Subject: Re: Bye bye From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 20:23:07 GMT
In article <1992Aug7.161628@hammer.Prime.COM> cummings@hammer.Prime.COM (Kevin Cummings) writes:
>In article <9208062220.09@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>> In article <P581oB8w165w@ssg.com> unixsys@ssg.com (Rick Emerson) writes:
>> >I've been the lucky(?) recipient of a Sun386i with a full developers kit for
>> >the cost of a 386/40 which just happens to be my Linux platform. So...
>> >It's time to say "bye, bye."
>> >
>> >Thanks to Linus, HJ, Owen, Dave, and all the rest of the people who've
>> >invested major amounts of time in an excellent project. You're all making
>> >the finest karma!
>>
>>
>> So you traded a 386/40 for a 386/25?
>>
>> Sheesh.
>
>Everything is relative Rick, and so is this. I have a 386DX-25 at home
>(no 387), and a 386i-20 at work (with a 387). Want-to guess which system
>is more responsive????? The Sun 386i! Hands down. It must have something
>to do with the vastly superior IO bus in the Sun (vs the ISA bus machine).
>Under X, I'll bet it has to do with the 387 being available.
When I was going between a 386I-20 and 386DX-20 running ISC at work, I thought
the ISC machine was more responsive. But I did have a 387 in the 386DX box.
I like the Sun 386i. I just wish that Sun had kept it around long enough
to slip in a 386DX-33.
Also, the 386/40 is damn close to a 486/25 in performance.
--Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP unixland!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP