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

[Chris Hedemark]

On Sun, 2002-08-04 at 12:07, George Adkins wrote:

> 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.

Incorrect assumption.  I can say that with confidence because I tried
doing just that.

> 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.

Inferior perhaps to its peers, but I want to steer this (again) to the
original comparison of SS10 to U5.  As crippled as the U5 may or may not
be, how is an SS10 a perferable platform for a desktop machine over a
U5?  What desktop functions can it do better?

-- 
***********************************************************
| Rev. Chris Hedemark, DD
| Hillsborough, NC
| http://yonderway.com
***********************************************************
| "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is 
| dressed in overalls and looks like work."
|                      Thomas A. Edison
***********************************************************