Sun Microsystems is struggling to correct a big mistake – its lack of support for Solaris x86. “One of the biggest mistakes we made a few years back was not supporting Solaris x86,” Jonathan Schwartz, executive vice president at Sun, said in an interview. “Scott (McNealy) will tell you the same thing.” Read the article at TheRegister.
Sun Ashamed of Solaris x86 Past
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
It almost feels like if we wait long enough, we would see Sun buying Amiga and declaring it the new great way to go. Come on, make up your mind on what you need!
I tried Solaris 8 x86 for the last 3 years and it was always a struggle to install on the limited array of hardware it supported. And it felt dog-slow on an AMD Athlon 900MHz with 512MB RAM. But I liked to play with it. I remember paying $100 to have it shipped to Germany.
Although it is a nice complement to the SPARC version, I really don’t understand why a business (I’m not speaking of doing it for fun at home) would go for x86, when you can buy a 64bit SPARC box from SUN for under $1,000. A V100 starts at $995, a Sun Blade 150 workstation at $1,395. Man, even a V440 with 2-way 1GHz, 4GB RAM, 4x36GB U320 SCSI etc. sets you back “only” $9,995. A similar Xeon-based server from Dell or HP isn’t cheaper.
It looks like an Opteron system would be much more cost effective then, let’s say, a Sun Blade 150. Please correct me if I am wrong in technical details, but is a 550 or 650 Mhz CPU with just 2 gigs max of SDRAM for a workstation you want to be able to use today and tomorrow? An Opteron-based box is going to be much faster for the same amount of money, and that’s why Sun wants to sell them, too
I could have told them that
I paid $20 just for the download but i’ve never yet got it to work.
Not only is my hardware almost totally unsupported now (i’ve upgraded to a GeForce FX amongst other things since downloading it) the installer always messed up my partition table. When i created partitions for the installer they worked ok until the point where it deletes them and tries to automatically make some which start before the end of my FAT32 partition. It then tells me about the illegal partition and has to be restarted.
I guy from Sun actually noticed my thread on osnews.com regarding the problem and was very friendly but unable to get me up and running. I would like to see Sun releasing the new versions (with the new h/w support they mentioned recently) of Solaris x86 for free to the people who have already paid once for a relatively unusable product (totally in my case).
Actually I never had partition problems with the installer. The most common NICs are supported, too, and you can probably use your graphics card with the VESA driver or use XFree86.
You paid your 20 bucks for the transfer traffic and the hardware requirements were available to you before the download.
Nevertheless the people at Sun have usually been very friendly at re-enabling downloads should something have gone wrong.
As I stated in another thread: I run Solaris 9 on an Athlon XP 2400+ with an ASUS motherboard, ATI Radeon 9000 graphics and a RealTek NIC. The only driver I installed after installation was the one for the RealTek NIC, which is available for free from them.
I’ve heard lots of arguments back and forth on this topic, is it slow? *shrugs* Someone on the x86 Solaris mailing list made some benchmarks that showed Solaris pulling ahead in most if not every benchmark against FreeBSD and Linux. Yet then theres comments like those from Hanul complaining about its speed. Obviously its not meant for desktop usage, perhaps thats the core of the comments – maybe it has pisspoor interactive performance. But in server tasks it can’t be that bad else Sun wouldn’t be as big as they are. Is it Slowaris? I could never get it to install or configure it right, so I gave up. I guess this will always be an area of debate.
Solaris can be quite a bit slower depending on the hardware. On a single processor box Solaris will pay quite a high penalty, since its architecture emphasizes a lot of very very fine-grained locking throughout, which is partly what allows it to scale as well as it does. On a single proc box this only adds a lot of overhead, which is where some of the perceptions of it being slow come from.
My primary goal for installing Solaris was to play with it as a workstation type of OS. I mean, Sun sells workstations, and there is software for CAD and even video-editing on the market. I haven’t benchmarked the server side of Solaris on my box.
Maybe it is not intended to boot up every morning, but boot-time is even longer than Linux (on my box). X11 and CDE aren’t very responsive and i.e. Netscape/Mozilla takes some time to start up, too. If I had to really work with this combination of hardware and OS, I wouldn’t be happy with my boss for giving me such an environment…
Hanul, could you specify what exactly “felt” “dog slow”? So it would be easier to discuss Christopher X’s post.
