On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 22:28:26 -0500 JD Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike wrote: > > I don't know how similar the Ultra20 and X2100 are, but here's dmesg > > > > output from an Ultra20: > > This is completely off-topic, but how do you like the Ultra 20 > overall? I need a new workstation for home, and I'm trying to decide > between doing the Ultra 20 @ $360/year or building an Athlon64 X2. > I'm leaning towards the latter because I know I'll be doing some > upgrades right off the bat should I go with an Ultra 20, and I'll end > up with significantly more machine, but there's just something about > having a Sun logo that makes the decision a touch more difficult :) > Anyway, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. > > -JD hi, tho i really can't understand Sun using the 'Ultra' batch for a peeceeish thing, IMHO the Ultra 20 is a really good machine. first of all: you have ECC memory :) (when you choose the smallest config, AFAIR it comes with 2x 256MByte non-ECC, but it's surely exchangeable very easy). furthermore you can upgrade it to a dual core Opteron. Sun has an image to defend and they will by not selling crap but good and reliable machines. (IMHO it's really the worst way to 'build' 'computers' -- building peecees up from single parts whose quality is always degraded by capitalistic production issues; every single manufacturer you buy a product from wants maximum profit on it. of course, IBM, Sun etc. also have to follow those rules, but surely they got a different approach so quality gets not harmed that much.) timo
