Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.aix Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!paladin.american.edu!gatech!hookup!nic.wat.hookup.net!metrics.com!tomh From: tomh@metrics.com (Tom Haapanen) Subject: Re: ISP hardware/software choices (performance comparison) Organization: Software Metrics Inc. Message-ID: <DKyqLo.M3o@metrics.com> References: <4cmopu$d35@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <4crnbe$8a@olympus.nwnet.net> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 11:29:47 GMT Lines: 40 Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:1882 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:2026 comp.unix.solaris:56846 comp.unix.aix:68385 aad@nwnet.net writes: > The graphics hardware in Suns is generally a much different beast > from the price-point cheap stuff in an MS-DOS-market machine. The > latter rarely can usably support a million pixels, and probably > don't offer the speed and acceleration that the Sun card probably does. Hello? Take a look at my PC, running at 1280x1024 at 16 bits of colour. The card would support 1600x1200, but I find the pixels to small and the refresh rate not as pleasant. The current crop of 64-bit accelerated PC graphics cards have nothing to be ashamed of compared to typical workstations from Sun or others (no, not including SGI). > As such, the Sun card is going going to cost more, especially list. No doubt. An ATI Mach64 with 4 MB of VRAM costs less thn $500, and other high-performance PCI cards are available for not much more. > I don't think you > mentioned monitors, but if you're including a monitor with the Suns, then > that's another mistake. MS-DOS machines seem to rarely be sold with decent > monitors. 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. 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. Which decade did you last look at PCs in? While we don't use MS-DOS (yecch), our PC monitors don't match your description at all. Our standard monitors are 17" flat screen ones running at 1024x768 or 1280x1024 depending on the person's preferences. My personal box has a Viewsonic 21" flat-screen monitor. We only have a single old-style spherical monitor (a NEC 4DS) on our 20-odd Intel boxes. Or was your intent to compare $20K Sun workstations with $1K home PCs? -- [ /tom haapanen -- tomh@metrics.com -- software metrics inc -- waterloo, ont ] [ "time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana" ]