[rescue] Compaq Proliant 8000
Charles Shannon Hendrix
shannon at widomaker.com
Fri Apr 30 13:39:21 CDT 2004
Fri, 30 Apr 2004 @ 13:52 -0400, Dave McGuire said:
> On Apr 30, 2004, at 12:56 PM, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> >A lot of "workstations" these days are full of PC components.
> Interesting. Mine aren't. You must be talking about the ONE MODEL
> FROM SUN and maybe ONE [discontinued] MODEL FROM SGI.
IDE, PC I/O ports... lot's of workstations use those kinds of things.
Those are PC parts.
> But from a guy
> who thinks his Athlon can "run rings around" an UltraSPARC, I guess
> that might translate to "a lot".
Put words in your own mouth. I never said this. You do this shit all
I said that it was faster at a given price point.
> >Compatibility problems with Sun Creator and various Uxx systems, SCSI
> >drives and RZxxxx drive sleds from DEC, and so on.
> So are you suggesting that, even when adjusted for the relative
> production volumes of both classes of machines, PC hardware has no more
> compatibility/interoperability issues than workstation-class hardware?
Where do you get this shit?
I never said any such thing.
I said that I was careful when choosing workstation and server parts and
gave a couple of examples of things I've had to worry about.
How the hell do you extrapolate this to an analysis of the entire
> >I don't take building *any* system lightly.
> You should, and you can...if you don't use PC hardware.
You should be careful no matter what you build.
> The last thing I need to worry about is "this
> SCSI interface won't work in that computer"
Stay away from DEC storage works then...
> or "I could put this video card in there, but it won't work with this
> OS, but I can't use the other one because it isn't compatible with my
> monitor" and crap like that. I don't have any problems like that with
> my *computers*...only the one PC.
I don't contest that at all.
Of course, if you would choose your PC hardware from a tiny subset of
the market, you'd have few problems.
> >What does decent 3D graphics cost for this Blade?
This question is seperate from the statement immediately after.
> >I used a machine like this, and found the graphics disappointing and
> >the drive a little slow too.
> Are we again trying to pretend that Suns were built for OpenGL 3D
> graphics, or are we again trying to pretend that OpenGL 3D graphics
> performance is the only metric of performance in a desktop machine?
I'm talking about 2D graphics.
> Are we again picking the weakest attribute of a given machine and
> using it to define the performance of the entire machine, completely
> outside of its target market?
That's your idea, not mine.
shannon "AT" widomaker.com -- ["I wish life was not so short. Languages
take such a time, and so do all the things one wants to know about." - J.
R. R. Tolkien]
More information about the rescue