[News] [Linux] Dell Reveals Its Linux Lineup, Ready for Order Next Thursday
Roy Schestowitz
,----[ Quote ]
| We will be launching a Linux based OS (Ubuntu) on the E520, 1505 and XPS
| 410 starting next Thursday, 5/24.
`----
http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/2007/05/18/dell-announces-the-models-for-ubuntu/
Here are the models:
http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/cto_xpsdt_410?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/cto_inspn_e1505?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/dimen_e520?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd
Related:
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/ubuntu?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
Erik Funkenbusch
> Dell announces the models for Ubuntu
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| We will be launching a Linux based OS (Ubuntu) on the E520, 1505 and XPS
>| 410 starting next Thursday, 5/24.
> `----
>
> http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/2007/05/18/dell-announces-the-models-for-ubuntu/
Well, it's put up or shutup time for the Linux faithful. You should all
run out and buy 10 computers from Dell with Linux.
Dell will need to see strong demand, or these may be the last models.
Linonut
> On Sat, 19 May 2007 00:56:54 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Dell announces the models for Ubuntu
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| We will be launching a Linux based OS (Ubuntu) on the E520, 1505 and XPS
>>| 410 starting next Thursday, 5/24.
>> `----
>>
>> http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/2007/05/18/dell-announces-the-models-for-ubuntu/
>
> Well, it's put up or shutup time for the Linux faithful. You should all
> run out and buy 10 computers from Dell with Linux.
Why? We already have our Linux computers. It's the Common Man who's
going to show DELL whether or not they want Ubuntu versus what they
already have. Or a few people who like Linux already, and need a new
computer, and think DELL is a good deal.
You think we'd pay that much money for the privilege of astroturfing
Linux at DELL?
Why don't you go back to astroturfing posts, for which you can get paid.
> Dell will need to see strong demand, or these may be the last models.
Define "strong".
--
Where do you want to be jerked around today?
AB
Like with Vista?
Users buying 10 linux computers from Dell would be thousands or
millions of times the number sold with Vista on them. Hell. if every
linux user bought *one* machine it would be thousands or more times the
number Vista has moved.
I guess it's put up or shut up time for Windummies. Elsewise your
wishful thinking about Windows having a small niche in computerdom's
future might never be more than a pipe dream.
--
Windows: The OS that forces you to delete things to make them work.
owl
> On Sat, 19 May 2007 00:56:54 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Dell announces the models for Ubuntu
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| We will be launching a Linux based OS (Ubuntu) on the E520, 1505 and XPS
>>| 410 starting next Thursday, 5/24.
>> `----
>>
>> http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/2007/05/18/dell-announces-the-models-for-ubuntu/
>
> Well, it's put up or shutup time for the Linux faithful. You should all
> run out and buy 10 computers from Dell with Linux.
>
Why? Dell's not serious about Linux. If they were, you'd see it front
and center on their home page. They're cowards just like the rest
of the big computer makers. Toying with Linux in the shadows, wishing
Microsoft were gone, but not having the balls to take any risk.
Dell's not alone in their cowardice. My toshiba laptop shipped
with a hidden Linux partition, from which its "instant-on" DVD
player runs. Of course the main system was XP Home, and the
media-card reader was not Linux-compatible. Fine. I saved
the pass-along pocket change it would have cost Toshiba to
include a compatible device, and handed over $29 to a third
party for a USB media reader which of course works with Linux.
Toshiba didn't want any more of my money, apparently.
> Dell will need to see strong demand, or these may be the last models.
Who cares. Dell proprietizes their hardware. I have no use for them.
I hope they go under. Vista's going to bury them along with half
the industry, but Dell deserves to crumble for their *own* misdeeds.
John Bailo
> Dell announces the models for Ubuntu
Thousands of Linux laptops are rolling into the hands of Uruguayan 8 year
olds...yet constipated American technology companies squat out a few
boluses worth of same and crow with delight.
![[H]omer's profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWMQWyYwHeIwxhG3nGUeGWmLQD0R8TeZrvdWDiv5-2S_z3rHg=s40-c)
[H]omer
> Dell announces the models for Ubuntu
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | We will be launching a Linux based OS (Ubuntu) on the E520, 1505 and XPS
> | 410 starting next Thursday, 5/24.
> `----
>
> http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/2007/05/18/dell-announces-the-models-for-ubuntu/
Woot! Bring it on, baby!
"We expect these systems to be less than 1% of our OS mix for the entire
year"
That's rather an odd thing to add to a product announcement; it's like
saying "here's a new product, but we hope it won't sell very well".
Has Sweaty landed the job of Dell's new Marketing Editor, or something?
Ooh I bet his sweaty butt-cheeks are clenched tight tonight.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| 'Also, no one calls it PCI-X even though that's the "official "
| shortening of the much more commonly used "PCI Express".'
| - Hardon Quirk, COLA's resident "genius".
`----
Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.20-1.2312.fc5
04:07:13 up 32 days, 1:39, 2 users, load average: 0.04, 0.20, 0.24
DFS
> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>> Dell announces the models for Ubuntu
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> We will be launching a Linux based OS (Ubuntu) on the E520, 1505
>>> and XPS 410 starting next Thursday, 5/24.
>> `----
>>
>> http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/2007/05/18/dell-announces-the-models-for-ubuntu/
>
> Woot! Bring it on, baby!
Let the "I decided not to buy a Dell Linux system" excuses start!
My estimate is 100,000 cheapskate fanboi requests for Dell to offer Linux on
desktops translates to 100 actual sales to said cheapskate fanbois.
> "We expect these systems to be less than 1% of our OS mix for the
> entire year"
He meant less than 1/10th of 1%.
> That's rather an odd thing to add to a product announcement; it's like
> saying "here's a new product, but we hope it won't sell very well".
It won't. Why would any reasonable (ie not a cola "advocate") person think
otherwise?
> Has Sweaty landed the job of Dell's new Marketing Editor, or
> something?
>
> Ooh I bet his sweaty butt-cheeks are clenched tight tonight.
You cola idiots are such hysterical children. Linux on 3 midrange Dell
systems is not going to be some magic turning point moment when Linux was
introduced and took the desktop world by storm.
Nerdwizard
executives making money on their GNU/Linux systems, marketed through Wal
Mart web sites, plus, others...
Meanwhile, I have the many dozen PCs discarded by windiots, upon which I
run Mepis, PcLinuxos, BSD, Knoppix, livecdlist.com distros on, all FREE!
Well, I did buy one 500Gb Seagate drive with 5 year warranty, from
Newegg, last week... $139.99 delivered... in an external drive case, it
is a great network drive.
Dell really needs to think back to when they could have saved
themselves, instead of dying on the sword (Vista), of their chosen
master Microshaft.
Dell is so much burnt toast.
DFS
Didn't take you long to run out of Linux system vendors. Oh, I forgot, you
can add Dell to the list - for a little while.
How many Linux systems is Wal-Mart selling today?
Little cola nutjob 7 recommended this place: http://www.ebuyer.com So I
go looking at the model he recommended (the cheapest POS of course) and scan
the reviews/comments posted by purchasers. Most of them immediately wiped
Linux and installed XP.
That's what happens to most Linux system sales.
> Meanwhile, I have the many dozen PCs discarded by windiots, upon
> which I run Mepis, PcLinuxos, BSD, Knoppix, livecdlist.com distros
> on, all FREE!
Check. I put you down in the cheapskate fanboi column.
> Well, I did buy one 500Gb Seagate drive with 5 year warranty, from
> Newegg, last week... $139.99 delivered... in an external drive case,
> it is a great network drive.
Big spender...
> Dell really needs to think back to when they could have saved
> themselves, instead of dying on the sword (Vista), of their chosen
> master Microshaft.
>
> Dell is so much burnt toast.
And I hear *everyone* hates Vista, and MS is dying!
You know, from where I sit it's always a good time to be an anti-MS cola
ignoramus: you make up alternate versions of reality and proclaim they're
happening right now, and 8 other total idiots agree with you.
Tim Smith
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> Well, it's put up or shutup time for the Linux faithful. You should all
> run out and buy 10 computers from Dell with Linux.
>
> Dell will need to see strong demand, or these may be the last models.
Well, at least Dell has an advantage over the people that have tried to
sell software for Linux. You can't pirate hardware.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
Linonut <lin...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Why don't you go back to astroturfing posts, for which you can get paid.
Seriously, what did you do with the real Linonut?
--
--Tim Smith
7
> On Sat, 19 May 2007 00:56:54 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Dell announces the models for Ubuntu
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| We will be launching a Linux based OS (Ubuntu) on the E520, 1505 and XPS
>>| 410 starting next Thursday, 5/24.
>> `----
>>
>> http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/2007/05/18
dell-announces-the-models-for-ubuntu/
>
> Well, it's put up or shutup time for the Linux faithful. You should all
> run out and buy 10 computers from Dell with Linux.
>
> Dell will need to see strong demand, or these may be the last models.
Who cares?
Been buying eSys machines for years with Linux preloaded for 127 pounds.
www.ebuyer.com
80Gb disk, 256Mb RAM 2.5GHz machine with keyboard and optical mouse.
Does dell$ come anywhere near that price range for a Linux PC?
Or are they just too late to enter the market at the right price point
having sucked up to micoshaft for too long and seeing all their
sales go down the pan?