The last time I found Solaris to be slow was around 2.5 on early Ultras.
Hanul, did you ever try installing the mediaLibs from Sun? Those speed up desktop response quite a lot. On both architectures.
I’m downloading Solaris 10 atm, so I’m wondering, where do you get a hold of those media libs? Are they included with Solaris or do you have to buy a separate package
They’re a free separate download from Sun’s website. I don’t know if they’re available for Solaris 10 yet, though.
I did have the hardware list available before I downloaded it and at the time my hardware should have been perfectly compatible (I wanted to use VESA for my GF3) but I neveronce got past the installer’s automatic partitioning stage. Tis a shame but FreeBSD and Slack serve me well.
Someone on the x86 Solaris mailing list made some benchmarks that showed Solaris pulling ahead in most if not every benchmark against FreeBSD and Linux.
Please provide a link.
The only problems with Solaris are:
1) Poor graphic card support. True, one can run the XFree86 porting kit, however, I would rather prefer running a nice native drivers which full utilise the capabilities of the video card. Matrox cards seem to perform alright, however, when you start using the latest (video cards 5months old), prepared to be disappointed.
2) Poor sound support. SUN, how about buying a clue, instead of spending money *TRYING* to implement a sound api and drivers why not buy out or license OpenSound and bundle it with your Solaris x86 version.
3) Poor ISV support. Both workstation and server wise, there are software titles are only available for SPARC. Please, for the love of Pete, fix that problem.
4) Speedup Madhatter/GNOME 2.2 development so that Solaris x86 users can “eXPerience” the same thrill as the Linux people.
Sun really do look like being on the road to recovery. Their new workstations and now this admittance of failure on the x86 platform is what customers will like to hear.
A likely outcome of this is more regular releases on x86 as Solaris is usually only released every 2 or 3 updates on x86 where SPARC get the updates every few months.
Solaris x86 has always been my 3rd OS of choice (for desktop or server), following closely behind FreeBSD and MacOSX.
Sun has been so wishy-washy with its public strategies and announced solution goals that one has to wonder whether or not they have really learned a lesson, or are they just playing the “Woulda-shoulda-couldas”. On the one hand Sun is deriding Linux and the GPL, on the other hand they are trying to push Linux on the x86 for middle to lower end workstations. They drop Solaris x86 for a few months, then turn around and resurrect it. I’m sorry, Sun’s credibility is close to that of SCO’s and Microsoft’s. In six months they could do yet another 180, drop Linux and push Solaris x86, then drop Solaris x86 and push Linux again. Sure Sun’s hardware is generally of high quality, but their public direction and lack of consistency with their solution offerings is pushing people to their competitors, including Linux, Microsoft (yes even Microsoft), IBM, and HP. Linux has made significant inroads against the commercial Unices for servers and development platforms. I don’t see Solaris x86 catching up to it unless Sun has a brain hemmorage and opens up the source code to Solaris x86, which isn’t going to happen.
Software generally becomes well entrenched. Once there is an installed base, it’s very difficult to persuade people to switch away from it. Sun is undoubtedly making the same mistake IBM did with desktop personal computers calling Linux (or by implication all open OSes including FreeBSD, etc) a fad. I don’t see Solaris x86 going anywhere even if Sun decides to actually bring the hardware compatability up to date.
I hope this means Solaris x86 is gonna get a kick in the arse, because I never got 9 x86 to run… We need more hardware support! I want to see solaris running on my x86…
> At the very LEAST you should be kissing SUN’s ass for providing a
> DECENT Linux desktop software package with credibility rather than
> the shoddy crap that HP, IBM and Dell have done so far.
I agree, HP, IBM and Dell have done very little as far as desktop software is concearned. Sun’s original CDE & GNOME, Solaris Management Console and Mad Hatter are respectable efforts. All (except for Mad Hatter) of which I use daily. Remember however, is it really HP, IBM or Dell’s responsibility to write good desktop software. After all, they are mainly in business as solution providers.
BTW, as much as I agree with your points, I think you should be mindful of the forum rules. There’s a “Report Abuse” button right below your comment and although I haven’t pressed it, someone else just might.
…what has IBM done for Linux?
Does Eclipse not count as something useful IBM has done for Linux?
