chuck@wooglin (Chuck Williams - PEPnet Administrator) (09/25/89)
I just heard what I consider to be some rather serious rumors that I am in the process of trying to verify concerning Sun's product line. As I'm sure most of you have seen in the press, Sun is trying to sell off their 386i line of hardware. Well, in addition to that they are also rumored to be planning the end of the entire SUN3 line and any non-SPARC SUN4 machine by December 31!!! In addition, lead times for some of these machines have jumped to 240+ days!! If anyone from Sun is listening, what's up??? Chuck Williams Internet: chuck@wooglin.asd.contel.com Senior Engineer (Software) cwilliams@bluto.wtp.contel.com Contel Federal Systems 15000 Conference Center Drive P.O. Box 10814 Chantilly, VA 22021-3808 Phone (703) 818-4382
gam@cvedc.prime.com (Gregory Miller) (09/28/89)
Dear Sunspots: Recently Chuck Williams of Contel Federal Systems contributed: >As I'm sure most of you have seen in the press, Sun is trying to sell off >their 386i line of hardware. Well, in addition to that they are also >rumored to be planning the end of the entire SUN3 line and any non-SPARC >SUN4 machine by December 31!!! In addition, lead times for some of these >machines have jumped to 240+ days!! I too read this vicious rumor in EE-Times' (#556 18th, September 89) cover story. Before we all fall victim to typical journalism, let me add some additional fact. I too read (with rage) the story regarding the 386i. While we are not considering the 386i for our ECAE software (at this point), the law school I attended here (Portland, OR.) *does* use the 386i and has made a commitment to that platform for faculty research, C.A.I., and Expert systems development. To quote my response to Sun when I initially called for the story would not add constructively to this. %-| However, Sun Microsystems (Portland office ...sun!nosun!bjones) assured me they were equally astonished to see the article and likened it to yellow journalism. I have received assurances from Sun that a letter is forthcoming from VP Marketing and VP Engineering of Sun-East verifying their commitment to the 386i. According to Sun officials I talked to, apparently, Sun *did* explore stwo alternatives: A) sell off the 386i line and its progeny B) commit to the 386i line In other words, fish or cut bait. Some discussion was had with Intel, but the EE-Times article is out of date. The discussion lead no where, and Sun decided to commit to the 386i as a strategy. While I cannot go into it, let me assure you that under non-disclosure preview of future product plans, I have seen what appears to be a commitment to the x86i line. The 386i is basically a strategy product designed to migrate high-end DOS type PC users to workstations. I think it is well settled that the DOS emulation under the 386i is a better solution than DOS under SPARCstation. It is my understanding that Sun is not too concerned with the ultimate success of the x86i line against SPARC or 680x0; that is, market penetration is narrowly defined. Here is an excerpt of Sun's recent mail to me: >>From: nosun!bob (Bob Jones - PDX Sales) >>Message-Id: <8909201904.AA02198@nosun.West.Sun.COM> >>To: gam@cvedc.prime.com >>Subject: Re: 386i Rumors >> >>Greg >> >>Just received my reply from the V-P Mktg. The official disclaimer is >>couched in "irresponsible speculation" language and a re-affirmation >>of our commitment to the Intel architecture... its now on the streets >>from the V.P. Marketing and the V.P. Engineering and references Scott's >>(McNealy) comments. >> >>How would you like me to get a copy of this in your hands - I can leave >>your copy with Sue at the front desk or send it thru the mail if you like. >> >>Regards, Bob. Now while this is not a guarantee, I have no reason to distrust Sun or Bob Jones' honesty. I will say it is shame to me that I (wrongly) believed that the integrity of EE-Times reporting was second to none. Why they dug this up (or from where) I don't know. However, rather than reacting, we should be responding. Asking Sun for the *straight* story is best. They cannot afford to start being dishonest. A simple "no-comment" is usually enough said. As to the other rumors, I suggest before we fall victim to the journalists, lets ask where the rumors come from, and run down a source before we blindly advance them. The thought of Sun ousting the Sun3 Sun4 lines is border-line absurd (at this point). And as to 240 days, geez, I'm glad I'm not stuck with Chuck's salesman, and I do feel sorry for him. The worst wait we've had is 1/3rd of that or 90 days. Again, is the lead time a rumor? According to who? For what machine (specifically)? On what quantity basis? For how large of a customer? And on what financing terms? I say, let's all take a deep breath and respond by asking questions, before we overreact and electronically paper the world with perpetuating rumors. Sun is not without fault, but society has a history of crucifying before all the facts are clarified. :-) -Good Luck -My two cents worth Gregory Miller Technical Staff Prime Computer ECAE Software uucp: .....sun!nosun!cvedc!gam Beaverton, OR 97006 Internet: gmiller@cvbnet.prime.com -also- Northwest Computer Law Center Lewis & Clark Northwestern School of Law Portland, OR 97219
