Can anyone tell me why Sparc systems are so expensive? I see systems that range from 2000-3000 for a workstation. Why? How does an Quad intel box compare to a Sparc? Would purchasing a x86 box be more ideal for working with Solaris?

Thanks.

These machines aren't mainstream but designed for the industry, with different performance patterns.
That depends on the benchmark and on what SPARC.
SPARC based excels in high end boxes (up to 72 bi-core CPUs and more than 1 TB of RAM on a SF25K) and also in the low end with single UltraSPARC T1 based servers (1 chip = 8 cores = 32 threads).
Next generation isn't bad too: http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/date/20070410
Certainly, that's the same O/S so you can can learn and develop on a Intel or amd64 based machine.
You'll need a SPARC based one to compile binaries suitable for that architecture though, but you can find cheap boxes on ebay or equivalent.

You can get a faster Intel box much cheaper than a SPARC setup. However, SPARC really shines on heavy load, multiuser/multitasking. The faster Intel box starts exhibiting the "herky-jerky" mouse under much lower loads than SPARC, etc. No clue why that is, but it's very annoying to come back to an x86/x64 box after using a SPARC system.

Example: I have an Ultra20M2 and a Blade 150 sitting here right now. The Ultra20M2 is a dual-core Opteron 2.2ghz and the Blade 150 is a 650mhz UltraSPARC IIi. The Ultra blows away the Blade in computational performance and is also faster in app loading, however the Blade is a much smoother operating machine and gives a better *overall* user experience...

YMMV :-)

To add about the difference, x86 users are still discussing about the usefulness of running on 64 bit vs 32 bit.

SPARC made that decision more than 12 years ago, so 64 bit support is robust and mature.

Thanks for the reply guys I just bought 2 v120's to run Solaris 10 on. I was debating on getting an x86 box to practice with but the v120's will do fine.