Mark Kent
I don't understand why you even bother to respond to such an obvious
Microsoft marketing message from Erik, our favourite, longest serving
Microsoft shill. His world is falling apart, and a new world is being
built, and he's rather upset about it.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
Mark Kent
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 00:56:54 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Dell announces the models for Ubuntu
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>| We will be launching a Linux based OS (Ubuntu) on the E520, 1505 and XPS
>>>| 410 starting next Thursday, 5/24.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/2007/05/18/dell-announces-the-models-for-ubuntu/
>>
>> Well, it's put up or shutup time for the Linux faithful. You should all
>> run out and buy 10 computers from Dell with Linux.
>>
>
> Why? Dell's not serious about Linux. If they were, you'd see it front
> and center on their home page. They're cowards just like the rest
> of the big computer makers. Toying with Linux in the shadows, wishing
> Microsoft were gone, but not having the balls to take any risk.
>
Dell are serious about trying to stay in business, and they are deeply
afraid of Microsoft. At this stage, it's not really clear what will
happen with Vista. There are still plenty of people in large
corporations foolish enough to spend millions on replacing all their
computers with a new OS from Microsoft, and Dell would not want to miss
out on any margin they could have from that.
You should pick on the bully, if anyone, rather than picking on the
victims of the bully, I think?
Linonut
> Why? Dell's not serious about Linux. If they were, you'd see it front
> and center on their home page.
Their home page has no mention of Windows, Microsoft, or Linux.
> They're cowards just like the rest
> of the big computer makers. Toying with Linux in the shadows, wishing
> Microsoft were gone, but not having the balls to take any risk.
Yeah, if you click on the desktops link, you see:
Dell recommends Windows Vista Home Premium.
Pussies!
--
Press every key to continue.
Larry Qualig
> DFS wrote:
> > [H]omer wrote:
> >> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
> >>> Dell announces the models for Ubuntu
>
> >>> ,----[ Quote ]
> >>>> We will be launching a Linux based OS (Ubuntu) on the E520, 1505
> >>>> and XPS 410 starting next Thursday, 5/24.
> >>> `----
>
Riiiiight. Don't let little details like the fact that Dell has
absolutey zero ($0) debt and that they make several BILLION dollars a
year in profit get in the way of your your little soiled diaper dream.
Linonut
>>> http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/2007/05/18/dell-announces-the-models-for-ubuntu/
>>
>> Woot! Bring it on, baby!
>
> Let the "I decided not to buy a Dell Linux system" excuses start!
Oh shut the fuck up!
> My estimate is 100,000 cheapskate fanboi requests for Dell to offer Linux on
> desktops translates to 100 actual sales to said cheapskate fanbois.
More important is that it translate to more newbies buying them. If
they can find them.
Try to find the Linux systems, starting from DELL's home page.
In fact, type "linux" into the search field:
You searched for: "linux"
See Results From:
Products (444)
Technical Support (1455235)
Articles & Solutions (1272)
The first item, "Products", isn't even a clickable link!
Now let's assume I'm a bit more savvy than the user who simply knows the
word "linux". Let's try "ubuntu":
Sorry, No Results. You Searched for "ubuntu" in Products
However, results were found in these categories:
Technical Support (5792)
Articles & Solutions (3)
It looks to me like DELL is /still/ setting itself up for Linux failure.
> You cola idiots are such hysterical children. Linux on 3 midrange Dell
> systems is not going to be some magic turning point moment when Linux was
> introduced and took the desktop world by storm.
Whoever said it was?
You like to set up strawmen, so you can sound like a big man knocking it
down.
The problem here is not the fanbois. It is DELL itself. It is peddling
BULLSHIT. And it can't even configure its own search engine to find the
Ubuntu-is-coming page.
Ah, nice sig-monster.
--
DELL: Windows is so bad we have to get trialware vendors to subsidize it.
Linonut
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 00:56:54 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Dell announces the models for Ubuntu
>>>
>>> http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/2007/05/18
> dell-announces-the-models-for-ubuntu/
>>
>> Well, it's put up or shutup time for the Linux faithful. You should all
>> run out and buy 10 computers from Dell with Linux.
>>
>> Dell will need to see strong demand, or these may be the last models.
>
> Who cares?
>
> Been buying eSys machines for years with Linux preloaded for 127 pounds.
> www.ebuyer.com
> 80Gb disk, 256Mb RAM 2.5GHz machine with keyboard and optical mouse.
> Does dell$ come anywhere near that price range for a Linux PC?
> Or are they just too late to enter the market at the right price point
> having sucked up to micoshaft for too long and seeing all their
> sales go down the pan?
Just go to www.dell.com and try to find a Linux system.
I think DELL is still under the thrall of Microsoft. Sure, maybe
Michael Dell lost a couple of short-and-curlies trying to prise his
balls from the hand of Sweaty Ballmer. But the little pinpricks of pain
seems to have stymied him.
Although I do like my DELL Latitude D820 (bought by work), I will
personally avoid DELL like the plague, and not just because of their
Linux bullshit.
--
Tune in to the new season of "24". Now with more torture!
DFS
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>>> http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/2007/05/18/dell-announces-the-models-for-ubuntu/
>>>
>>> Woot! Bring it on, baby!
>>
>> Let the "I decided not to buy a Dell Linux system" excuses start!
>
> Oh shut the fuck up!
No!
>> My estimate is 100,000 cheapskate fanboi requests for Dell to offer
>> Linux on desktops translates to 100 actual sales to said cheapskate
>> fanbois.
>
> More important is that it translate to more newbies buying them. If
> they can find them.
Here's what I've learned to do: <domain>/linux
> It looks to me like DELL is /still/ setting itself up for Linux
> failure.
What, you think they should ruin their website and company and over-promote
a proven non-seller?
>> You cola idiots are such hysterical children. Linux on 3 midrange
>> Dell systems is not going to be some magic turning point moment when
>> Linux was introduced and took the desktop world by storm.
>
> Whoever said it was?
>
> You like to set up strawmen, so you can sound like a big man knocking
> it down.
That's bullshit. It's cola wacks who are elevating this Dell thing into the
2nd (or is it 8th?) coming of Linux.
[H]omer the [C]lown has been licking his lips for months, as if a miracle is
going to occur (if we're lucky he took a cue from the Heaven's Gate doomsday
cult and had himself castrated in preparation for the big event).
> The problem here is not the fanbois. It is DELL itself. It is
> peddling BULLSHIT. And it can't even configure its own search engine
> to find the Ubuntu-is-coming page.
>
> Ah, nice sig-monster.
Another lying .sig, which should read.
"Dell: Windows systems fly out the door, so we even make money on
trialware."
You're off your game lately, Linonut.
DFS
> Been buying eSys machines for years with Linux preloaded for 127
> pounds. www.ebuyer.com
> 80Gb disk, 256Mb RAM 2.5GHz machine with keyboard and optical mouse.
Most buyers of that system wipe Linux and install XP. You too?
> Does dell$ come anywhere near that price range for a Linux PC?
Who cares? Most people aren't interested in the cheapest POS they can buy.
> Or are they just too late to enter the market at the right price point
> having sucked up to micoshaft for too long and seeing all their
> sales go down the pan?
Like every successful OEM, they became rich selling Windows systems, the
same way you built a "career" (whatever you do) on Windows.
[H]omer
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>> You cola idiots are such hysterical children. Linux on 3 midrange Dell
>> systems is not going to be some magic turning point moment when Linux was
>> introduced and took the desktop world by storm.
>
> Whoever said it was?
>
> You like to set up strawmen, so you can sound like a big man knocking it
> down.
Actually it sounds like DooFy is trying trying to convince *himself*.
Poor DooFy.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| 'Also, no one calls it PCI-X even though that's the "official "
| shortening of the much more commonly used "PCI Express".'
| - Hardon Quirk, COLA's resident "genius".
`----
Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.20-1.2312.fc5
14:46:43 up 32 days, 12:18, 0 users, load average: 0.05, 0.30, 0.32
DFS
> Dell are serious about trying to stay in business,
Linux will definitely not help in that endeavor.
> and they are deeply afraid of Microsoft.
You know this how?
OK
>Dell announces the models for Ubuntu
>
>,----[ Quote ]
>| We will be launching a Linux based OS (Ubuntu) on the E520, 1505 and XPS
>| 410 starting next Thursday, 5/24.
>`----
>
>http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/2007/05/18/dell-announces-the-models-for-ubuntu/
"We expect these systems to be less than 1% of our OS mix for the
entire year "
BWAHAHAHA HAHAHA HAA HAHAHAHAHA AHAHAA
LESS THAN 1%
Wow.
Erik Funkenbusch
> This is a hoot, for those of us who watched Microtel and System76
> executives making money on their GNU/Linux systems, marketed through Wal
> Mart web sites, plus, others...
System76 "executives"? They're a mom and pop shop buying single CPU's from
Dell and others and installing Linux for a premium markup. I can't imagine
they sell that many for the prices they're selling, and Walmart no longer
offers Microtel PC's on their website, so I doubt it was that profitable
for them. They also don't sell any Linux machines anymore. Nor does
Microcenter who offered Linux on some of their PowerSpec PC's for a time,
but stopped.
> Meanwhile, I have the many dozen PCs discarded by windiots, upon which I
> run Mepis, PcLinuxos, BSD, Knoppix, livecdlist.com distros on, all FREE!
Yes, free except for the massive amount of electricity you're wasting.