mike%cs.keele.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk (Michael A. Green) (09/29/89)
Just my two pence worth:- In article <1780@brazos.Rice.edu>, by gam@cvedc.prime.com (Gregory Miller): > > And as to 240 days, geez, I'm glad I'm not stuck with Chuck's salesman, > and I do feel sorry for him. The worst wait we've had is 1/3rd of that or > 90 days. Again, is the lead time a rumor? According to who? For what > machine (specifically)? On what quantity basis? For how large of a > customer? And on what financing terms? > > -Good Luck > -My two cents worth > > Gregory Miller Yesterday I asked the Sun bod at the PCW show in London about these various rumours. He denied all knowledge of any sell-offs etc. On the case of long(!) lead times for delivery he said yep it is true. He did however say that they had plenty of machines in storage awaiting delivery, BUT their stock program was playing up. Apparently they just changed to an IBM based accounting program. It is refusing to print out the correct shipping orders, so they are almost being done by hand... very slow. His general comment was "Blame IBM for the delays" - a quote. |Michael A. Green. |JANET: mike@uk.ac.keele.cs | |Department of Computer Science |BITNET: mike%cs.kl.ac.uk@ukacrl | |University of Keele, Keele, |ARPANET:mike%cs.kl.ac.uk@nfsnet-relay.ac.uk| |Staffordshire. ST5 5BG. U.K. |VOICE: +44 782 621111 ex. 3357/3347 |
guy@uunet.uu.net (Guy Harris) (10/01/89)
>As to the other rumors, I suggest before we fall victim to the >journalists, lets ask where the rumors come from, and run down a source >before we blindly advance them. The thought of Sun ousting the Sun3 Sun4 >lines is border-line absurd (at this point). Yup. It's not absurd to consider that Sun may be dropping their 68020-based machines, but that's no longer equivalent to dropping the Sun-3 line - the 68020-based machines were pretty much obsoleted by the 68030-based machines. It's also not absurd to consider that Sun may be dropping the machines that now bear the name "Sun-4", but that's not equivalen to dropping all SPARC-based machines - the newer machines were redubbed SPARCS{tations,systems} by Sun marketing. (Sun doesn't have any "non-SPARC SUN4" machines to drop, unless, say, a MIPS-based machine snuck in there somewhere....) I.e., the rumors may really pertain to a cleanup of the Sun product line, with the older machines getting the boot.
Kemp@dockmaster.ncsc.mil (10/01/89)
>> As I'm sure most of you have seen in the press, Sun is trying to sell off >> their 386i line of hardware. > I too read this vicious rumor . . . Just why do you characterize the EE Times article as a *vicious* rumor and "typical journalism"? As I remember the article (I don't have it in front of me), it presented the following: 1) Sun was looking around for a buyer for the 386i line, and in the process contacted Intel. 2) Intel wasn't interested. which is apparently true. What is it about the article that leads you to say "I (wrongly) believed that the integrity of EE-Times reporting was second to none. Why they dug this up (or from where) I don't know." Is there anything in the article that smacks of lack of integrity? Isn't the purpose of journalism to "dig things up"? You say the article is "out of date", but as of today, I haven't seen any indication from Sun that the 386i line is not on the block. When Sun does make such an announcement, the article will be out of date. That's the way news is - it isn't news for long. I personally wouldn't be too upset if Sun decided to follow Scott McNealy's stated intention of focusing resources on SPARC/Unix/Open_Look. >>Well, in addition to that they are also rumored to be planning the end >>of the entire SUN3 line and any non-SPARC SUN4 machine by December 31!!! Well, just what is a "non-SPARC SUN4" machine?? If there was such a beast I would hope Sun would be planning the end of it! :-) I second Mr. Miller's suggestion that if you want to know what's happening, you should ask Sun. If you buy enough equipment from them, and you sign a non-disclosure agreement, they'll be happy to tell you. Dave Kemp <Kemp@dockmaster.ncsc.mil>