Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!watdcsu!broehl
From: broehl@watdcsu.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.m68k,comp.sys.intel
Subject: Re: Sun vs 386AT
Message-ID: <3296@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Apr-87 08:18:12 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.3296
Posted: Wed Apr 22 08:18:12 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Apr-87 06:16:53 EST
References: <930@intsc.UUCP> <532@pdp.cs.OHIOU.EDU> <934@intsc.UUCP> <1735@lsuc.UUCP>
Reply-To: broehl@watdcsu.UUCP (Bernie Roehl)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 21
Xref: utgpu comp.sys.m68k:363 comp.sys.intel:160

In article <1735@lsuc.UUCP> jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (Jim Omura) writes:
>
>     There has been a bunch of messages wherein the Sun has been
>compared performance wise to 386 AT clones, etc.
>...
>...and equivalent software, the price is about the same...
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The problem is, the software *isn't* equivalent.  Unless you plan to run
Unix on your 386 system (most people will choose not to) the two machines
live in different worlds, software-wise.

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

Because they need to be able to run the large base of software that's been
written for that architecture.  The only things (so far as I know) that
the Sun can run are packages developed for Unix.

>Cheers! -- Jim O.

Skol!  --Bernie R.