[log in to unmask] (David A. Lethe) writes:

>One of the biggest reasons why PC "workstations" haven't been serious
>competitors to RISC-based SUN's, SGIs, and HP's is simple horsepower.
>The intel architecture as it is today is a toy.  Furthermore the
>primary operating system, NT, is still considered, "not ready for
>prime time".... but getting better.

Thats funny,
I had the choice of NT or Win95 on my current toy computer.
Prime time?
Corporate America must be still wallowing in "late night"mode.

>Look at the capability of the graphics cards for intel-based PC's.
>The fastest ones do only a million or so vectors per second, and much
>less quads or poly's.  The RISC-based engines have 10 to 50x the
>performance.  Do you think they rendered Toy Story on a PC.

Have you checked the performance rating of AGP based graphic cards
lately?
I'm very impressed with the rendering capabilities of my current
266Mhz "toy" running Bentley Systems Microstation CAD.
Even the SGI Onyx machine jockey's here where I work, oops "play"
were very impressed with the things being done on those "toys".
Yeah, gimme a RISC 6000 anyday....
heh, heh!

>Why don't you ask the people at Pixar what they think of Alpha-based
>or Compaq workstations suitability in their environment.  I bet they
>laugh at you.
Yeah,
When were they developing the "toy Story" graphics? about 2+ years ago!
Maybe I'm living under a rock, but, Intel processor based machines have
made great strides in the last 2 years...
not that I endorse supporting the current development trends of INTEL,
it's just that your statements ring a bit hollow...
JMHO
Paul S.

>David A. Lethe
>VP - Compass Corporate Systems
>(15 years in the business, 15 years experience with UNIX)
> - ex HP UNIX VAR
> - now an IBM VAR
>972-208-3660