It's far more cost effective to buy a single beefy box with lots of memory
and run virtual machines than to run "many dozen" PC's... god, your
electric bill for that must be several hundreds per month.
Old PC's use about (sometimes even more) power than newer power efficient
PC's at orders of magnitude better performance. It's just plain stupid
financially to run so many old PC's, not to mention environmentally
irresponsible.
Linonut
> Linonut wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>>>> http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/2007/05/18/dell-announces-the-models-for-ubuntu/
>>>>
>>>> Woot! Bring it on, baby!
>>>
>>> Let the "I decided not to buy a Dell Linux system" excuses start!
>>
>> Oh shut the fuck up!
>
> No!
I didn't /really/ think that would work <grin>.
>> More important is that it translate to more newbies buying them. If
>> they can find them.
>
> Here's what I've learned to do: <domain>/linux
???
>> It looks to me like DELL is /still/ setting itself up for Linux
>> failure.
>
> What, you think they should ruin their website and company and over-promote
> a proven non-seller?
How can it be a proven non-seller if they haven't started selling it
yet?
All they need is a little "headline" section on their front page.
>> You like to set up strawmen, so you can sound like a big man knocking
>> it down.
>
> That's bullshit. It's cola wacks who are elevating this Dell thing into the
> 2nd (or is it 8th?) coming of Linux.
Welllll, maybe. You won't see me doing that.
I think the move is significant, for a number of reasons. The /least/
of these reasons is bumping up the sales of Linux.
>> Ah, nice sig-monster.
>
> Another lying .sig, which should read.
>
> "Dell: Windows systems fly out the door, so we even make money on
> trialware."
>
> You're off your game lately, Linonut.
What game? I'm dead serious. People are so blase about Windows that
DELL needs to excite them about getting some "free" software. Windows
itself isn't exciting enough to sell more machines. Hence, DELL is
floundering a bit (in the sense that they feel a need to boost sales),
and so they effectively have to sell machine-resident advertising to
boost their revenues or increase their margins.
What DELL is doing is trying to overcome the onerous price they have to
pay for Windows.
--
Windows XP is like a box of chocolates --
you never know when the steel bolts are going to spring out and
plunge straight through both cheeks.
Linonut
> 7 wrote:
>
>> Been buying eSys machines for years with Linux preloaded for 127
>> pounds. www.ebuyer.com
>> 80Gb disk, 256Mb RAM 2.5GHz machine with keyboard and optical mouse.
>
> Most buyers of that system wipe Linux and install XP.
Proof?
>> Or are they just too late to enter the market at the right price point
>> having sucked up to micoshaft for too long and seeing all their
>> sales go down the pan?
>
> Like every successful OEM, they became rich selling Windows systems...
A mere accident of history.
--
:read ~/.signature
owl
> owl <o...@rooftop.invalid> espoused:
>> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 00:56:54 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dell announces the models for Ubuntu
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>| We will be launching a Linux based OS (Ubuntu) on the E520, 1505 and XPS
>>>>| 410 starting next Thursday, 5/24.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/2007/05/18/dell-announces-the-models-for-ubuntu/
>>>
>>> Well, it's put up or shutup time for the Linux faithful. You should all
>>> run out and buy 10 computers from Dell with Linux.
>>>
>>
>> Why? Dell's not serious about Linux. If they were, you'd see it front
>> and center on their home page. They're cowards just like the rest
>> of the big computer makers. Toying with Linux in the shadows, wishing
>> Microsoft were gone, but not having the balls to take any risk.
>>
>
> Dell are serious about trying to stay in business, and they are deeply
> afraid of Microsoft. At this stage, it's not really clear what will
> happen with Vista. There are still plenty of people in large
> corporations foolish enough to spend millions on replacing all their
> computers with a new OS from Microsoft, and Dell would not want to miss
> out on any margin they could have from that.
>
> You should pick on the bully, if anyone, rather than picking on the
> victims of the bully, I think?
>
My beef with Dell is about their undocumented hardware proprietization,
which makes *me* the victim and *Dell* the bully. Can you think of any
reason, other than vendor lockin, for Dell to change the pinout of an
ATX motherboard powersupply connector? That they did so *without*
documenting it is evil.
I'll never buy from them again, nor will I recommend their products
to anyone, even if they were to become a 100% Linux vendor.
Rafael
> Mark Kent wrote:
>
>> Dell are serious about trying to stay in business, and they
>> are deeply afraid of Microsoft. At this stage, it's not
>> really clear what will happen with Vista. There are still
>> plenty of people in large corporations foolish enough to
>> spend millions on replacing all their computers with a new
>> OS from Microsoft, and Dell would not want to miss out on
>> any margin they could have from that.
>>
>> You should pick on the bully, if anyone, rather than picking
>> on the victims of the bully, I think?
>
> My beef with Dell is about their undocumented hardware
> proprietization, which makes *me* the victim and *Dell* the
> bully. Can you think of any reason, other than vendor lockin,
> for Dell to change the pinout of an ATX motherboard
> powersupply connector? That they did so *without*
> documenting it is evil.
>
> I'll never buy from them again, nor will I recommend their
> products to anyone, even if they were to become a 100% Linux
> vendor.
Overall, their products are robust. I have seen oversized
cooling fans, heat sinks, etc., so to mitigate trouble calls on
items such as overheating.
However, their systems are proprietary, not generic. I prefer
generic ATX cases, motherboards, etc. These are easily upgraded
without having to replace the entire box, motherboard and all.
Value of proprietary systems overall is the cost and ease to
install in the corporate world. This is provided one can
amortize the investment over at least 3 years. More favourably
would be 4 or 5.
Problem with Windows systems is that with each revision, one must
replace their IT desktop infrastructure, which is costly. Vista
illustrates this so clearly.
Linux is lighter weight, so slower systems perform adequately and
of course, newer, faster systems operate with sparkling
performance. Thus, one can aim for purchasing slightly more
expensive systems and shoot for a 5 year planning cycle of
replacement, which is more favourable on the corporate desktop
and server budget.
For home systems and small business networks, there is nothing
wrong with generic clone systems, for upgrade ability, especially
if gaming and graphics are more prevalent.
--
Cheers, Rafael
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm
DFS
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> 7 wrote:
>>
>>> Been buying eSys machines for years with Linux preloaded for 127
>>> pounds. www.ebuyer.com
>>> 80Gb disk, 256Mb RAM 2.5GHz machine with keyboard and optical mouse.
>>
>> Most buyers of that system wipe Linux and install XP.
>
> Proof?
>>> Or are they just too late to enter the market at the right price
>>> point having sucked up to micoshaft for too long and seeing all
>>> their
>>> sales go down the pan?
>>
>> Like every successful OEM, they became rich selling Windows
>> systems...
>
> A mere accident of history.
"Luck" and "accident of history" don't come close to explaining nearly 20
years of industry dominance.
Rafael
> Nerdwizard wrote:
>
>> Meanwhile, I have the many dozen PCs discarded by windiots,
>> upon which I run Mepis, PcLinuxos, BSD, Knoppix,
>> livecdlist.com distros on, all FREE!
>
> Yes, free except for the massive amount of electricity you're
> wasting. It's far more cost effective to buy a single beefy
> box with lots of memory and run virtual machines than to run
> "many dozen" PC's... god, your electric bill for that must be
> several hundreds per month.
>
> Old PC's use about (sometimes even more) power than newer
> power efficient PC's at orders of magnitude better
> performance. It's just plain stupid financially to run so
> many old PC's, not to mention environmentally irresponsible.
One practice that makes sense is putting idle PC's to sleep.
These can be woke up for patches, updates, backups, etc.
Although this green feature has been available on PC's for a
while, then why has not Microsoft supported Wake-on-LAN with
their SMS 2003? Wake-on-LAN has been around for a while.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sms/2003/library/techfaq/tfaq13.mspx
Click on hot link labeled:
> Q. Does SMS 2003 support Wake on LAN technology?
Following answer is provided:
> A. Wake on LAN technology allows a computer to enter a
> powered-down or sleep state, but enter an active state upon
> receiving specific network packets. SMS 2003 does not
> currently include Wake on LAN technology, though there are
> some third-party applications that provide Wake on LAN within
> SMS.
http://www.faqshop.com/sms2003/default.htm?http://www.faqshop.com/sms2003/sms2k3swd.htm
http://tinyurl.com/3e2wo5
> SMS does not support Wake-On-LAN out of the box. However
> SMSWakeUp from 1E is an integrated product that provides this
> functionality:
>
> http://www.1e.com/smswakeup
OTOH, Linux has Wake on LAN.
Linonut
> Linonut wrote:
>>>
>>> Most buyers of that system wipe Linux and install XP.
>>
>> Proof?
>
> http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?rb=27938236823&product_uid=120278&action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X3Jldmlld3M=&filter_display=reviews&filter_order=rating_desc&filter_category=&filter_string=&offset=0
It's not proof, it is only a few posters.
Nice to see the evidence of Windows "piracy", though. Thanks.
>> A mere accident of history.
>
> "Luck" and "accident of history" don't come close to explaining nearly 20
> years of industry dominance.
What industry dominance? Microsoft represents only about 10% of IT.
Oh, you're talking about the desktop.
Actually, if Xerox (who, in the /1970's/, had developed a GUI computer),
had not had a stupid corporate board, it might be Xerox who'd be the
predatory monopolist evil that is Microsoft today.
