Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!lsuc!jimomura
From: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Sun vs 386AT
Message-ID: <1735@lsuc.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 19-Apr-87 14:20:11 EST
Article-I.D.: lsuc.1735
Posted: Sun Apr 19 14:20:11 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 20-Apr-87 01:35:43 EST
References: <930@intsc.UUCP> <532@pdp.cs.OHIOU.EDU> <934@intsc.UUCP>
Reply-To: jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura)
Organization: Consultant, Toronto
Lines: 21
Summary: Comparable costs
Xref: mnetor comp.sys.m68k:376 comp.sys.intel:169


     There has been a bunch of messages wherein the Sun has been
compared performance wise to 386 AT clones, etc.  I don't think
a lot of people realize that after the latest price drop, there
really doesn't seem to be a price advantage in the AT's.  If you
go for relatively equivalent *quality* parts (yielding equivalent
spec hardware) and equivalent software, the price is about the
same.  Suns are really dirt cheap all things considered.

     With the proven performance of the Sun, and existing software
base, why would anybody bother with 386 AT's?

     No, I didn't buy a Sun (although I could have afforded one).
I have an FHL QT-20X which is a Hazelwood SBC (68020) running OS-9
which is cheaper overall than an AT or Sun.

Cheers! -- Jim O.
-- 
Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomura