Xref: utzoo comp.sys.apple:14114 comp.sys.apollo:2951 comp.unix.aux:1050 comp.unix.questions:14467 comp.sys.mac:33882 comp.sys.dec:1444
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!usc!venera.isi.edu!raveling
From: raveling@venera.isi.edu (Paul Raveling)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple,comp.sys.apollo,comp.unix.aux,comp.unix.questions,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.dec
Subject: Re: Academic workstations
Message-ID: <8732@venera.isi.edu>
Date: 23 Jun 89 17:55:58 GMT
References: <507@lclark.UUCP> <2302@internal.Apple.COM> <5386@rpi.edu>
Reply-To: raveling@venera.isi.edu (Paul Raveling)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Information Sciences Institute, Univ. of So. California
Lines: 30

In article <5386@rpi.edu> jtwarden@pawl.rpi.edu (Joseph T. Warden) writes:
>
>Another opinion (my own) is to go with the Suns - you have access
>to a large volume of software (PD, etc), a large installed base
>(esp. in Academia) and good pricing. An alternative is DEC, but
>if you want to work with server/clients, I think Sun is probably
>the easiest to implement and maintain. This opinion is from a
>chemist, whose philosophy is to extract the greatest use from
>the computer without being consumed by the process.

	Since I'm now involved with supporting workstations here,
	I'll offer a relative rating of software/system quality
	as I see it:

		Best:	HP
		#2:	DEC
		Worst:	Sun

	HP & DEC are probably close, but we have mainly Sun & HP
	workstations; I don't have much DEC experience to confirm
	this suspicion.  Sun's software (e.g., C compiler) is often
	visibly less refined and more trouble-prone than HP's.

	BTW, these are my opinions based on my experience.
	Milage may vary for others...


----------------
Paul Raveling
Raveling@isi.edu