I couldn’t have worded it better. First sun rebukes Linux as inferior to Solaris. It then proceeds to launch a Linux Enterprise distro. Days later is announces renewed interest in Solaris on the x86. I’d rather stick with IBM and HP for now, it seems to me SUN is either confused or in denial. I don’t understand their love and hate relationship with Linux either.
And correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t IBM donate some SMP code into Linux, which has been instrumental for Linux prowess in the server sphere? I’d rather SUN donated code that everyone benefits from. Many people don’t use GNOME, CDE, Solaris Management console or Mad hatter, you know. If SUN stopped supporting OSS today, I’d probably yawn and go to bed. If IBM stopped, that would be blow.
Anyway it’s good to see SUN learn from their mistakes. It just pisses me off when they spew crap about Linux and then try to make money off it.
>> RE: Intellectually challenged person alert!
>Does Eclipse not count as something useful IBM has done for Linux?
+ the various kernel hacker they employ, lots of good drivers and similar coming from them.
Their work with e.g. Apache. A nice Java platform for Linux.
Not to mention they support and promote Linux.
I couldn’t have worded it better. First sun rebukes Linux as inferior to Solaris. It then proceeds to launch a Linux Enterprise distro.
It certainly is possible that they think Linux is inferior to Solaris in some categories, and yet support it in others. Or perhaps they do hate Linux, but see it as necessary to their survival.
Solaris on sunw hardware makes sense for some situations. But, why run solaris on x86? Way more apps and hardware support support for linux. At best, solaris on x86 is nothing special.
Before sunw advocates go insane, please understand I am only posting about x86 solaris.
I agree, HP, IBM and Dell have done very little as far as desktop software is concearned. Sun’s original CDE & GNOME, Solaris Management Console and Mad Hatter are respectable efforts. All (except for Mad Hatter) of which I use daily. Remember however, is it really HP, IBM or Dell’s responsibility to write good desktop software. After all, they are mainly in business as solution providers.
BTW, as much as I agree with your points, I think you should be mindful of the forum rules. There’s a “Report Abuse” button right below your comment and although I haven’t pressed it, someone else just might.
I just get annoyed when I see people who refuse to take on board the fact that a company 1/10th the size of IBM, HP and Dell (“The Trio”) combined can produce MORE with in a shorter space of time than any of these companies.
When you bring out the measuring stick “The Trio” come out pretty pathetic, and worse still none of them are willing to openly promote that they even have the slightest interest in Linux.
Look at SUN. SUN, unlike the “The Trio”, wears Linux, UNIX and Java as a badge of honour. What do the “The Trio” do, “ra, ra, ra, we love Linux!”, then the customer asks, “oh, can I get a desktop installed with Linux”, they reply, “Linux, who said anything about Linux, we do Windows! we’ve nevered heard of Linux!”.
As for previous assertions about SCO and SUN. SUN has NEVER said anything against Linux, what they HAVE said is, “lets wait and see”, “intellectual property is very important”, “contracts need to be stuck to, word for word”. As for the SCO and SUN transaction, pretty basic transfer of a bunch of drivers and IP required to spruce up their Solaris x86 offering.
As for who has the most to lose from, who else but Microsoft. They have no Linux middleware, they sell no hardware, they have no professional services and their complete disregard for openstandards put them way, way behind the eighth ball.
So lets weight up in light of that evidence, who REALLY has the most to lose from Linux? it certainly isn’t SUN from the evidence I have given in the above paragraph.
>> RE: Intellectually challenged person alert!
>Does Eclipse not count as something useful IBM has done for Linux?
+ the various kernel hacker they employ, lots of good drivers and similar coming from them.
Their work with e.g. Apache. A nice Java platform for Linux.
Not to mention they support and promote Linux.
All of those would have occured without IBM or any one elses contribution. SUN realise that there is nothing wrong with the technical know-how of the Linux/OpenSouce community, what is needed is a company to get behind Linux and provide an integrated desktop and server solution with a good middleware selection to choose from.
> I’m downloading Solaris 10 atm
From where are getting Solaris 10?
I cant believe noone here has heard about this. I saw it on the news (some morning a couple weeks ago). IBM will be running a very Pro-Linux commercial. Watch for it.
marc (IP: —.triad.rr.com) – Posted on 2003-09-19 13:08:36
> I’m downloading Solaris 10 atm
From where are getting Solaris 10?
He must be downloading the Early Access version because from what I see, there is no mention of it on SUN’s Solaris website. Hopefully when Solaris 10 is released, we’ll see the fruits of the IP SUN bought of SCO in the form of improved hardware support.
Steve A. (IP: —.proxy.aol.com) – Posted on 2003-09-19 13:09:57
I cant believe noone here has heard about this. I saw it on the news (some morning a couple weeks ago). IBM will be running a very Pro-Linux commercial. Watch for it.
Its already well known. The issue isn’t the fact that they run commercials. Linux greatest benefit to IBM is the selling of IBM “professional services”, aka, IBM Global Services. What the issue I have is the fact that IBM crows about how great Linux is, yet, we don’t see any Lotus desktop applications being made available, native on Linux, or any of IBM’s development tools, including Websphere, Ratationals software line up etc.
“Maybe it is not intended to boot up every morning, but boot-time is even longer than Linux (on my box). X11 and CDE aren’t very responsive and i.e. Netscape/Mozilla takes some time to start up, too.”
The boot sequence varies widely among Linux distributions and Solaris. By default, Solaris puts a hefty amount of stuff in the /etc/rc?.d directories, which means the users benefits greatly by cleaning out the cruft. For example, I have Solaris 9 on a 7-year-old Sun Ultra workstatio booting in around a minute or so.
Also, if you do a full install of Solaris and, then, install all of the bundled software (Sun ONE servers, WebLogic, Oracle, etc. etc.) the boot get slower and slower as more stuff is started at boot-time. For a workstation, these things aren’t needed.
Solaris also has an interactive process scheduler that makes CDE very responsive, at least on SPARC systems. I can launch multiple processes that take up 100% of the CPU and still be able to use the desktop swiftly switching among apps. Only when Mozilla loads a huge web page and needs some of that CPU for a while does it get jerky.
The long loading times for some applications is mostly CPU-bound (obvious on older workstations). They are also partly due to how Solaris caches the filesystem. For example, launch a large application, close it, and, then, launch it again. The second time will be blazing fast. Wait an hour, do some other work, and you’ll find the cache got flushed out. Then, the app will need to get read off of disk again.
This is why it is frustrating to read “feels like” and “seems like” benchmarks that ignore the fact that the OS really is doing a lot of work on behalf of the users. It seems this brand of “benchmarking” is relative to experiences on Windows, where the OS _wastes_ memory by preloading libraries that may never get used. Its a trade-off, and Microsoft obviously caters to the drool crowd out there. So, when Sun caters to people that really use their machines and push them hard, Sun seems “slow”. Oh well.
I’d be interested in whether the original poster is using the correct video driver and not the vesa (which is kind of heavy on the cpu usage), also, the dma is disabled by default due to some chipsets being a little buggy and thus cause problems during the installation process.
Also, if you have a boot load of memory, Solaris makes good use of it. For example, my Pentium III 550 which has 768MB of RAM performs very well. Before giving up on Solaris, upgrade the memory to something greater than 512MB and see what happens.
Far as I remember they had a very short hardware compatibility
list. They sould better give up now, if they are not going to
do something about it.
What are they intending to gain with it ? I don’t think
that Intel is such a great platform. The point is that it
is inexpensive, and easy to buy. You can not walk into a
computer any shop and expect to walk out carying ULTRA workstation in 10 minutes. But you can expect that with Intel.
DG
I don’t have access to Solaris x86, so I was speaking from my experience with Solaris/SPARC. Both are from the same code base (from what I’ve read), so only low-level platform differences, such as the video drivers and DMA things you mentioned, would be the real performance deciders.
I definitely agree about RAM. Solaris 8 and 9, if not earlier ones, use every little bit of physical RAM on the system as a cache for the file system, so, certainly, the more RAM the merrier. 512MB is really a solid amount for running multiple apps, such as Mozilla, Pro/E, OpenOffice.org, etc. without experiencing an uncomfortable amount of swapping. Swapping performance isn’t terrible, either, so adding a 1GB or bigger swap partition or swap file can keep those big applications in check (although once thrashing starts, there is no rescue from the pain other than more RAM).
Far as I remember they had a very short hardware compatibility list. They sould better give up now, if they are not going to do something about it.
That is why they bought a large amount of IP from SCO, which includes drivers.
