Brian Hechinger's "low end" (was: Re: [geeks] NAT and Filtering on Solaris)

[Peter L. Wargo]

On Monday, April 1, 2002, at 11:40 PM, Kris Kirby wrote:

> Sure it's low end... for a UNIX machine. PCs don't compare to that 
> metric.

<mock peevish voice>
"No, it's not."
</mpv>

"Low End" implies that a system was targeted as a low-cost option to a 
line.  For example, a Macintosh LC was "low end", and a Mac IIfx was 
*not*. A Ultra 5 or 10 is "low end", a Ultra 2 is not. At the time the 
U2 was designed, it was the best that it could be.  The U5, for example, 
was designed from the very start to be a cheap POS. (Oooo, don't tell 
Scott I said that.)

A well-designed computer system can be obsolete, retired, cheap, or 
antiquated but it is never "low end".

(BTW, the Sun 386i was not "low end" it was "f**ked up the rear end".)

-Pete