Our 3/160 *had* become a 3/260, then a 4/260. Perhaps you are correct
that it was an upgrade to a 360, not 470, since it was a board swap.
>
>anyway i've always been quite satisfied (sometimes even impressed) with
>sun's upgrade policy.
I didn't mean to imply I was unsatisfied. I'm quite satisfied. But an
upgrade may not always be the correct answer.
This year the "upgrade" was an new machine, and because it was at a time
when Sun was reducing their pricing, it included 2x1.3G disks. Also
because of an end of quarter promotion, it included 2 additional CPUs
over the upgrade in the catalog. It totally replaced the 4/260,
including the disks. The antique cabinet, controllers and disks are in a
storeroom now.
The 4/260 performed adequately during the year. An upgrade performed
last year would have proved unnecessary, and we would have been unable
to upgrade this year, because that upgrade would not have lived its
economic life yet.
Anyway, my original point was that 4/670's are not *always* more
expensive than they're worth.
In this case we have a 4 CPU server with 10 VME slots which will
probably never be used. The real cost of these slots might be
prohibitive compared to a Sparc10 server, but in this case that real
cost was carried by Sun Marketing, not me.
>--
>pjg@acsu.buffalo.edu / rutgers!ub!pjg / pjg@ubvms (Bitnet)
>opinions found above are mine unless marked otherwise.
--
__ __
/ o / Jim Budler jimb@silvlis.com jimb47@netcom.com
/ / /\/\ /__ Silvar-Lisco 72415.01200@compuserve.com
/__/ / / / /__/ 703 E. Evelyn Ave. Sunnyvale, Ca. 94086 +1.408.991.6115
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Sep 28 2001 - 23:06:45 CDT