Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!nbires!hao!hplabs!ucbvax!DDATHD21.BITNET!XBR2D96D
From: XBR2D96D@DDATHD21.BITNET (Knobi der Rechnerschrat)
Newsgroups: mod.computers.workstations
Subject: Workstation Comparison
Message-ID: <8607211824.AA15520@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Mon, 21-Jul-86 17:23:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8607211824.AA15520
Posted: Mon Jul 21 17:23:40 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 22-Jul-86 03:39:35 EDT
Sender: wold@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 40
Approved: works@red.rutgers.edu

Hallo,

we (see below) consider buying one or two high performance 32-Bit
graphic workstations.

During the process of selection and evaluation we found in the
"Dataquest Research Newsletter 1986-7" a comparison between
Apollo-Domain (DN580), Sun 160C and 3 other workstations. There is a
table that says:

       Relative  performance (1 is best, 5 is worst)

          Apollo DN580    xxx   yyy   zzz  Sun 3/160C

Computing    3            4     5      2      1
Graphics     1            5     4      2      3
Networkng    1            3     5      4      2
Applic.      2            5     4      1      3

My questions are:

a.) Where does the 3 for Apollo Computing come from?
b.) Where does the 3 for Sun 3/160C graphics come from?

I would be most grateful if people who really know the answer
(Dataquest) could send me a short (or long) explanation.

PLEASE respond directly to <XBR2D96D@DDATHD21>, because I'm not a
member of this list.

Regards
Martin Knoblauch

TH-Darmstadt
Dept. Physical Chemistry 1
Petersenstrasse 20
D-6100 Darmstadt
West-Germany

BITNET: <XBR2D96D@DDATHD21>