Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!oliveb!intelca!intsc!tomk
From: tomk@intsc.UUCP (Tom Kohrs @fae)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Sun vs 386AT
Message-ID: <934@intsc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-Apr-87 21:08:45 EST
Article-I.D.: intsc.934
Posted: Thu Apr 16 21:08:45 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 19-Apr-87 10:41:52 EST
References: <930@intsc.UUCP> <532@pdp.cs.OHIOU.EDU>
Organization: Intel Sales, Silicon Valley, Ca.
Lines: 24
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.m68k:364 comp.sys.intel:160

In article <532@pdp.cs.OHIOU.EDU> galen@ipdp.cs.OHIOU.EDU> (Douglas Wade Needham) writes:
> In article <930@intsc.UUCP>, tomk@intsc.UUCP (Tom Kohrs @fae) writes:
> > 
> > I can see that a lot of people are going to start comparing the Compaq
> > 386 machine against the Sun 3/260.  Just remember that the cost of a box
> > has a lot to do with how much performance optimization goes into the design.
> 
> Realistically, could a 386AT clone do everything that the SUN does.  (Very 
> high-res graphics ... 8| ) for the same price and give the performance?  
> 
Yes, and more (Sun demoed News on a 386AT at Comdex).  All it takes is
the right video board (due out in 3-4 mo.) and the applications and tools
ported (6-12 mo.) It took Sun ~ 4 years and 100(?) programmers to develop their
system.  Because of the mass market appeal I expect there will be on the order
of 10K programmers working on making the 386AT or PS/2-80 work like a Sun.
(Does anybody believe in the infinite monkey theory?)

> It also seems to me that IBM ** OWNS ** the majority of the Intel stock???
  20% last I heard.
> 
> I personally perfer the 68xxx processors to any Intel processor.  The 
> instruction set is better in my opinion, and the registers are more
> versatile.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion.