<mommycalled@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0457b20e-9d93-478f-acc2-b552a194a74b@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 6, 5:07 pm, "Dave Wade" <g8...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> <mommycal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:217fafe7-e37d-4b1d-a877-5099ab53ccfd@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 5, 4:16 am, "Dave Wade" <g8...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> "Doug McIntyre" <mer...@geeks.org> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:47f647eb$0$93289$8046368a@newsreader.iphous e.net...
>>
>> >> > "Rob Fraser" <FraserRacing"AT"RobFraser.Net> writes:
>> >> >>Any idea when the prices of the above units will become "reasonable"
>> >> >>Hopefully like the depreciation we saw in the Ultra 5 and 10 market?
>> >> >>I
>> >> >>was asked last night and I had no idea so I said I'd check here with
>> >> >>you
>> >> >>guys for your opinions. I don't see them coming down soon but I'm
>> >> >>no
>> >> >>economist.
>>
>> >> > The Ultra 5/10 are generations apart from the Ultra 20/24/40?
>> >> > (if not all that far apart in numbering schemes).
>>
>> >> > I'd say the Ultra20 is pretty reasonable right now. One going for
>> >> > $250
>> >> > right now on eBay? But Sun does still sell it new currently.
>>
>> >> > The Ultra 24/40 are their current Sun x64 workstation offerings?
>>
>> >> I just looked at those on the SUN web site. They look a horrendous
>> >> price
>> >> when compared with the equivalent Lenovo(IBM) tower. The IBM comes
>> >> with
>> >> three years warrenty, but three years silver support for SUN is as
>> >> much
>> >> as
>> >> the IBM. Niceley made as well...
>>
>> >> > Gear comes down in price after its been EOL'd from the manufactorer
>> >> > and everybody is dumping it to get the next greatest thing.
>>
>> >> > Then it comes down again after it is ancient history (like Ultra
>> >> > 5/10)
>> >> > and isn't too usable for the majority of the users compared to other
>> >> > offerings.
>>
>> >> Well some one gave me an Ultra-60 and its just about usable, and fun!.
>> >> However why one would buy SUN AMD based workstations is beyond me. I
>> >> know
>> >> the hardware compatibility list for Solaris is not as comprehensive as
>> >> Linux
>> >> but
>>
>> > While I agree that the Ultrasparc is a far better choice than the X86,
>> > until the next generation of Sparc's come on line Sun has little
>> > choice but too offer the X86. As far as Sun versus anything else,
>> > consider the build quality. THe IBM/Leveno is cheaper because it is
>> > cheaply made compared to the Sun. I have 4 very low serial number
>> > Ultra-24's and compared to the Dell's sitting net to the Ultra-24's
>> > the Sun's have orders of magnitude better build quality. The Dell's
>> > with our discount are about 20% more than the equivalent Sun's
>>
>> I guess as the Lenovo is made in China its "cheaply made" but that does
>> not
>> mean the quality is poor. The build quality of the ones we get at work
>> seems
>> excellant, compare to the DELLs and HP boxes that were submitted to our
>> last
>> round of invation to tender. In fact the Dells seem to be "consumer
>> grade"
>> boxes .....
>>
>> Whilst they are not as solid as the Ultra-60 I would say thats over
>> engineered. For goodness sake you can only get two hard drives in the
>> thing
>> and its huge. Certainly in the UK the Lenovo/IBM service is still good.
>> On
>> the odd occasion we do get a faulty one its usually fixed promptly and
>> expertley...
>>
>> And as for "dealer discount" well it must be hige looking at the list on
>> the
>> Sun site.....
>
> A sun Ultra-60 is designed for Ultrasparc-II. That makes the machine
> over 10 years old. The size is simply a function of the age of
> machine. Compare the capabilities of an Ultra-60 to a Pentium-I or
> Pentium-II machine. If you think that an Ultra-60 is over-engineered
> you must intend to replace your Dell/HP/Levono/IBM every year or two
> as they are so under-engineered it is a wonder they work at all let
> alone last more than a year or two. My son is a EE major working as a
> desktop support technician for the Business school. They buy 50% more
> desktops than they need because they know they will have just about
> 50% of their desktops out for repairs. The repairs are done quickly by
> the dealer, but in reality the cost is 50% higher simply because you
> need replacement machines I just paid $1250 for an Ultra-24 with a
> quad-core 2.4ghz Intel, 8gb of ECC memory, 500gb of disk and a dual-
> layer DVD-RW. The equivalent Dell was $500 more expensive and the
> build quality is crap. Yes Dell would replace the machine in 24 hours,
> but the Sun would have to be replaced as it wouldn't collapse due to
> poor engineering and build quality

I think you jest. If we had to buy 50% more we wouldn't get any work done.
Mind you as I say we rejected the DELL submitted to our ITT as it don't pass
the tests. I don't know the exact numbers of PCs we have but its around 4000
IBM/Lenovos in a mix of desktop/tower, "standard laptop" e.g. T series, and
small footprint/tablet "XSeries", ranging from brand new to about 4 years
old. The failure rate is very low. We don't buy high spec so I am not going
to compare price, but there is no way we could get a sun for under twice
what we pay...