[geeks] Needed: A good sparc workstation

[Lionel Peterson]

On Mar 8, 2009, at 11:31 PM, Joshua Boyd <jdboyd at jdboyd.net> wrote:

> On Mar 8, 2009, at 11:38 AM, Lionel Peterson wrote:
>
>> (Lionel said:)
>>>> SPARC desktops have small memory capacities, based on current
>>>> standards.
>>>
>>> ...which says more about current standards than it does about SPARC
>>> desktops.  They still do everything they ever did, after all.
>>
>> Agreed, the person posting the query was looking for guidance on  
>> SPARC hardware, I assume they have some background in other  
>> platforms, and I was setting expectations about memory capacity in  
>> these 'mature' systems.
>>
>> I could happily "kick it old skool" with an SS5/170, but I'd have  
>> limits on what I could do, compared with an x86 box running either  
>> Solaris or OpenSolaris. As I see it, unless you need the SPARC  
>> instruction set (and the OP wanted it), a $200 PC[0] can likely  
>> best a free Ultra 60 loaded with RAM, Dual CPUs and fast SCSI HDs  
>> for normal desktop usage of current software, and if you have to  
>> pay for power and AC/cooling, it won't take too long for the $200  
>> PC to have a lower total cost of operation.
>
> I disagree about a $200 PC besting a free Ultra 60, unless you mean  
> unimportant things like how many FLOPs it can do.  No amount of  
> power savings can equal the cost to my soul.

That is a metric I choose to leave out.

> Oh, and having Solaris JUST WORK has to be something.  I see a lot  
> of complaints about NIC and SATA problems with PC using Solaris users.

The effort involved in locating NIC, SATA, Video cards that are  
suitable for Solaris is no greater than that involved in finding 3rd  
party vendor cards for a SPARC system. Stick with major vendors  
(Intel, etc.) and it becomes trivial.

> Obviously I'm feeling defensive.

Hadn't noticed ;^) It is your soul you're defending...

> BTW, I wouldn't call 4 gigs a small capacity, which is what my U80  
> has.

It ist't noteworthy either, many MBs will support 8 Gigs these days,  
and the RAM is faster tech.

> I don't recall who said that above, and I suppose a U60 probably  
> only goes to 2 gigs, which I still wouldn't call terribly small.

The Asus EEE supports 2 Gigs also.

> Despite the 4 gigs, the U80 still runs Firefox sluggishly.  I want  
> to see a good GNOME (or KDE, or XFCE, I don't care) webkit browser.

4 Gigs and a quad processor, and your browser is sluggish? That isn't  
going to ween others off their Intel Teats.

Lionel