From: merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)
Newsgroups: alt.sys.sun,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.unix.sysv386,comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: SCO SYSV386 3.2r2.0 ODT 1.1 80486-33 outperforms SUN SPARC 4/260
Date: 10 Apr 1992 19:54:12 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuro.usc.edu

In article <1992Apr10.114831.4394@news.rn.com> larry@news.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>yergeau@outpost.Stanford.EDU (Dan Yergeau) writes:
>
>>I was going to stay out of this, but...
>
>>In article <ku2su7INNa3@alhena.usc.edu>, ajayshah@alhena.usc.edu (Ajay
>>Shah) writes:
>>|> merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:
>>|> 
>>|> >My 486-33, 256K, 8MB, 210MB, ATI Graphics Vantage, 72HZ/NI, WD8003e
>>= $2,400.00
>>|> 
>
>>Is that with (SCO) Unix, a development environment, etc?  All of these
>>come bundled with the Sun.
>
>No -- but you can't get into a sun for $2400 can you? 
>

Actually, in my case, yes -- my price included the SCO SYSV/386 ODT 1.1
base, development system, and server upgrade packages -- but that was a
special grant from SCO to support three dimensional neuroscience image 
processing software development efforts.

Also as the most recent poster points out, SUN is unbundling their C
compiler -- to the tune of something like $2,000 per system.  I think
this may turn out to be a mistake on SUN's part because most of us who
would like to have SUN systems on our desk (in academia) would like to
be able to compile and run both shareware and our own locally written
codes.  If we boost the price of SUN systems by another $2,000 it may
be increasingly difficult for end users to get into SUN workstations.

Moreover, I don't really put much stock in the I/O bandwidth argument
which has been bandied about in the newsgroups of late.  The fact is
that for the bulk of processing which is done in our campus academic
computing environment the individual user's data and computer center's
software are made available to a given process via NFS (virtual network
file system) where I/O bandwidths are a small fraction of bus capacity.
If the bulk of our users perceive they are receiving good performance
with data and executables delivered via relatively slow NFS circuits
then I would argue that what really counts is processor speed / cost.

In my case, I am mostly concerned with floating point performance and
decent resolution (1024 x 768 pixel) color mapped (256 color) video.
High local disk bandwidth matters little to me (except for paging--
and I seem to get decent paging performance).  Given the choice, I
think most serious three dimensional image processing people would
rather invest more in memory than in improving local disk bandwidth.

In short, while there are measurable differences in bandwith between
ISA and high end SUN systems I suspect this comparison matters little
at individual workstation level in an academic computing environment.
It may make a significant difference in a heavily loaded central site
server -- but end user workstations may need more memory and display
capabilities than they need disk I/O bandwidth.

Nevertheless, if someone wanted to put a SUN system on my desk with
1152 x 900 pixel x 256 color mapped (or 24 bit true color) I wouldn't
turn them away.  It's just that when I had to scrimp on funds and yet
put together a minimum cost system with adequate performance for my 
image processing software development work there really wasn't any 
choice other than building upon an SCO style ISA bus 386/486 system.

As it turns out, the SCO--ISA--486 package is a remarkably powerfull
software code development and three dimensional image reconstruction
platform.  Moreover, the same platform is incredibly easy to connect
to a wide range of robotic controllers and image processing boards.

I certainly do not want to bring about a debate over whether SUNs or
486's are faster.  Clearly most SUNs could outperform a 486 on many
benchmarks.  My fundamental point, though, is that the SCO-ISA-486
platform can be an inexpensive and yet very good moderate performance
multiprocessing workstation for use by an individual or small number
of compute intensive users.  This platform is sufficiently lower cost
than comparable SUN workstations (given color, floating point speed, 
memory capacity, disk capacity, cost of real time interface boards)
that an SCO-ISA-486 system could enable scientific users to get into
a decent unix software development environment where purchase of an
equally capable SUN system would be prohibitive.

I like having a dedicated color graphics workstation on my desktop.
It makes software development for three dimensional image processing
much more pleasant than the alternative of sharing a far more costly
SUN system with several other users.  Indeed, to the extent that I
need access to our academic SUN systems (or the CRAY down the road)
my SCO-ISA-486 box makes a very good X11 server for these somewhat
higher performance machines.  I had about $2,600 in my budget for a
color graphics desktop workstation -- I think SCO was not only the
best available deal -- it was the only way to acquire such a system
short of an outright donation of hardware and software from SUN Inc.
Moreover, I can easily repair or replace any component in my system
with low cost generic off the shelf components.  Even a small SUN
desktop would cost as much as my system for one year's maintenance.

A. J. Annala
Principal Investigator
Neuroscience Image Analysis Network
University of Southern California
University Park
Los Angeles, CA  90089-2520
Xref: sparky alt.sys.sun:2647 comp.sys.sun.misc:1749 comp.unix.sysv386:8241 comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc:7259