tomk@intsc.UUCP (Tom Kohrs @fae) (04/17/87)
In article <532@pdp.cs.OHIOU.EDU> galen@ipdp.cs.OHIOU.EDU> (Douglas Wade Needham) writes: > In article <930@intsc.UUCP>, tomk@intsc.UUCP (Tom Kohrs @fae) writes: > > > > I can see that a lot of people are going to start comparing the Compaq > > 386 machine against the Sun 3/260. Just remember that the cost of a box > > has a lot to do with how much performance optimization goes into the design. > > Realistically, could a 386AT clone do everything that the SUN does. (Very > high-res graphics ... 8| ) for the same price and give the performance? > Yes, and more (Sun demoed News on a 386AT at Comdex). All it takes is the right video board (due out in 3-4 mo.) and the applications and tools ported (6-12 mo.) It took Sun ~ 4 years and 100(?) programmers to develop their system. Because of the mass market appeal I expect there will be on the order of 10K programmers working on making the 386AT or PS/2-80 work like a Sun. (Does anybody believe in the infinite monkey theory?) > It also seems to me that IBM ** OWNS ** the majority of the Intel stock??? 20% last I heard. > > I personally perfer the 68xxx processors to any Intel processor. The > instruction set is better in my opinion, and the registers are more > versatile. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.
jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) (04/19/87)
There has been a bunch of messages wherein the Sun has been
compared performance wise to 386 AT clones, etc. I don't think
a lot of people realize that after the latest price drop, there
really doesn't seem to be a price advantage in the AT's. If you
go for relatively equivalent *quality* parts (yielding equivalent
spec hardware) and equivalent software, the price is about the
same. Suns are really dirt cheap all things considered.
With the proven performance of the Sun, and existing software
base, why would anybody bother with 386 AT's?
No, I didn't buy a Sun (although I could have afforded one).
I have an FHL QT-20X which is a Hazelwood SBC (68020) running OS-9
which is cheaper overall than an AT or Sun.
Cheers! -- Jim O.
--
Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomurabroehl@watdcsu.UUCP (04/22/87)
In article <1735@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes: > > There has been a bunch of messages wherein the Sun has been >compared performance wise to 386 AT clones, etc. >... >...and equivalent software, the price is about the same... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The problem is, the software *isn't* equivalent. Unless you plan to run Unix on your 386 system (most people will choose not to) the two machines live in different worlds, software-wise. > With the proven performance of the Sun, and existing software >base, why would anybody bother with 386 AT's? Because they need to be able to run the large base of software that's been written for that architecture. The only things (so far as I know) that the Sun can run are packages developed for Unix. >Cheers! -- Jim O. Skol! --Bernie R.