[rescue] Re: Re: OH YEA??? [was: Re: Ultra?]

[George Adkins]

> But for a desktop machine to do some light development work on, it is a
> fine machine.  I also happen to be throwing some server-ish tasks at it
> but for a much smaller network (my home).
>
Yes, but my point is that if the work you are doing is light enough to not 
notice the inherent defectiveness of an U5, then it's light enough that you 
could do it on an older, cheaper, higher quality SS10 just as easily.

> The discussion though was on SS10 vs. U5, and the mistaken notion that
> somehow the SCSI in the SS10 makes it a better machine than the U5 which
> lacks SCSI.  
it's not the lack of SCSI, it's the presence of IDE, the lack of SMP 
capability, and the castrated nature of the crippled Ultrasparc IIi processor 
that make the U5 an inferior machine.

> My argument is, for what both machines were intended for,
> the U5 is "good enough".  Sun made real workstations at the same time as
> the U5 for people who needed real workstations.

And my argument is that if an U5 is 'good enough', then the work to be done 
could easily be done on a cheaper and better quality machine.

George