Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!ucbvax!info-vax
From: jmleonar@CRDC.ARPA ("Dr. Joseph M. Leonard")
Newsgroups: mod.computers.vax
Subject: uVAX-II vs. 8200
Message-ID: <8603080858.AA13573@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 6-Mar-86 22:32:29 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8603080858.AA13573
Posted: Thu Mar  6 22:32:29 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Mar-86 13:09:56 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 23
Approved: info-vax@sri-kl.arpa

I currently have a large scientific software system running on a VAX-11/730
(yes, I know I'm crazy) and am looking to add additional hardware to
improve the situation.  What I am interested in is any comments on the
relative merits of the uVAX vs. the 8200 - I am forced by budgetary
restrictions to limit myself to the low-end machines.

The types of programs that run most ofter are essentially compute bound
(with some I/O to the terminal, but not a significant fraction).  Monitoring
the 730 indicates that all is well, except for the 100% usage.  As there
HAS to be some reason for DEC to have two machines in the same price
range (I think), there MUST be something that distinguishes the two...

If I get a bunch of useful responses, I'll summarize them to the net.  I
am forced to stick to a VMS machine (no flames, please) by initial
design and implementation.

                               Thanks in advance,

                                     Joe Leonard
                                 <jmleonar@crdc.arpa>

P.S. The differences can include the ability to network the machines
     together, as well as the availability of peripherals.