Talk:SPARCstation

Manufacturer

Is there an implied limitation to this article that, because Sun Microsystems introduced the first SPARC servers and workstations, that only complete systems manufactured by Sun Microsystems are listed? I'm adding an entry to the server table for the obvious next development after the SPARCserver 1000 and the SPARCcenter 2000, namely the (Cray) CS6400; with the same technology as those Sun products, it clearly belongs here rather than on another page with Sun UltraEnterprise machines such as the E10000 Starfire. If any purists find this inappropriate, remember that Sun produced SPARC processor modules with extra cache just for the CS6400, and was quite pleased that the CS6400 put "SPARC" at the very top of the SPEC benchmarks in the 1990s. 206.205.52.162 (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

There's an explicit limitation that this article is about the SPARCstation/SPARCserver product line manufactured by Sun Microsystems. The Cray CS6400 was not a Sun Microsystems product.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, my tongue-in-cheek reference to "purists" seems to have been taken surprisingly seriously. Let me put this another way: The Superserver 6400 was documented in the Sun Field Engineer Handbook (as were other SPARC servers), was built from Sun components (as were other SPARC servers), and depended on custom code in the SunOS kernel (as did other SPARC servers). Between the Sun hardware, the Sun software, and the Sun documentation, this seems not just an appropriate, but a necessary, addition to a page about SPARC servers. Oh, and in case it matters to anyone, the corporate division which produced this machine was part of Sun Microsystems from 1996 onward.

Seriously, time to step back and try to see the big picture. This entire article is about machines which are now historical. None of these are currently being manufactured, so there's no danger that a potential customer is going to send their order to the wrong company, or be swayed into patronizing one company in preference to another, based on this article. Even those companies are now historical — Sun Microsystems and Cray Research have each been bought out by other firms at least once each. Does it really do a service to Wikipedia readers to make an overriding distinction based on whose historical logos were painted onto those cabinets full of Sun hardware? or based on whether the machines were assembled from components with 501-class Sun product numbers or 370-class Sun product numbers? or based on the timing of when a machine's builders worked for Sun vs when that machine was first sold? In an article which cares about technical details like processor models and memory capacities, but which ignores corporate details like profit and price/earnings ratio, it seems much more appropriate to include content on technical grounds than to exclude content on corporate grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.205.52.162 (talk) 01:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does make a difference. This article is about systems manufactured and marketed by Sun Microsystems under the SPARCstation/SPARCserver/SPARCcenter brand. The Cray CS6400 was manufactured and marketed by Cray BSD prior to their acquisition by SGI, and was never sold b Syun, and was never marketed as part of the SPARCstation/SPARCserver/SPARCcenter brand; that distinction belongs to Starfire/E10K.

It's not as though the system's existence is being excluded from Wikipedia -- or even from the article. But nothing you have said justifies it being integrated into the article as though it were ever manufactured, marketed, sold, or branded by Sun. That is a misrepresentation of reality, and you're not supposed to do that in encyclopedias.

I'm sorry if this upsets you; please don't take it as a personal affront, or a slam of any kind of the hardware. It was an awesome machine.--NapoliRoma (talk) 04:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. 206.205.52.162 has a point and there is absolutely nothing limiting us from discussing related material in this article. We do not limit article content in this way, and in fact we have specific guidelines against attempting to do so. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever discussing related material. I have a problem with casting the CS6400 as having been part of the "SPARCstation/SPARCserver/SPARCcenter" product family that Sun manufactured, marketed and sold.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Napoli; adding the CS6400 to the SPARCserver/center table in this article implies that it was part of the same Sun product range. Of course the relationship between SPARCserver/center and CS6400 should be mentioned in this article, but it should be clear that it was sold as a Cray Research product. The fact that the subject of this article is now historical is no reason to cloud the issue - historical subjects require accuracy and clarity even more than contemporary ones, IMHO. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC).

Sorry, but no, that's not per Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. The article title has no limiting factor (or implications) whatsoever on the article's content. The only thing that matters is that the material itself is relevant and related to the rest of the article. I have no issue with requiring that an entry for the CS6400 be properly footnoted as sold by Cray (there are other things that should probably be footnoted anyway), but trying to prevent it from being discussed or included in the tables here goes contrary to policy. Further, a see also wikilink to Cray CS6400 is very much discouraged compared to inline material. A fully formed article should technically have no see also wikilinks because all such wikilinks will be included in the body of the article. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Isn't there a Wikipedia policy on not misleading the reader? :-) As I said above, I have no objection to the relationship between SPARCserver/center and CS6400 being mentioned in the body of the article (ie. not just a See Also link) but we need to make it clear that it was, in marketing terms at least, a Cray product and not a Sun product, and the current article doesn't do that. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC).

I've added a paragraph after the server table to explain that the CS6400 was sold as a Cray product rather than a Sun product. Included is a reference to a paper by one of the Cray Business Systems folks which traces the agreement between Cray and Sun back to 1991; I think that agreement is significant to establish the link between the CS6400 and Sun Microsystems long before the acquisition by Sun in 1996, in that it recognizes the CS6400 as a cooperative, rather than a competitive, product. 68.48.163.163 (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Picture

I have a nice SPARCstation 330 that turned up at the warehouse today, I'll see if I can get a good picture out of it for the article (to complement/replace the current blurry pic). dreddnott 19:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)