I take that back. Only Ballmer and Gates had the kind of drive needed
to grow a predatory monopoly.
--
Speak softly and carry a cellular phone.
DFS
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Linonut wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Most buyers of that system wipe Linux and install XP.
>>>
>>> Proof?
>>
>> http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?rb=27938236823&product_uid=120278&action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X3Jldmlld3M=&filter_display=reviews&filter_order=rating_desc&filter_category=&filter_string=&offset=0
>
> It's not proof, it is only a few posters.
Only a few? That system is sold w/ Linux. There are 28
reviewers/commenters, and when I last counted 24 of them had wiped Linux and
installed Windows.
> Nice to see the evidence of Windows "piracy", though. Thanks.
Wipe free Linux and install stolen Windows?
>>> A mere accident of history.
>>
>> "Luck" and "accident of history" don't come close to explaining
>> nearly 20 years of industry dominance.
>
> What industry dominance? Microsoft represents only about 10% of IT.
>
> Oh, you're talking about the desktop.
The most important market, by far, in size, revenue, installed base,
innovations, etc.
Until you get on cola, that is, and various bozos try to redefine market
size and importance by claiming "Linux runs on 495 supercomputers! Linux
runs on watches! Linux runs on toasters! MS represents 10% of IT!"
> Actually, if Xerox (who, in the /1970's/, had developed a GUI
> computer), had not had a stupid corporate board, it might be Xerox
> who'd be the predatory monopolist evil that is Microsoft today.
>
> I take that back. Only Ballmer and Gates had the kind of drive needed
> to grow a predatory monopoly.
How could they have stopped MS from achieving monopoly market share?
Linonut
> Linonut wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> Linonut wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Most buyers of that system wipe Linux and install XP.
>>>>
>>>> Proof?
>>>
>>> http://www.ebuyer.com/customer/products/index.html?rb=27938236823&product_uid=120278&action=c2hvd19wcm9kdWN0X3Jldmlld3M=&filter_display=reviews&filter_order=rating_desc&filter_category=&filter_string=&offset=0
>>
>> It's not proof, it is only a few posters.
>
> Only a few? That system is sold w/ Linux. There are 28
> reviewers/commenters, and when I last counted 24 of them had wiped Linux and
> installed Windows.
You'd better tell Microsoft then. Maybe they'll bring back the campaign
against "The Naked PC".
>> Oh, you're talking about the desktop.
>
> The most important market, by far, in size, revenue, installed base,
> innovations, etc.
Bullshit.
>> Actually, if Xerox (who, in the /1970's/, had developed a GUI
>> computer), had not had a stupid corporate board, it might be Xerox
>> who'd be the predatory monopolist evil that is Microsoft today.
>>
>> I take that back. Only Ballmer and Gates had the kind of drive needed
>> to grow a predatory monopoly.
>
> How could they have stopped MS from achieving monopoly market share?
If Xerox had been on the ball, both Microsoft and Apple would have been
/non-starters/.
--
"We ... come ... in ... ... ... peace!"
Hadron Quark
> On Sat, 19 May 2007 00:56:54 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Dell announces the models for Ubuntu
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| We will be launching a Linux based OS (Ubuntu) on the E520, 1505 and XPS
>>| 410 starting next Thursday, 5/24.
>> `----
>>
>> http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/2007/05/18/dell-announces-the-models-for-ubuntu/
>
> Well, it's put up or shutup time for the Linux faithful. You should all
> run out and buy 10 computers from Dell with Linux.
>
> Dell will need to see strong demand, or these may be the last models.
Well, I think Bailo has already boycotted DELL. A good start from the
Linux faithful. And the rest don't have any money.
Hadron Quark
> On Sat, 19 May 2007 00:56:54 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Dell announces the models for Ubuntu
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| We will be launching a Linux based OS (Ubuntu) on the E520, 1505 and XPS
>>| 410 starting next Thursday, 5/24.
>> `----
>>
>> http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/2007/05/18/dell-announces-the-models-for-ubuntu/
>
> Well, it's put up or shutup time for the Linux faithful. You should all
> run out and buy 10 computers from Dell with Linux.
>
> Dell will need to see strong demand, or these may be the last models.
One has to love the geeks trying to "big up the thread"
,----
| Do you know if Dell is going to offer Ubuntu as a download from their
| support page? I’d think that would be a good idea for people
| who want to switch over and only have to download a .ISO file and
| already having drivers installed. Hmm.. Granted I could just download
| Ubuntu from the normal place and download the drivers from
| Dell’s support page, assuming their going to offer driver
| support.
`----
ROTFLM
Driver support!
Not a clue.
--
"There is no such thing as intellectual property" - Marky Kent (in COLA Nov-2006)
Hadron Quark
>
> Although I do like my DELL Latitude D820 (bought by work), I will
> personally avoid DELL like the plague, and not just because of their
> Linux bullshit.
As I predicted. The Linux nuts are boycotting DELL. Probably with DELL
making the word "Ubuntu" synonymous with Linux.
All so predictable.
"personally avoid DELL like the plague"
LOL. How lame.
--
tourist, n.:
A pretty girl in Oklahoma.
Hadron Quark
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On Sat, 19 May 2007 00:56:54 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Dell announces the models for Ubuntu
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>| We will be launching a Linux based OS (Ubuntu) on the E520, 1505 and XPS
>>>| 410 starting next Thursday, 5/24.
>>> `----
>>>
>>> http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/2007/05/18/dell-announces-the-models-for-ubuntu/
>>
>> Well, it's put up or shutup time for the Linux faithful. You should all
>> run out and buy 10 computers from Dell with Linux.
>
> Why? We already have our Linux computers. It's the Common Man who's
> going to show DELL whether or not they want Ubuntu versus what they
> already have. Or a few people who like Linux already, and need a new
> computer, and think DELL is a good deal.
>
> You think we'd pay that much money for the privilege of astroturfing
> Linux at DELL?
>
> Why don't you go back to astroturfing posts, for which you can get paid.
>
>> Dell will need to see strong demand, or these may be the last models.
>
> Define "strong".
Err, enough to cover their costs and make a profit. You know. The real world.
Hadron Quark
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>>> http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/2007/05/18/dell-announces-the-models-for-ubuntu/
>>>
>>> Woot! Bring it on, baby!
>>
>> Let the "I decided not to buy a Dell Linux system" excuses start!
>
> Oh shut the fuck up!
Yes. Linosux had already stated he wouldn't be buying DELL. When he
found out they would be shipping it that is ....
>
>> My estimate is 100,000 cheapskate fanboi requests for Dell to offer Linux on
>> desktops translates to 100 actual sales to said cheapskate fanbois.
>
> More important is that it translate to more newbies buying them. If
> they can find them.
Bwahahaha. "IF".
>
> Try to find the Linux systems, starting from DELL's home page.
>
> In fact, type "linux" into the search field:
>
> You searched for: "linux"
> See Results From:
>
> Products (444)
> Technical Support (1455235)
> Articles & Solutions (1272)
>
> The first item, "Products", isn't even a clickable link!
Not released yet?
>
> Now let's assume I'm a bit more savvy than the user who simply knows the
> word "linux". Let's try "ubuntu":
>
> Sorry, No Results. You Searched for "ubuntu" in Products
> However, results were found in these categories:
>
> Technical Support (5792)
> Articles & Solutions (3)
>
> It looks to me like DELL is /still/ setting itself up for Linux
> failure.
or its not released yet?
>
>> You cola idiots are such hysterical children. Linux on 3 midrange Dell
>> systems is not going to be some magic turning point moment when Linux was
>> introduced and took the desktop world by storm.
>
> Whoever said it was?
>
> You like to set up strawmen, so you can sound like a big man knocking it
> down.
>
> The problem here is not the fanbois. It is DELL itself. It is peddling
> BULLSHIT. And it can't even configure its own search engine to find the
> Ubuntu-is-coming page.
UBUNTU is bullshit? I like it. Feisty is the best distro out there for
desktop installation by far.
Linonut
>> The problem here is not the fanbois. It is DELL itself. It is peddling
>> BULLSHIT. And it can't even configure its own search engine to find the
>> Ubuntu-is-coming page.
>
> UBUNTU is bullshit? I like it. Feisty is the best distro out there for
> desktop installation by far.
You are truly an idiot. Back into the bin with Timmy. You are both too
stupid to abide.
(Bunch of idiots!)
Hadron Quark
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Hadron Quark belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>>> The problem here is not the fanbois. It is DELL itself. It is peddling
>>> BULLSHIT. And it can't even configure its own search engine to find the
>>> Ubuntu-is-coming page.
>>
>> UBUNTU is bullshit? I like it. Feisty is the best distro out there for
>> desktop installation by far.
>
> You are truly an idiot. Back into the bin with Timmy. You are both too
> stupid to abide.
>
> (Bunch of idiots!)
So you think Feisty is rubbish too?
--
high technology, n.:
A California innovation composed of equal parts of silicon and
marijuana.
DFS
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>> Here's what I've learned to do: <domain>/linux
> ???
The Ghost In The Machine
<newsg...@schestowitz.com>
wrote
on Sat, 19 May 2007 00:56:54 +0100
<1719633.b...@schestowitz.com>:
> Dell announces the models for Ubuntu
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | We will be launching a Linux based OS (Ubuntu) on the E520, 1505 and XPS
> | 410 starting next Thursday, 5/24.