What are they intending to gain with it ? I don’t think
that Intel is such a great platform. The point is that it
is inexpensive, and easy to buy. You can not walk into a
computer any shop and expect to walk out carying ULTRA workstation in 10 minutes. But you can expect that with Intel.
You can just as easily ring up SUN and purchase a Blade 150 with a screen for AUS$3200 including GST.
And how they hell are they going to correct their mistakes on x86? Write all the hardware drivers themselves? Coerce the hardware vendors to do it? Or concentrate development on a few choosen hardware? I fail to see how they can pull it off. If I was sun, I would discontinue Solaris on x86, and focus or RedHat or Suse instead.
Most admins I have been in contact with that work with Solaris used it on Sparc and UltraSparc machines, but they would also download and install Solaris on x86 laptops to use those as console and tools to link up to the bigger Sun machines. By removing the x86 port of Solaris, all those admins could no longer carry some laptops that supported Solaris with them, and be able to work on a Solaris box from a Solaris laptop linked to it, which is indeed a stupid move. But at the same time, they did try alternatives like Linux or one of the BSD and this gave them a much wider laptop support so they can afford much more powerful machines, because x86 hardware support of Solaris always sucked, especially for laptops where only very few models do work.
Do you work for Sun?
What the issue I have is the fact that IBM crows about how great Linux is, yet, we don’t see any Lotus desktop applications being made available, native on Linux, or any of IBM’s development tools, including Websphere, Ratationals software line up etc.
Well, IBM pushes Linux on their hardware and provides patches so they play well together. Does Sun? Or do they just try to adopt the Linux name into their product offerings and push Solaris on their hardware, patch and support Solaris instead of Linux. Nothing wrong with that, but they aren’t a Linux company, if that’s what you’re trying to say. They are clearly still a commercial UNIX software and hardware vendor. Again, nothing wrong with it. I just see no reason to cloud the issue.
Yes they support Linux by giving away software they couldn’t otherwise have made a profit from, like OpenOffice, but does Sun really want Linux where it is or where its going? Not a chance. They are not a Linux leader like IBM. They are just a jealous follower who wants/needs a piece of the action. And that’s very sad, they still don’t get it.
Read here for the full story so to speak.
[Solaris 10 x86 free downloads reinstated]
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11632
Do you work for Sun?
No comment 😉
“What the issue I have is the fact that IBM crows about how great Linux is, yet, we don’t see any Lotus desktop applications being made available, native on Linux, or any of IBM’s development tools, including Websphere, Ratationals software line up etc.”
Well, IBM pushes Linux on their hardware and provides patches so they play well together. Does Sun? Or do they just try to adopt the Linux name into their product offerings and push Solaris on their hardware, patch and support Solaris instead of Linux. Nothing wrong with that, but they aren’t a Linux company, if that’s what you’re trying to say. They are clearly still a commercial UNIX software and hardware vendor. Again, nothing wrong with it. I just see no reason to cloud the issue.
SUN provides the same thing. SuSE Linux and Redhat are tested by SUN with their hardware combo they sell. What I am getting at is that SUN is the only high profile UNIX vendor willing to stand out and say that they have a desktop solution. The fact remains that a large portion of the “Linux desktop” as we see it, would NEVER exist without the contributions of SUN. What have IBM contributed to Linux? apart form a development environment (which SUN has done) and a few technologies that were never needed. Did we really need another journalling filesystem? did we really need to have them develop a threading library that was already in develop, even before IBM came up with the idea?
If they want to do something really useful, how about get some of those development tools over to Linux. They purchased Rational, yet, I don’t see any road map for a Linux ported version or a native websphere for Linux. These are things I would think that are rather important if one wanted people to adopt IBM middleware as part of a larger linux stratergy.
Why do I go on about the desktop, because ultimately, that is the hardest nut to crack and SUN knows that. Why should SUN work on the Linux kernel when there is already people with those expertise working on the server problems right now? As Linus said, the server is the easiest nut to crack because it has a set list of things required unlike the desktop which has numerous requirements depending on the user and the role.
Yes they support Linux by giving away software they couldn’t otherwise have made a profit from, like OpenOffice, but does Sun really want Linux where it is or where its going? Not a chance. They are not a Linux leader like IBM. They are just a jealous follower who wants/needs a piece of the action. And that’s very sad, they still don’t get it.
