> And to add to all this...
> 
> # The LX is the fastest box, so probably concentrate on that first.
> 
> ...I will comment that the LX is not the fastest by much; in feel, and in
> spite of benchmarks, I couldn't tell the difference between a comparably
> equipped SS2 vs an LX, at least as a workstation.  Maybe headless you
> might see a difference.  It's a Sun4m without the benefits of being a
> sun4m.  Much like the SS5, one cannot truly MP the beast.

I would agree, but the sun4m architecture gives it at least some
Solaris 8 capability, and it does feel a little faster in my hands,
compared to the SS2.  That is not much of a difference, though.
The SS1 is dog slow, by comparison, to the LX/Classic kind of thing.

> If you rip out the floopy drive, you can theoretically put a second
> drive in the top half of the case.  We used to do it with IPXen all
> the time (3-port SCSI ribbon-style cable required).

Ohhh, I had not thought about that.... I WILL have to try that on 
mine.  Thanks for the tip.  That is an obvious nicety, though, if
a second drive were there.  I could imagine a couple 4 gig drives
running cooly might make it a nice little server or background
build box.  Something to play with this weekend, perhaps.

> ...or nameservers.

Check... basically anything that does not eat lots of cpu or video,
does OK on the things.  The Netscraper and X is very slow.  I tried
checking my web pages in situ on the machine (SS1).... and went out
to lunch, ..... and came back for a round of coffee, ..... and finally
the pages came up.  Real slow... real slow.  Yet, on my 10mb network,
the actual page serving speed was more limited by the network than
the speed of the SS1.  This was in comparing it across the campus
network to our ``NT'' servers running at x-million-billion gigacycles.
I was quite pleasantly surprised, as were some NT freaks.

Bob