🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Bxvs45.KHq@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> vyainsm@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Sean Vyain) writes:
>My questions:
>
>	How do fast PC clones, like a 486DX/66MHz, compare with more traditiona
>		workstations for performance?  Are the processors fast enough?
>		The disk systems?  What kind of buses give the best results?
>		EISA? VESA?
I think you'll find a 486DX/66 much faster than any Sun you'd consider
buying.  Of course, the speed depends on the OS as well.  I'm
currently running Linux on a 386/25, and response time is better than
the Suns we have at school.  Of course, the processor is slower (I
think), and the disk is certainly slower (I have an IDE), so if you
have computationally intensive tasks or large data-bases, you'll see a
difference.  On the other hand, because Linux is SO well designed,
almost everything else runs FASTER.  I'm not running X, but I
understand that with 8MEG X runs in real time even on 386/25's.


>	How do different UNIX implementations for PCs, such as 386bsd, Coherent
>		Linux, etc..., compare to say SunOS?  Are the more expensive
>		UNIXes (read AT&T) really worth the price?
On the contrary.  The free implementations are better, IMHO.  Linux is
certainly more stable (even though it's still in bet 0.98), has MUCH
MUCH better support, comes with source code, etc.  People are even
working on detailed and comprehensvie documentation.  Linux seems to
be the fastest Unix available.  386bsd currently has better network
support.  SCO Unix has a better DOS emulator, and a fancier windowing
environment under X.  SCO Unix with those features also costs about
$2000 more than Linux (which is free), for which price you may as well
buy another computer to run your DOS apps. on....


>	How much, in the way of system resources (disk space, RAM, disk cache,
>		processor cache) do you find necessary to get the same level
>		of performance as a traditional workstation?

I have a 386/25, with 6MEG, and two IDE drives for a total of about
200MEG for Linux.  I get VERY good performance.  I'm not running X,
but I can run GCC via make in an Emacs window while I'm downingloading
something and still get great response time.

>	Who makes reliable equipment that is reasonably priced with decent
>		support?  I am thinking of mail order companies like ZEOS, or
>		LodeStar.

Zeos makes very good equipment, and you can't beet the price.  I
purchase from Dell, because their support is better (at least, it was
when I bought my computer).  Over the summer, my computer was zapped
by lightning in a remote location in New York State.  Dell came
through, and arrived the very next day with a new motherboard, and
replaced the whole thing.  Dell's computers are also built better than
Zeos, as they invest more in R&D.  But I don't think you'll really
notice the difference there.

-Joel
(joel@wam.umd.edu)