Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!swbatl!jmd From: jmd@swbatl.UUCP (03) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo Subject: Re: ENOUGH is ENOUGH.... Message-ID: <527@swbatl.UUCP> Date: 25 Apr 89 16:36:15 GMT References: <8904221838.AA05430@loki.pmel.edsg.hac.com> Reply-To: jmd@swbatl.UUCP (Jim Doherty 5-0804 11-Y-03) Organization: Southwestern Bell Tele. Co. - Advanced Technology Lab - St. Louis Lines: 36 In article <8904221838.AA05430@loki.pmel.edsg.hac.com> mcdonald@loki.pmel.edsg.hac.COM (louis mcdonald) writes: > >3) I feel the only (somewhat) fair opinions would be those > of customers who have been exposed to BOTH products (at least). > Good point anything else is pure opinion. > As a customer, I have not been exposed to SUN, so I have > nothing to offer as to `who is better'. However, I have > been exposed to other systems, and I can safely say > `THEY ALL HAVE GOOD POINTS'. Once Again you hit the mark as a customer I have both systems(several of each) and they both do certain things well. 1. Apollo does networking in a superior model, I don't have to mount things unless they are foreign. 2. The use of a network root directory is superior from a developers perspective. 1. Sun offers greater portability of software to the platform, and since much of our work is of a research nature it is easy for us to evaluate software in the public domain on the Sun much quicker. 2. It has been our experience that software support (on technical issues is much better on the Sun.) sometimes calling the 800 number can be extremely frustrating. This is not all inclusive but just some quickies, I am not trying to debate which is better (or worse) only pointing out that arguing such points are less than an academic exercise. -- James M Doherty - SWBT - Advanced Technology Planning One Bell Center Room 11-Y-03 St. Louis, Mo. 63101 UUCP: { pyramid, ihnp4, bellcore }...!swbatl!jmd PHON: 314-235-0804 FAX: 314-235-0727