Where is Linux going? They’ve now realise, after alot of yelling by me, it doesn’t matter if the server they sell runs Linux, Solaris SPARC or x86, as so long as the OS runs on SUN hardware and the middleware is from the SUN One stack. Either way, what ever operating system is chosen to be pre-loaded, SUN benefits. That has now been seen in the pay pariety in terms of commissions given to sales reps. Before, for some reason, there was a difference between selling x86 Linux box’s and Solaris SPARC.
” I fail to see how they can pull it off. If I was sun, I would discontinue Solaris on x86, and focus or RedHat or Suse instead.”
Well, I’d say the only major area Solaris is lacking is in VGA card support. If they aren’t willing to write the drivers themselves, they can always just copy the drivers from XFree86. Other than that, I don’t see any real reason to switch to RedHat or Suse. All three are very capable systems.
I couldn’t have worded it better. First sun rebukes Linux as inferior to Solaris. It then proceeds to launch a Linux Enterprise distro. Days later is announces renewed interest in Solaris on the x86. I’d rather stick with IBM and HP for now
Just curious, do you have PO authority where you work? Does your place of employment even need this caliber of hardware?
Unless the answer to both those questions is yes, why are you even making these statements? They are so tiresome for me to read… I’m tired of people with absolutely no exposure to Sun hardware or Solaris saying they would prefer never to have exposure to Sun because as a corporation Sun lacks a single, unified direction.
Sun is still continuing to do what they do best… selling some of the most reliable systems available and providing the highest level of support. These should be your concerns when making purchasing decisions, not what Sun has been doing with Linux…
How about some Linux SPARC or rolling over some of that awesome Solaris technology into the Linux kernel before someone else does it first. That would make Sun a Linux leader, IMO. Hell, they already are on the desktop with their work on OpenOffice and GNOME. The only thing left frustrating me about Sun is their reluctance to give up control, well that and their SCO related PR nonsense.
I want the openness and freedom of choice that Linux provides across their entire product line, or I will consider them yet another proprietary solution. Giving me the choice of SPARC/Solaris servers and Linux desktops is not a choice. I already have that option. What the consumer wants is the option to have SPARC/Linux servers and Solaris/GNOME desktops with additional cost savings and easier licensing terms. Then they won’t feel so locked-in.
Just curious, do you have PO authority where you work? Does your place of employment even need this caliber of hardware?
To the first question no. To the second, yes.
Unless the answer to both those questions is yes, why are you even making these statements?
What right do you have to tell which statements to make or not to?
They are so tiresome for me to read… I’m tired of people with absolutely no exposure to Sun hardware or Solaris saying they would prefer never to have exposure to Sun because as a corporation Sun lacks a single, unified direction.
Deal with it. And who told you I haven’t been exposed to SUN hardware or Solaris? I stand by my statement. SUN jettisoned a lot of users and customers by failing to provide high quality support for the x86 architecture while concentrating on their sparcs. I don’t trust SUN on an x86 and I don’t buy their public statements. You and I know why.
Sun is still continuing to do what they do best… selling some of the most reliable systems available and providing the highest level of support. These should be your concerns when making purchasing decisions, not what Sun has been doing with Linux…
There are more than three individuals on this thread alone that stated that a version of Solaris or another failed to work on their x86 machines even after paying for it. You call that support, reliable and the best? And why shouldn’t I be interested in issues as this. I make comments on other related topics even though I don’t have a purchasing decision to make. You never seem to show up then. But because this regards SUN and Solaris, I’ve hit a nerve.
Your response is absolutely unfounded and immature. It is base on unnecessary assumptions. SUN openly admits they made a mistake, why are you baggering me? Do you by any chance work for SUN?
although it may lack hardware support in the past (8 gb partition limit, (every version that i have has it), the SUN’s site for developers and users is ONEof MY BEST!…. LOTS of LOTS of documentation, so the support wasnt that bad… at least user support
) (e.g. u could find that the version you are using is limited to 8 gb hard driver very easily ;>
although it may lack hardware support in the past (8 gb partition limit, (every version that i have has it), the SUN’s site for developers and users is ONEof MY BEST!…. LOTS of LOTS of documentation, so the support wasnt that bad… at least user support
) (e.g. u could find that the version you are using is limited to 8 gb hard driver very easily ;>
That issue (8gb partition limit) was correct ober 18months ago. If you are still having problems, it is most likely due to a crusty BIOS.