tops is a distributed network, I'm just treating it like a server). I figured the IIcx would be more than adequate for the job, but the salesman is recommending a IIci. He says it would be better since it is faster. I didn't think cpu speed would make a big difference in the speed of disk access over the network, so I didn't think the extra performance would be worth the bucks (we are not at all tight for money, but why waste it, right?). Who is right, will the IIci enhance access to the large SCSI disks attached to it, or will the IIcx do the job (remember, this is NOT an applications server, will be used mostly for storage of large page layout and graphics files). I have a meeting to discuss this with the salesmen and some other management types tomorrow (Wed. April 11) at 2 p.m. EST. Any advice?
ajq@mace.cc.purdue.edu (John O'Malley) (04/12/90)
In article <79096@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <elk@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: > I figured the IIcx would be more than adequate for the job, but the >salesman is recommending a IIci. He says it would be better since it >is faster. If you end up deciding on the IIcx, then consider the SE/30 instead. It's just as fast as the IIcx. In addition to both machines having '030 CPUs, I think they both use the very same ROM chip. You don't need a big screen or color for a server, so why not save $700-1000 and get the SE/30? -John --- John O'Malley / Macintosh / Purdue University / (317) ajq@mace.cc.purdue.edu / Specialist / Computing Center / 494-1787