> `----
Ah! They're early. I was expecting Tuesday the 29th -- the day after
Memorial Day. Perhaps they're planning a big sale. Interesting...
>
> http://jeremy.linuxquestions.org/2007/05/18/dell-announces-the-models-for-ubuntu/
>
> Here are the models:
>
> http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/cto_xpsdt_410?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
Hm. No indication (yet) of Linux here. This is their XPS line.
If they do put Ubuntu on it, I'll be impressed -- though I'd have
to do more research as to how quiet their 710 model is.
> http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/cto_inspn_e1505?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
Inspiron notebook line. No indications of Linux yet here either.
We'll see come Thursday.
> http://www.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/dimen_e520?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd
Dimension desktops. This page has a strange malfunction: no pictures.
No Linux as yet, either...so maybe they're working on it.
>
>
> Related:
>
> http://www.ubuntu.com/dell
"COMING SOON: Ubuntu on Dell". The laptop shown is
probably an E1505 model.
>
> http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/ubuntu?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs
"COMING SOON: By Popular Demand [Ubuntu logo] Ubuntu"
The picture is interesting in that the flatscreen monitor
looks a bit fake.
Interestingly, the Dell desktop shown does not currently match
any of the Dimension series; it is instead an XPS 410.
http://www.dell.com/content/products/compare.aspx/desktops?c=us&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&~ck=mn
I'll put this down to marketing sloppiness, but they'd better be careful.
:-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
- allegedly said by Bill Gates, 1981, but somebody had to make this up!
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Mark Kent
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > Nerdwizard wrote:
> >
> >> Meanwhile, I have the many dozen PCs discarded by windiots,
> >> upon which I run Mepis, PcLinuxos, BSD, Knoppix,
> >> livecdlist.com distros on, all FREE!
> >
> > Yes, free except for the massive amount of electricity you're
> > wasting. It's far more cost effective to buy a single beefy
> > box with lots of memory and run virtual machines than to run
> > "many dozen" PC's... god, your electric bill for that must be
> > several hundreds per month.
> >
> > Old PC's use about (sometimes even more) power than newer
> > power efficient PC's at orders of magnitude better
> > performance. It's just plain stupid financially to run so
> > many old PC's, not to mention environmentally irresponsible.
>
> One practice that makes sense is putting idle PC's to sleep.
> These can be woke up for patches, updates, backups, etc.
>
> Although this green feature has been available on PC's for a
> while, then why has not Microsoft supported Wake-on-LAN with
> their SMS 2003? Wake-on-LAN has been around for a while.
>
Old PCs use far less power than new ones, though. Erik's point is way
off the mark. Obviously, you cannot do 3D rendering on an old machine,
but the power required to do so is extremely high, unless, of course,
you're looking at an ARM-based machine, say.
Look at an old Amiga or Atari running Linux, or perhaps an old Sun box
or an old RiscOS box, and you'll get surprisingly good performance at a
fraction of the running costs of a modern X86 machine running Windows.
Windows is an environmental nightmare, particularly as Erik would have
everyone bury last year's PCs in the ground and buy another set,
presumably to put in the ground next year whilst buying yet another set
of PCs for the latest "upgrade" of Windows.
Linux is environmentally fantastic - it allows older, inexpensive and
less powerful (using less electricity) machines to be used as thin
clients for a powerful server, to idle properly, and prevents the need
to put another several millions of computers into land fills.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
Erik Funkenbusch
> Old PCs use far less power than new ones, though.
What? Old use pretty much the same amount of power as new ones, though
high end machines may use more, other machines use a lot less. For
example, the low voltage Xeon processors used in LV Blade solutions use a
lot less total power than individual machines, no matter how old (typically
40 watts or so total power).
For example, a 600Mhz Athlon uses 45 Watts alone, while a Core 2 Duo draws
65 Watts and is orders of magnitude more powerful. While this is slightly
less power, it's not "far less", and certain performance per watt is orders
of magnitude faster.
> Erik's point is way
> off the mark. Obviously, you cannot do 3D rendering on an old machine,
> but the power required to do so is extremely high, unless, of course,
> you're looking at an ARM-based machine, say.
I assumed he was using his dozens of computers as servers, which wouldn't
be doing 3D rendering (unless it was a rendering farm). It's far more cost
efficient to get a single powerful box, say a quad core xeon and run
virtual machines than it is to run "dozens" of individual computers, each
with their own power supplies drawing 150-300 watts each.
> Look at an old Amiga or Atari running Linux, or perhaps an old Sun box
> or an old RiscOS box, and you'll get surprisingly good performance at a
> fraction of the running costs of a modern X86 machine running Windows.
I think we have grossly different ideas of "surprisingly good performance".
A machine that does 1MIPS (68000 at 8Mhz) can't compete with a machine
doing 57000 MIPS (Core 2 Extreme QX6700)
I don't care how "snappy" you think it is, they're just not on the same
planet. That's right, 57000x faster.
> Windows is an environmental nightmare, particularly as Erik would have
> everyone bury last year's PCs in the ground and buy another set,
> presumably to put in the ground next year whilst buying yet another set
> of PCs for the latest "upgrade" of Windows.
I'm curious where you come to these conclusions. We're discussing running
"dozens" of old (assume > 5 years old) PC's compared to running a single
fast server with virtual machines. The price difference, both in terms of
cost and effect on the environment is astronomical. Even if you got those
old PC's for free, they simply cost too much to run them all.
> Linux is environmentally fantastic - it allows older, inexpensive and
> less powerful (using less electricity) machines to be used as thin
> clients for a powerful server, to idle properly, and prevents the need
> to put another several millions of computers into land fills.
Less power does not mean less electricity. We now have Processors using <
5 watts that use 10x less energy than a processor that does > 10000x less
work.
Hadron Quark
> Rafael <raf...@ninjaNOSPAM.org> espoused:
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> > Nerdwizard wrote:
>> >
>> >> Meanwhile, I have the many dozen PCs discarded by windiots,
>> >> upon which I run Mepis, PcLinuxos, BSD, Knoppix,
>> >> livecdlist.com distros on, all FREE!
>> >
>> > Yes, free except for the massive amount of electricity you're
>> > wasting. It's far more cost effective to buy a single beefy
>> > box with lots of memory and run virtual machines than to run
>> > "many dozen" PC's... god, your electric bill for that must be
>> > several hundreds per month.
>> >
>> > Old PC's use about (sometimes even more) power than newer
>> > power efficient PC's at orders of magnitude better
>> > performance. It's just plain stupid financially to run so
>> > many old PC's, not to mention environmentally irresponsible.
>>
>> One practice that makes sense is putting idle PC's to sleep.
>> These can be woke up for patches, updates, backups, etc.
>>
>> Although this green feature has been available on PC's for a
>> while, then why has not Microsoft supported Wake-on-LAN with
>> their SMS 2003? Wake-on-LAN has been around for a while.
>>
>
> Old PCs use far less power than new ones, though. Erik's point is way
Err, I don't think so.
> off the mark. Obviously, you cannot do 3D rendering on an old
> machine,
Yes you can. Like they did in the olden days.
Have you seen what even the Quake 3 engine can do?
> but the power required to do so is extremely high, unless, of course,
> you're looking at an ARM-based machine, say.
>
> Look at an old Amiga or Atari running Linux, or perhaps an old Sun box
> or an old RiscOS box, and you'll get surprisingly good performance at a
> fraction of the running costs of a modern X86 machine running Windows.
No you wont. Why do you talk so much rubbish?
> Windows is an environmental nightmare, particularly as Erik would have
> everyone bury last year's PCs in the ground and buy another set,
> presumably to put in the ground next year whilst buying yet another set
> of PCs for the latest "upgrade" of Windows.
>
> Linux is environmentally fantastic - it allows older, inexpensive and
> less powerful (using less electricity) machines to be used as thin
(using less electricity) ?!?!?!? LOL.
> clients for a powerful server, to idle properly, and prevents the need
> to put another several millions of computers into land fills.
--
I cannot see average users bothering with windows machines once they
realise what they can do with a PS3. : Mark Kent, COLA Rottweiler and Optimist.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Sat, 19 May 2007 17:02:21 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2007 00:32:13 -0400, Nerdwizard wrote:
>
>> This is a hoot, for those of us who watched Microtel and System76
>> executives making money on their GNU/Linux systems, marketed through Wal
>> Mart web sites, plus, others...
>
> System76 "executives"? They're a mom and pop shop buying single CPU's
> from Dell and others and installing Linux for a premium markup. I
> can't imagine they sell that many for the prices they're selling, and
> Walmart no longer offers Microtel PC's on their website, so I doubt it
> was that profitable for them. They also don't sell any Linux machines
> anymore. Nor does Microcenter who offered Linux on some of their
> PowerSpec PC's for a time, but stopped.
>
As I showed Larry, my System76 laptop was comparable in price to the
closest Dell equivilent, and had the benefit of coming with Linux
preinstalled.
Dell's loss leaders are cheaper of course. Duh! that's what loss
leaders are for.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGUqg+d90bcYOAWPYRAiw6AJ9E3o4hXFAxlisypYjKt1XpgrHjfACcC9b5
F7FKQXOk1V+NGysSopSeEss=
=5cZH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Think for yourselves and allow others the privilege to do the same.
