Re: ux as a minicomputer ?

Re: ux as a minicomputer ?

[jw schultz]

On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 12:29:23PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> > 
> >>This is fundamentally the problem with these kinds of schemes -- they
> >>get outcompeted on price and availability by the massmarket items.
> >>This is part of the very attraction of Linux -- it's running Unix on
> >>stock, cheap, hardware.
> > 
> > The hardware is now massmarket - otherwise I'd agree wholeheartedly. Video
> > cards are cheap, USB2.0 cards have 4 root bridges per card.
> > 
> 
> Oh yes, but the *expensive* part of the machine -- the multiprocessor 
> box -- isn't.
> 
> Also, when using massmarket systems of more than 2 or 3 monitors you 
> start having cabling problems.  VGA connectors aren't impedance matched 
> and cause nasty reflections at high resolutions, so they don't extend 
> well.  I guess digital video is coming, but is not yet mass market.
> 
> 	-hpa
> 

A single 1000Mhz+ CPU is overkill for most desktop users.

Most medium to large workplaces are vast cubicle farms.  Put
one box at the intersection of 4 cubes...bingo 2meter VGA
cables reach fine and you get 1/4th the maintenance, 1/4 the
network drops, etc.  This would even be advantagious for two desks
side-by-side or back-to-back.  

-- 
________________________________________________________________
	J.W. Schultz            Pegasystems Technologies
	email address:		jw@pegasys.ws

		Remember Cernan and Schmitt

Re: ux as a minicomputer ?

[Stuart Lynne]

In article <1018751811.22396@whiskey.enposte.net>,
jw schultz <jw@pegasys.ws> wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 13, 2002 at 12:29:23PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>Most medium to large workplaces are vast cubicle farms.  Put
>one box at the intersection of 4 cubes...bingo 2meter VGA
>cables reach fine and you get 1/4th the maintenance, 1/4 the
>network drops, etc.  This would even be advantagious for two desks
>side-by-side or back-to-back.  

I don't think you are reducing complexity very much if at all,
mostly just shuffling it around some.

You may have a quarter as many configurations to manage but will
each configuration be less than four times as hard to maintain?

Maybe, mabye not. I just don't think it's a clear win.

Also don't forget some of the other reasons for not doing it:
single point of failure, harder to maintain, lack of flexibility
etc.