[rescue] Compaq Proliant 8000

[Charles Shannon Hendrix]

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
the time.

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
industry?

> >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]