- Voltaire
Erik Funkenbusch
> Old PCs use far less power than new ones, though. Erik's point is way
> off the mark. Obviously, you cannot do 3D rendering on an old machine,
> but the power required to do so is extremely high, unless, of course,
> you're looking at an ARM-based machine, say.
As a followup, I did some calculations. Right now, Electricity here costs
about 8.38 cents per KWh. Let's say you 24 "old" computers, and each uses
about 150 Watts each. That's 3600 Watts, or 3600W/hrs per hour. This
comes out to $217.21 per 30 days, or $2,642.70 per year.
Compare this with a really beefy server, let's say 700 Watts to overshoot.
That's $42.23 per 30 days, or $513.86 per year.
That means, in 1 years time, you could buy and run a $2100 computer for the
same price as running your 24 "free" servers. In 2 years, you could buy a
$4200 Computer. And if those PC's draw 200 Watts, it's even worse. You
could buy a $3000 PC with the money you save.
What can you get for $2100? You can get a Dell Quad Core Server, with 8GB
of memory, and a 500GB hard disk. This system is more than capable of
running 24 virtual machines at 128MB each, allocating 15GB to each virtual
machine (about the size of the average hard disk from 5 or 6 years ago)
So no, don't try and tell me a bunch of old PC's is more cost efficient.
You're talking out of your ass if you do.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
Depends entirely on what your reference frame is. Most modern desktops
come with bigger PSU because they need it, they do a lot more. But an
older PIII with a 32MB Nvidia card and an old 20GB HD, is almost
certainly using less power than an nice shiny new Core2 Duo with the
latest wizzbang Nvidia 512BM monster.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGU00dd90bcYOAWPYRAuwYAKDNzyCKmlUEp6OcajpoeprNpmbGnQCgowF2
DJhZKMrrmk8oXJfwiU2NaJc=
=cU5q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
A bureaucracy is like a septic tank -- all the really big stuff float
to the top.
[H]omer
> On Tue, 22 May 2007 09:56:45 +0200,
> Hadron Quark <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> writes:
>>> Old PCs use far less power than new ones, though. Erik's point is way
>> Err, I don't think so.
> Depends entirely on what your reference frame is. Most modern desktops
> come with bigger PSU because they need it, they do a lot more. But an
> older PIII with a 32MB Nvidia card and an old 20GB HD, is almost
> certainly using less power than an nice shiny new Core2 Duo with the
> latest wizzbang Nvidia 512BM monster.
No doubt Quark is getting confused between CPUs and *systems*. Modern
CPUs are indeed more power efficient, but that's only one part of the
puzzle. Add the graphics hardware you mention, the typically greater
number of fans required in a modern system (certainly in gaming rigs),
considerably more motherboard components than older systems, 10/15K hard
drives, much faster optical drives, and a bigger PSU, and today's PCs
are in fact much more power hungry than older systems.
--
K.
http://slated.org
,----
| Amarok Now Playing: "/mnt/sky/The Sad But True Story Of Ray Mingus,
| The Lumberjack Of Bulk Rock City, And His Never Slacking Stribe In
| Exploiting The So Far Undiscovered Areas Of The Intention To Bodily
| Intercourse From The Opposite Species Of His Kind, During Intake Of
| All The Mental Condition That Could Be Derived From Fermentation.ogg"
`----
Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.20-1.2312.fc5
22:39:40 up 35 days, 20:11, 3 users, load average: 0.18, 0.15, 0.11
Erik Funkenbusch
> Verily I say unto thee, that Jim Richardson spake thusly:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 09:56:45 +0200,
>> Hadron Quark <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>>> Old PCs use far less power than new ones, though. Erik's point is way
>
>>> Err, I don't think so.
>
>> Depends entirely on what your reference frame is. Most modern desktops
>> come with bigger PSU because they need it, they do a lot more. But an
>> older PIII with a 32MB Nvidia card and an old 20GB HD, is almost
>> certainly using less power than an nice shiny new Core2 Duo with the
>> latest wizzbang Nvidia 512BM monster.
>
> No doubt Quark is getting confused between CPUs and *systems*. Modern
> CPUs are indeed more power efficient, but that's only one part of the
> puzzle. Add the graphics hardware you mention, the typically greater
> number of fans required in a modern system (certainly in gaming rigs),
> considerably more motherboard components than older systems, 10/15K hard
> drives, much faster optical drives, and a bigger PSU, and today's PCs
> are in fact much more power hungry than older systems.
We're not talking about gaming rigs here. You're just trying to muddy the
waters. 24 old pc's being used as *SERVERS*, not desktop computers,
without 3D hardware of any kind. Consider also that you're talking about
24 Optical drives, 24 hard disks, 24 processors, compared to one modern
beefy one of each.
Mark Kent
Wrong. On a server system or set of systems, you'd spin down everything
you don't need, so that argument is tosh.
A 75MHz pentium consumed about 8 Watts, whereas a 3GHz Intel dual-core
quad uses about 130 Watts, which are more or less the two ends of the
scale. Of course, this is a maximum power consumption, and one must
also consider the greatly increased consumption of all the support
components as well, north & south bridges, PCI buses, everything. The
power consumed by modern machines is *massively* in excess of early
ones. This is why battery technology is such a problem - if power
consumption were really falling, then we wouldn't need better batteries
all teh time.
Anyway, if we assume that the machine consumption is about 4 times the
CPU consumption (at max load), then the 3G dual-core is using around 500
Watts (which is about right, I think, in fact, maybe on the low side,
bearing in mind that PSUs cannot be 100% efficient), and the Pentium 75M
machine would be using about 40 Watts. Of course, if you were
clustering the Pentium 75M, you'd shut down all the bits you need, so if
the overhead consumption can be reduced by, say, 25% by shutting down
unecessary drives, ports and so on, then you get to 30Watts per P75, at
max load. 500/30 = ~16. Ie., you could cluster 16 old PCs and still
come in comparably on power consumption with one modern machine, or
cluster 10 and you are winning.
Trouble with you, Erik, is you never let facts get in the way of a
rotten point, do you?
Also, if you do this, you stop 16 PCs going into a landfill, and save
yourself the cost of buying a new one, too. Furthermore, if you are
using some kind of failsafe clustering, then you are protected against
component failure in a way which you are not with the single machine.
This means, for a resilient arrangement, you should be comparing two
modern machines against up to 32 older ones.
Erik Funkenbusch
>> We're not talking about gaming rigs here. You're just trying to muddy the
>> waters. 24 old pc's being used as *SERVERS*, not desktop computers,
>> without 3D hardware of any kind. Consider also that you're talking about
>> 24 Optical drives, 24 hard disks, 24 processors, compared to one modern
>> beefy one of each.
>
> Wrong. On a server system or set of systems, you'd spin down everything
> you don't need, so that argument is tosh.
Umm.. no. A server would not spin down anything, it takes too long to
start it up.
> A 75MHz pentium consumed about 8 Watts
That's a 14 year old part. No Pentium 75 Montherboard could even sport
enough memory to run much of a server. A more realistic part would be a
PIII 850 or so, somewhere around 25 Watts. That at least gives you enough
power and memory capacity to run a minimal server.
> whereas a 3GHz Intel dual-core quad uses about 130 Watts
That's the "Extreme" Desktop chip. The very next part down is only 65
Watts. On the server side, LV Xeon Dual-core Sossman's draw about 31
Watts. Even on the low end of the Desktop part, the Core 2 L7200 uses only
17Watts.
> which are more or less the two ends of the scale.
One totally unusable, the other ridiculously overclocked.
> Of course, this is a maximum power consumption, and one must
> also consider the greatly increased consumption of all the support
> components as well, north & south bridges, PCI buses, everything. The
> power consumed by modern machines is *massively* in excess of early
> ones. This is why battery technology is such a problem - if power
> consumption were really falling, then we wouldn't need better batteries
> all teh time.
We need better batteries because we're trying to make batteries less a part
of the mobile PC's. Today's batteries are a fraction of the size of older
ones, allowing for smaller machines as well as lighter ones.
Yes, you can find power hungry high end systems, but you can also find very
beefy power conscious systems.
> Anyway, if we assume that the machine consumption is about 4 times the
> CPU consumption (at max load), then the 3G dual-core is using around 500
> Watts (which is about right, I think, in fact, maybe on the low side,
> bearing in mind that PSUs cannot be 100% efficient), and the Pentium 75M
> machine would be using about 40 Watts. Of course, if you were
> clustering the Pentium 75M, you'd shut down all the bits you need, so if
> the overhead consumption can be reduced by, say, 25% by shutting down
> unecessary drives, ports and so on, then you get to 30Watts per P75, at
> max load. 500/30 = ~16. Ie., you could cluster 16 old PCs and still
> come in comparably on power consumption with one modern machine, or
> cluster 10 and you are winning.
Even if we take your numbers at face value (they're not even close), that
still ignores the fact that those 16 P75's aren't anywhere near even as
powerful as the cheapest, lowest power consumer PC you can buy today.
> Trouble with you, Erik, is you never let facts get in the way of a
> rotten point, do you?
You should talk. A P75 comes in at about 100 MIPS, compare that with P3
733 which comes in at 1354 MIPS, and the above mentioned 17 Watt L7200 at
about 10000 MIPS. That's right 100x more powerful at 2x the power usage.
