Workstation pricing, Sun vs. ISA

[Larry Wake]

In article <1989Sep1.014205.12901 at algor2.algorists.com> jeffrey at algor2.UUCP
(Jeffrey Kegler) responds to my pro-Sun screed, but first stops to request:

>Call me Jeffrey.

Can I call you Tim?

>why do you ship the 386i?  Because the architecture is so much more wonderful
>than SPARC? :-)

As I said before, because DOS applications are written for the Intel
architecture, and as such, tend to run faster on an Intel chip.  A lot
of our customers want to run DOS applications fast, so we give them what
they want.  We're a customer-driven kind of company.

>"My admission"?  Am I on trial because I look at prices?

Well, you seemed to be putting Sun on trial for its prices, so I rashly
went out on a limb to point out that we return reasonable value for
what we charge.  Sorry.  I didn't think you'd take offense at a response
to your posting; this sort of thing happens all the time here.  Welcome
to Usenet.  Be sure to wear your helmet.  :-)

>The prices for Sun
>were picked out of this book I found.  It had "Sun Price List" on the
>cover.  If these prices are such an injustice to Sun, why do they
>print the book? 

That's not what I said; in fact, I said that our prices are fair.  What
I tried to say was that the *comparison* was not as fair as it might've
been, as value included in the Sun price was not matched in the generic
system you listed.  If this wasn't clear, I apologize.

Take two on what I was trying to say: buying a generic system *can* save
you money.  Not a whole lot, which I guess is what your entry
was really saying.  My point, and I'm sorry if you found it
uncalled-for, was that you do get something for the money you spend on a
Sun.

>My "intent" is to get the best
>price/performance I can.  You got a problem with that, you got a
>problem with a lot of other dudes. 

No problem here with that; it's what Sun tries to provide.

>I don't try to guess or
>question your intentions and you would be well advised to leave the
>subject entirely alone.  Working for one of the parties involved
>simply makes you a more informed participant, as far as I am
>concerned.

Hmm, not sure what you're trying to say here.  First sentence seems to say
"butt out..." second one seems to say "...even though you might have
something valid to contribute."

Anyway, I'll end my part of this particular thread here, especially
since it isn't a particularly c.u.w kind o' topic anyway.  Sorry if I'm
coming off as a sales dweeb, which I'm not; it's just that I liked the
company enough to finally come to work for it, and I felt it was being
slammed due to misinformation, albeit unintentional misinformation.