dtynan@zorba.Tynan.COM (Dermot Tynan) (03/21/89)
Our company will soon be purchasing a number of workstations for use in software development with CASE tools. We are currently considering Apollo or Sun machines and I would appreciate any recommendations. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Burry UUCP: sce!jc Dy4 Systems Inc. PHONE: (613)-596-9911 21 Credit Union Way, Nepean, Ontario Canada K2H 9G1 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
shultz@mmm.3m.com (John C Schultz) (03/23/89)
Sun vs Apollo vs HP vs DEC
hmmm!
We use a mixture of SUN 3's and HP 300 series. I have used an Apollo
a long time ago. DEC has a high performance system running UNIX but I
understand that the low price is because all the software is
unbundled.
I personally would chose a "standard" operating system - which leaves
Apollo out.
SunOS is mostly BSD4.2 and HP UX is mostly System V. SunOS is by
several accounts much more robust than HP UX. Specifically I had
asked the net about connecting HPs and SUNs via SUNs Network File
System (NFS). The net consensus was that it would work but because of
the flexibility of SunOS not HP UX.
HP requires you to use preformatted 1/4 inch tapes (which we make :-))
and I would rather use garden variety 1/4 inch tapes (which we also
make). Perhaps the biggest immediate advantages of HP over SUN is
that HP supports X windows with reasonable performance and has 68030
machines immediately available.
SUN will announce 68030 machines in early april as well as SPARC
implementations. Version 4.1 of SunOS (4.0.1 is a looser) is also
supposed to support X windows.
My bottom line
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I will continue to buy SUNs since the price performance (after April)
is reasonable and they are very popular so most public domain software
(GNU in paticular) easily compiles on SUNs. I also like the BSD
interprocess communications better than the SYS V whatever it is
called.
--
john c. schultz schultz@3M.Com ..!uiucuxc!mmm!schultz (612) 733-4047
3M Center, Bldg 518-1-1, St. Paul, MN 55144-1000
The opinions expressed herein are, as always, my own and not 3M's.burdick@hpindda.HP.COM (Matt Burdick) (03/31/89)
> Our company will soon be purchasing a number of workstations for > use in software development with CASE tools. We are currently considering > Apollo or Sun machines and I would appreciate any recommendations. Hey! Don't forget about those HP machines! They're fast and cheap, not to mention cute. Sorry, I couldn't help it :-). -matt -- Matt Burdick | Hewlett-Packard burdick%hpda@hplabs.hp.com | Technical Communications Lab
bergstr@hi-csc.honeywell.com (Darryl Bergstrom) (04/17/89)
[YA Moderators Note:- In the interests of fair representation, I'm posting this article. Please direct followups to comp.something-else. - Der] In article <1369@zorba.Tynan.COM> shultz@mmm.3m.com (John C Schultz) writes: > >Sun vs Apollo vs HP vs DEC >>I personally would chose a "standard" operating system - which leaves >>Apollo out. This is the most irresponsible statement I have heard on the net in several months. Not only is it irresponsible because John does not know what he is talking about, but also because he no interest in finding out what he is talking about. I'm sure most people know the work Apollo has been doing on standards. Apollo is one of the founding members of OSF, belongs to most all major standards committees, and works hard to adhere to those standards. Apollo's work with standards shows in their current product. This product can use BSD4.3, SYS5, or Aegis individually or in any combination (I shouldn't even have to say this, but: One need not have Aegis loaded on any machine anywhere). Apollo adheres to more communications standards than I care to list here. In short, I believe Apollo is more standard than Sun as Apollo has to work harder to overcome the nagative press that Sun's brilliant marketing people have made (though Apollo did feel they were so ahead of standards that they did not need them years ago, today Apollo realizes that they must have standards in addition to being ahead of the standards). Why would anyone say Apollo did not have a "standard" operating system? Surely straight SYS5 and straight BSD4.3 is more standard than a mix of the two. With the Apollo, you can do the mixing yourself if you like. I think one would say Apollo did not have a "standard" operating system because they did not know better. It is no wonder John did not know better, though. I talked to some people from Apollo and they said that Apollo called John after seeing his message. John did not even give Apollo a chance to explain what Apollo actually had. As soon as Apollo called John, he said he had heard it before and hung up. Since he had no interest in know how Apollos worked, how could he know that the Apollos had a "standard" operating system. >>My bottom line >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>I will continue to buy SUNs since the price performance (after April) >>is reasonable and they are very popular so most public domain software >>(GNU in paticular) easily compiles on SUNs. I also like the BSD >>interprocess communications better than the SYS V whatever it is >>called. Hmmm, on the Apollo you would have your choice between SYS5 and BSD4.3 so you would have your choic between BSD interprocess communication and "SYS V whatever it is called". I think one will find Apollo will beat Sun's prices and give a better configuration in most sales. And, Apollo also runs GNU. Apollo even runs gcc even though Apollo uses the COFF object format (though some modifications to gcc were necessary). -- -Darryl Bergstrom -Honeywell Corporate Systems Development Division, Golden Valley, Mn -UUCP: {uunet || rutgers!umn-cs}!hi-csc!bergstr -ARPA: bergstr@hi-csc.honeywell.com -=OR=- darryl@ux.acss.umn.edu