> Also, if you do this, you stop 16 PCs going into a landfill, and save
> yourself the cost of buying a new one, too. Furthermore, if you are
> using some kind of failsafe clustering, then you are protected against
> component failure in a way which you are not with the single machine.
> This means, for a resilient arrangement, you should be comparing two
> modern machines against up to 32 older ones.
Even factoring in the cost of recycling the old components, you can still
buy a $3000 new Server, using less electricity and have orders of magnitude
more power. for the same price as you would spend on power alone for those
old PC's.
Peter Köhlmann
> On Wed, 23 May 2007 07:47:00 +0100, Mark Kent wrote:
>
>>> We're not talking about gaming rigs here. You're just trying to muddy
>>> the
>>> waters. 24 old pc's being used as *SERVERS*, not desktop computers,
>>> without 3D hardware of any kind. Consider also that you're talking
>>> about 24 Optical drives, 24 hard disks, 24 processors, compared to one
>>> modern beefy one of each.
>>
>> Wrong. On a server system or set of systems, you'd spin down everything
>> you don't need, so that argument is tosh.
>
> Umm.. no. A server would not spin down anything, it takes too long to
> start it up.
>
Bullshit. Depends entirely on the type of server.
< snip more Funkenbusch idiocy >
--
Linux: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware
Larry Qualig
wrote:
Perhaps Mark "No IP" Kent can enlighten IBM with his theory because
IBM seems to believe that one modern PC is more energy efficient than
several older ones.
http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/21580.wss
IBM Unleashes World's Fastest Chip in Powerful New Computer
<quote>
IBM calculates that 30 SunFire v890s can be consolidated into a single
rack of the new IBM machine, saving more than $100,000 per year on
energy costs. According to IDC, IBM has gained 10.4 points of UNIX
revenue share in the past five years -- versus HP's loss of 5.3 points
and Sun's loss of 1.4 points. IBM will use the new machine to target
customers with less-efficient HP, Sun and Dell servers.
</quote>
Larry Qualig
Larry Qualig
Larry Qualig
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On 23 May 2007 05:37:17 -0700,
Larry Qualig <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
> On May 23, 4:37 am, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com>
> wrote:
>
> Perhaps Mark "No IP" Kent can enlighten IBM with his theory because
> IBM seems to believe that one modern PC is more energy efficient than
> several older ones.
>
Do you understand the difference between power usage and efficiency?
A PIII 1000 draws about 20-25 watts, far less than a dual core Xeon, but
it is less efficient due primarily to the higher junction voltage.
Modern PCs are better, but the older ones are already paid for, and take
resources to dispose of. Sometimes, it makes sense to use them, rather
than throwing them away.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGVLCZd90bcYOAWPYRAvTJAJ43F0RFUSWdxxs1OmijfTrUUCx7YACdG7UC
k1KFPZP4xOEWHlGT2eQr7+M=
=emAU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If the government doesn't trust us with our guns,
why should we trust them with theirs?
Peter Köhlmann
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 23 May 2007 05:37:17 -0700,
> Larry Qualig <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
>> On May 23, 4:37 am, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>> Perhaps Mark "No IP" Kent can enlighten IBM with his theory because
>> IBM seems to believe that one modern PC is more energy efficient than
>> several older ones.
>>
>
>
> Do you understand the difference between power usage and efficiency?
>
> A PIII 1000 draws about 20-25 watts, far less than a dual core Xeon, but
> it is less efficient due primarily to the higher junction voltage.
>
>
> Modern PCs are better, but the older ones are already paid for, and take
> resources to dispose of. Sometimes, it makes sense to use them, rather
> than throwing them away.
>
It always depends on *what* you use them for
I have a rather old PII 450MHz serving a a server (file server, printing,
scanning etc)
It is easily more than fast enough for that task. Yet it uses far less power
than a more modern, faster machine. And yes, it powers down disks not
currently in use (in has more than 1.5 TBytes attached to it, filled with
hundreds of movies playable all over the network and also on my
TV/Stereo/Dolby rig, and hundreds of ripped CDs (all bought and payed for))
The processor of that server rarely escapes absolute boredome.
Any modern processor would just faster twiddle his thumbs.
The machine uses less than 80Watts on average, making Erik "FUDdingmuch"
Funkenbuschs claims somewhat strange. According to him, I would not need
any heating in winter with such a setup
--
I hear if you play the Windows XP CD backward you'll hear satanic
messages. But even scarier, if you play it forward it installs
Windows XP!!
Larry Qualig
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 23 May 2007 05:37:17 -0700,
>
> > On May 23, 4:37 am, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > Perhaps Mark "No IP" Kent can enlighten IBM with his theory because
> > IBM seems to believe that one modern PC is more energy efficient than
> > several older ones.
>
> Do you understand the difference between power usage and efficiency?
>
> A PIII 1000 draws about 20-25 watts, far less than a dual core Xeon, but
> it is less efficient due primarily to the higher junction voltage.
>
> Modern PCs are better, but the older ones are already paid for, and take
> resources to dispose of. Sometimes, it makes sense to use them, rather
> than throwing them away.
Sure, but what's your point? The discussion is what is more efficient
to operate... 16 older PC's or one new one. Not junction voltages. To
quote what was mentioned in this thread:
<quote>
Ie., you could cluster 16 old PCs and still come in comparably on
power consumption with one modern machine, or cluster 10 and you are
winning.
</quote>
If all that one needed was ONE slow 'print server' that prints a page
every few days then sure... ONE old existing low end machine is more
efficient to own and operate than a high machine with a pair of duo-
core CPU's.
But the discussion *IS* about running "16 older PCs" in which case it
is far more efficient to run one modern box.
For starters the modern PC has advanced power management which is
unlikely to exist in older units. But aside from power management 16
older PC's have:
16 motherboards
16 video cards
16 NICs
16 power supplies
16 power supply fans
16 CPU fans
16 CPUs
16 Disk drives
16 etc, etc, etc.
One modern machine will have a single mobo, one (possibly two) onboard
NICs, one power supply (with a possibly a hot spare), a fraction of
the disk drives, one video card, etc, etc.
The one modern machine WILL use less power and will be more efficient
to operate over the long term. This is exactly the same reasoning that
IBM uses in the press release for their new Power6 processor. (My
emphasis added.)
http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/21580.wss
IBM Unleashes World's Fastest Chip in Powerful New Computer
<quote>
IBM calculates that 30 SunFire v890s can be consolidated into a single
rack of the new IBM machine, *SAVING* more than $100,000 per year on
*ENERGY COSTS*. According to IDC, IBM has gained 10.4 points of UNIX
revenue share in the past five years -- versus HP's loss of 5.3 points
and Sun's loss of 1.4 points. IBM will use the new machine to target
customers with *LESS-EFFICIENT* HP, Sun and Dell servers.
</quote>
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On 24 May 2007 07:17:56 -0700,
no need after install.
> 16 NICs
> 16 power supplies
> 16 power supply fans
> 16 CPU fans
if it's that old, it may well be passively cooled
> 16 CPUs
> 16 Disk drives
Shared storeage, or diskless
> 16 etc, etc, etc.
>
etc etc
> One modern machine will have a single mobo, one (possibly two) onboard
> NICs, one power supply (with a possibly a hot spare), a fraction of
> the disk drives, one video card, etc, etc.
>
> The one modern machine WILL use less power and will be more efficient
> to operate over the long term. This is exactly the same reasoning that
> IBM uses in the press release for their new Power6 processor. (My
> emphasis added.)
>
No, one modern machine *may* use less power, it all depends on what you
are doing, and what older machines you have/want to use.
You are also ignoring the cost of *buying* the new machine, and the cost
(both financial and other) of disposing of the old ones.
> http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/21580.wss
>
>
> IBM Unleashes World's Fastest Chip in Powerful New Computer
>
><quote>
> IBM calculates that 30 SunFire v890s can be consolidated into a single
> rack of the new IBM machine, *SAVING* more than $100,000 per year on
> *ENERGY COSTS*. According to IDC, IBM has gained 10.4 points of UNIX
> revenue share in the past five years -- versus HP's loss of 5.3 points
> and Sun's loss of 1.4 points. IBM will use the new machine to target
> customers with *LESS-EFFICIENT* HP, Sun and Dell servers.
></quote>
Yes your point? are you claiming that in *all* possible cases, one
modern machine has lower power costs than a cluster of older machines?
Sometimes, it makes more sense to use what you already have, sometimes,
it makes sense to buy new. This is news to you?
(btw, still enjoying my System76 laptop, and the fact that it was price
compatible with the nearest Dell equivilent.)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGVeEWd90bcYOAWPYRAoVYAJ4joVpVYZl/yGU9xMhCOXpWJ4Rq1QCfXY1/
URV2a2eKotHpC/L3g7Yy+tI=
=1vz7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Microsoft - because god hates us
Larry Qualig
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
At first I agreed but I think that there are several older computers
that won't get past the POST without a video card present. Models that
are engineered and sold for 'server purposes' (rack mount for example)
usually have a BIOS setting to allow it to boot without a video card
but desktop "commodity" PCs don't always have this BIOS setting. So
we'll compromise and say 6-8 video cards.
> > 16 NICs
> > 16 power supplies
> > 16 power supply fans
> > 16 CPU fans
>
> if it's that old, it may well be passively cooled
>
> > 16 CPUs
> > 16 Disk drives
>
> Shared storeage, or diskless
You may be stretching it a bit here. A PC does need a disk to boot and
run from. Most PCs sold in the past several years have the PXE boot
option so they could be used as a diskless workstation.
