Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!paladin.american.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!msunews!netnews.upenn.edu!news.voicenet.com!news From: The Notorious B.S.D. (The Notorious B.S.D.) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc Subject: Re: ISP hardware/software choices (performance comparison) Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 08:13:07 GMT Organization: Voicenet - Internet Access - (215)674-9290 Lines: 81 Message-ID: <4cvho7$qli@news.voicenet.com> References: <4cmopu$d35@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <4crnbe$8a@olympus.nwnet.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: philly48.voicenet.com X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent v0.55 aad@nwnet.net (Anthony D'Atri) wrote: >>Since SunOS is not supported by the new UltraSparcs >Uh, yes it is. What do you think they run? MS-DOS? OS/360? CTSS? No! They'll run that piece-of-shit Solaris, NOT SunOS. That greasy pig is Sun's (your) future! >I've read several claims that SunOS on x86 machines is relatively hungrier >and slower than other Unices on the same hardware. yeah, pay more. get less. Sun's motto, I believe. >>All of the systems are configured with 64Megs of RAM, 4.3 gig Hds, some >>graphics card (not very important for servers), and no monitors. >... >>(1) Am I correct for the most part, or am I making some fatal mistakes? >I can see a few: >o You only consider SPARC machines from Sun. You might find that considering > machines from Axil, Tatung, or Integrix would change the cost significantly. >o You probably aren't considering discounts from Sun (and probabl IBM, too) >o You're throwing in framebuffers that are almost certainly not comparable. > For a network-services machine, you don't need *any* graphics device for > a Sun, at least. The graphics hardware in Suns is generally a much different > beast from the price-point cheap stuff in an MS-DOS-market machine. agreed. Sun graphics are good. Not better than the best stuff in the Intel World, and certainly MUCH more expensive for what you get, but good nonetheless. >The > latter rarely can usably support a million pixels, and probably don't offer > the speed and acceleration that the Sun card probably does. huh? RARELY? What are you looking at to support your assertions? The buy-list for some inner-city middle school? >MS-DOS machines seem to rarely be sold with decent > monitors. really???? > I rarely see one as large as 17", and they're almost always > spherical, and almost always can't handle even close to 1M pixels without > flickering. c'mon, this is a joke. Trinitron monitors abound in the PC world. Most mid-line machines from big mail-order vendors are sold with rock-steady 17'' monitors. Many are Trinitron. Almost all are excellent quality. > I don't think Sun sells anything smaller than 17" now, and I > believe that they only sell cylindrical Sonys doing at least 1152x900. > Again, this is a different beast from an MS-DOS monitor, so's it's gonna > cost more. yeah, and this is (HONESTLY) what you're paying for: The sun 20'' Trinitron comes with a REMOTE CONTROL (I'm NOT kidding!) that allows you to change brightness, contrast, etc.. from 2-3 feet away! WOW! Amaze your friends! This is a ridiculous example of the over-engineered Sun shit that you pay HUGE premiums to get. By the way, my first experience with Sun hardware was with an old Sun 4 that featured the most spherical blurry TV set that you ever wanted to look at. My main machine at the time was an Apple Macintosh driving a beautifully crisp 20'' Trinitron-based RasterOps. In this vain I welcome Sun to high-performance graphics. Better late than never, but HARDLY the first.