Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!benoni
From: benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: wanted: Sun 386 Workstation (Road Runner) info
Message-ID: <1925@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: 14 May 88 04:41:30 GMT
References: <226@pvab.UUCP>
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Corp., Seattle WA
Lines: 43

in article <226@pvab.UUCP>, robert@pvab.UUCP (Robert Claeson) says:
> In article <10928@jade.BBN.COM>, mlandau@bbn.com (Matt Landau) writes:
>> What do I really think about the Sun 386i?  I like it.  A lot.  It's about
>> the only machine I can imagine wanting to buy for my home.  If I were 
>> still doing consulting, I could easily recommend it to lots of people.  
> 
> It is too expensive for those who are mainly looking for a faster PC.
> Those who already have Sun's have a lot of software invested in Sun-3
> and/or Sun-4 software, and would probably not like to invest a lot of
> money in the same software for the 386i architecture. A 386i is
> somewhat faster than a Sun-3, but not quite as fast as a Sun-4.
> And there's a lot more software out there for the Sun-3 series of
> workstations.
> So, what customers do Sun think will buy 386i's, and what customers
> think they will buy a 386i?
Hmm...I think you have it backwards.  The 386i adds alot of 
MS-DOS software (yes I know about co-processors - co-processors
are an additional expense and lack an AT-bus) to the Sun line.
Having also seen the machine, i too was
impressed...what Sun did in it's bridge to MS-DOS...Apple was unable to
do with their A/UX-MacOS bridge.  That Sun has created an elegant
bridge the melds the Unix/MS-DOS environments so that users can live
confortably within a structure that permits multiple DOS and Unix
windows (and finders for that matter), filesharing and cut/paste tools.
Apple's Mac II AUX people should talke a close
look at the 386i and try to perform a similar job on the Mac II so that
running a Mac OS application  from within Unix is as transparent.
The current implementation is *weak* with regards to window management,
filesharing - between Unix and MacOS partitions -
and performs the regretable act of turning Unix into a single viewable
process when a *working*  (not all of them work) MacOS program is invoked.

A week or so ago PCWeek had an interesting comparison of 
Sun 386i-Compaq 386-PS/2 machines, price-wise the Sun won hands down.  
(Not to mention that the overall Sun environment has a number of software 
features missing in the other two machines)

I guess to answer your question : *anyone* considering buying a 386 Compaq
or PS/2 OR Mac II/AUX are probably easy sales given the pricey-ness of
all three when comparably configured.

______
Naturally My Opinions Are My Own.