🚀 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)

In <Bxvs45.KHq@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> vyainsm@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Sean Vyain) writes:

>My questions:

Of which I'll give my considered opinion on a few, anyway.

>	How do fast PC clones, like a 486DX/66MHz, compare with more traditional
>		workstations for performance?  Are the processors fast enough?
>		The disk systems?  What kind of buses give the best results?
>		EISA? VESA?

For sheer performance, the i486-50 and such come in at around SPARC 1+
levels of performance (around 22 MIPS).  However, the Intel parts are
much worse when it comes to floating point than a 'real' workstation
typically is.  This can be partially rectified by using coprocessed
video boards and such, but if you do a lot of calculation sorts of
things, you probably would be happier with a Sun.

If you really are interested in the best performance, go with EISA
with perhaps a local bus video board.

>	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?

Which version of SunOS?  The latest release of SunOS has gone more
toward SysV and away from its BSD heritage (from what I understand).
Anyway, if you're willing to wait, Sun is bringing out Solaris II for
Intel machines.  I thought it was supposed to be out this year, but it
has apparently been slipped.  

There are lots of fans of DELL UNIX around, Univel is supposed to be
about to release (or just has), NeXTStep 486 should be close to
release, etc.  It's turning into a very interesting world.  

>	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?

Well, I've got a system at home (not currently running UNIX -- I gotta
get that tape drive <sigh>) that I expect Sun IPC levels of
performance out of.  It's a 486-50DX with EISA, 16 MB, and a 1.2G
SCSI.  Note that equipment recomendations I've recieved regarding the
upcoming Solaris product suggest a configuration similar to this.
NeXStep will *require* a 486 machine, and they also recommend at least
16 MB of memory.

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

>	How much does it cost to get access to Internet from home for USENET
>		news, email, and ftp access?  For those who work for companies
>		that have Internet access, what are the company pocilies on
>		personal use of the network connection?

Other than FTP access, this usually can be had for cheap (or free),
depending on where you live.  FTP access gets potentially expensive
because you start tying up more of someone's access link.  If you plan
on getting a newsfeed, you'll need lots of disk space.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.