Luckily someone mentioned 75Mhz Pentium processors so this leaves me
with an escape clause. The Pentium-75Mhz was introduced in 1994. Intel
didn't introduce the PXE boot until 5 years later in 1999 so these
won't support a network boot.
> > 16 etc, etc, etc.
>
> etc etc
etc.
> > One modern machine will have a single mobo, one (possibly two) onboard
> > NICs, one power supply (with a possibly a hot spare), a fraction of
> > the disk drives, one video card, etc, etc.
>
> > The one modern machine WILL use less power and will be more efficient
> > to operate over the long term. This is exactly the same reasoning that
> > IBM uses in the press release for their new Power6 processor. (My
> > emphasis added.)
>
> No, one modern machine *may* use less power, it all depends on what you
> are doing, and what older machines you have/want to use.
Yes. Your actual mileage will vary.
> You are also ignoring the cost of *buying* the new machine,
We're talking about running 12 or more ancient 75Mhz bricks or
something like that. You don't need to buy the quad duo-core monster
to replace it with. Spend $200-$300 on eBay or something and you can
get one machine with more than enough oomph to replace all those
others.
> and the cost (both financial and other) of disposing of the old ones.
Your lack of creativity is disappointing my friend. Here's what you
do. You take the box that the *new* computer came in. Stick the old
computer in the new box, seal it up, and leave it at the end of the
driveway as if the delivery guy left it there. Soon after darkness
falls someone else will have "claimed the loot" and disposing of your
old computer is no longer a problem.<g>
> >http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/21580.wss
>
> > IBM Unleashes World's Fastest Chip in Powerful New Computer
>
> ><quote>
> > IBM calculates that 30 SunFire v890s can be consolidated into a single
> > rack of the new IBM machine, *SAVING* more than $100,000 per year on
> > *ENERGY COSTS*. According to IDC, IBM has gained 10.4 points of UNIX
> > revenue share in the past five years -- versus HP's loss of 5.3 points
> > and Sun's loss of 1.4 points. IBM will use the new machine to target
> > customers with *LESS-EFFICIENT* HP, Sun and Dell servers.
> ></quote>
>
> Yes your point? are you claiming that in *all* possible cases, one
> modern machine has lower power costs than a cluster of older machines?
>
> Sometimes, it makes more sense to use what you already have, sometimes,
> it makes sense to buy new. This is news to you?
Not all. But in this hypothetical case where we're talking about a
dozen or more older PC's its difficult to see how they would be more
efficient than a single beefier unit. It doesn't have to be the latest
and greatest powerhouse sold but a 2.8-3.6Ghz machines can be had for
reasonable cost.
> (btw, still enjoying my System76 laptop, and the fact that it was price
> compatible with the nearest Dell equivilent.)
Excellent news. Hopefully it'll treat you well. I'm having a little
bit of "buyers remorse" with an HP notebook (not laptop) that I got
about 5 or 6 weeks ago. I like the really small form factor and the
display but the rest of the unit is so-so.
Nothing major just stupid little things. The power supply connector is
in the wrong place. There's only one USB connector and it's where the
power supply connector should be. The keyboard layout is somewhat
different and the Alt (or is it Control) key is in the wrong place so
I'm constantly hitting it by mistake.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On 24 May 2007 12:53:03 -0700,
Actually, they will, with the correct NIC. (booting from a NIC requires
a special ROM and NIC for pre PXE systems.)
>
>
>> > 16 etc, etc, etc.
>>
>> etc etc
>
> etc.
>
>
>> > One modern machine will have a single mobo, one (possibly two) onboard
>> > NICs, one power supply (with a possibly a hot spare), a fraction of
>> > the disk drives, one video card, etc, etc.
>>
>> > The one modern machine WILL use less power and will be more efficient
>> > to operate over the long term. This is exactly the same reasoning that
>> > IBM uses in the press release for their new Power6 processor. (My
>> > emphasis added.)
>>
>> No, one modern machine *may* use less power, it all depends on what you
>> are doing, and what older machines you have/want to use.
> Yes. Your actual mileage will vary.
>
>> You are also ignoring the cost of *buying* the new machine,
> We're talking about running 12 or more ancient 75Mhz bricks or
> something like that. You don't need to buy the quad duo-core monster
> to replace it with. Spend $200-$300 on eBay or something and you can
> get one machine with more than enough oomph to replace all those
> others.
Which is $200-$300 more than the existing machines are costing, and you
then have to deal with disposing of the old ones.
Agreed, and it doesn't matter if you already *have* the older machines,
and don't have the dosh for the new one.
I am certainly not claiming that the older machine option is the best in
all or even most circumstances. Ironically enough, I am in the process
of replacing about a dozen servers at work, with two beefier boxes for
all the reasons discussed above, plus the reliability/warranty issues.
But it may well be the right decision in some circumstances.
Mind you, replacing those (working) servers at corporate, is going to
cost us a tad under $20,000, but we have power and heat constraints
there, and I do so look forward to playing with Xen on a Quad AMD dual
core box...
After that little project, time to start getting rid of the remaining
couple of MS-Windows fileservers. Replacing them with SAMBA. Sweet!
>
>> (btw, still enjoying my System76 laptop, and the fact that it was price
>> compatible with the nearest Dell equivilent.)
>
> Excellent news. Hopefully it'll treat you well. I'm having a little
> bit of "buyers remorse" with an HP notebook (not laptop) that I got
> about 5 or 6 weeks ago. I like the really small form factor and the
> display but the rest of the unit is so-so.
>
> Nothing major just stupid little things. The power supply connector is
> in the wrong place. There's only one USB connector and it's where the
> power supply connector should be. The keyboard layout is somewhat
> different and the Alt (or is it Control) key is in the wrong place so
> I'm constantly hitting it by mistake.
>
The Darter has a USB connector on left, right and back, and the built in
card reader (SD and stuff) The only complaint I have about the physical
box, is that the battery sticks out a bit in the back. My wife's iBook
is smooth and rectangular, with no projections (although it has a slot
DVD drive <spit> ) and I like that part of it better. The Darter has a
few bits that can "hang up" on a bag or coat &etc. Other than that,
it's great.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFGVf0Hd90bcYOAWPYRAqRwAJ4+7Jwo7EEl+CpGfzE4elytaP8TfACff2zi
FDr5kpyGvw/Rd4dK+dSnL4U=
=7LcZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Yield to temptation; it may not pass your way again.
-- Lazarus Long
Hadron Quark
> On 23 May 2007 05:37:17 -0700,
> Larry Qualig <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
>> On May 23, 4:37 am, Erik Funkenbusch <e...@despam-funkenbusch.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>> Perhaps Mark "No IP" Kent can enlighten IBM with his theory because
>> IBM seems to believe that one modern PC is more energy efficient than
>> several older ones.
>>
>
>
> Do you understand the difference between power usage and efficiency?
Yes. You would need more than one "OLD" PC to do the work one does
now. It would be far less efficient to do that work on old PCs.
>
> A PIII 1000 draws about 20-25 watts, far less than a dual core Xeon, but
> it is less efficient due primarily to the higher junction voltage.
>
Here comes the strawman .....
>
> Modern PCs are better, but the older ones are already paid for, and take
> resources to dispose of. Sometimes, it makes sense to use them, rather
> than throwing them away.
--
You are a vile asshole, flatfish. : Peter Köhlmann, COLA.
Hadron Quark
> Verily I say unto thee, that Jim Richardson spake thusly:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2007 09:56:45 +0200,
>> Hadron Quark <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>>> Old PCs use far less power than new ones, though. Erik's point is way
>
>>> Err, I don't think so.
>
>> Depends entirely on what your reference frame is. Most modern desktops
>> come with bigger PSU because they need it, they do a lot more. But an
>> older PIII with a 32MB Nvidia card and an old 20GB HD, is almost
>> certainly using less power than an nice shiny new Core2 Duo with the
>> latest wizzbang Nvidia 512BM monster.
>
> No doubt Quark is getting confused between CPUs and *systems*. Modern
No Quark isn't. Jim snipped my comments.
> CPUs are indeed more power efficient, but that's only one part of the
> puzzle. Add the graphics hardware you mention, the typically greater
> number of fans required in a modern system (certainly in gaming rigs),
> considerably more motherboard components than older systems, 10/15K hard
> drives, much faster optical drives, and a bigger PSU, and today's PCs
> are in fact much more power hungry than older systems.
You really are that dim aren't you? You really think things are more
efficient last year? Don't be such a fool.
Again : if you got the HW together from 10 years ago to the same WORK
that a modern server is capable of doing, which do you think would cost
you the most in terms of power, ventilation, maintenance, disposal,
effort to maintain the HW. set up costs etc etc etc.
Now, go apply some Chamomile to that slapping.
--
"And spellchecker won;t help." : Roy Schwestowitz from comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Hadron Quark
Good snipping. You removed all my comments about modern PCs doing more
work.
Mark Kent
Of course it's bullsh1t - why would you need access to 24 optical
drives at short notice? One is enough.
Thufir
[...]
>> Does dell$ come anywhere near that price range for a Linux PC?
>
> Who cares? Most people aren't interested in the cheapest POS they can
> buy.
[...]
Dell. From the get-go, Dell has been about reducing the cost versus its
competitors.
-Thufir