The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, BearItAll
> <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote
> on Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:10:32 +0100
> <1184227833.21936.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>
>>> Kernel space: Progress on ACPI and power management
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> | Data centers demand cooler-running Linux boxes, and several
>>> | projects are starting to deliver.
>>> `----
>>>
>>>
http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2007/071107-kernel.html?fsrc=rss-linux-news
>>>
>>
>> There isn't usually a need for all office positions to go for the high
>> power
>> PCs. But there is the problem that the range of CPUs for PCs tends to be
>> much smaller than it once was, in fact just to make sure I wasn't talking
>> bollocks I just had a look. The range available in tiny.
>>
>> For example if you go to Intel's web site they isn't a huge range on
>> there, the only thing they are interested in pushing are the high speed
>> products. This is probably so that they can reduce the number of
>> manufacturing plants.
>
> That, and increase their margin. After all, higher-powered
> products usually sell for more. I've not noticed too
> many $199 units lately (the cheapest Dell desktop is $349;
> the cheapest notebook $499).
>
>>
>> In your favourite PC suppliers web site, the low end machines are 3G dual
>> cores.
>>
>> So in a great many situations where a lesser machine would do, buyers
>> have no choice but to buy power guzzling machines.
>>
>> I have mentioned before my use of silent cool Linux computers, the size
>> of a router, no fan just ambient air cooling. It is a full Linux server.
>> It can just as well be a Linux client. Windows would go onto this instead
>> for those into that sort of thing. It wouldn't be a great computer for
>> most home users, but it is more than powerfull enough for most office
>> situations.
>>
>> There are a lot of examples of these mini PCs around now. All that you
>> need to take into account is that you do not want to add hot components.
>> So probably a 120G SATA would be the top limit, but in an office it is
>> much more likely the data is on the servers, so a very small drive is all
>> that is really needed. I suppose you could take this further to a no
>> drive system by booting from the server too.
>
> If one can tolerate the network load.
>
>>
>> Thinks: I know we could do Linux that way, no local drive, I wonder if
>> windows could be ran that way? I don't think I have ever heard of it
>> being done except that booting DOS from my Novel servers many years ago
>> was pretty much the normal thing to do.
>>
>
> It would be mildly interesting to try. Of course, one
> could cheat by bringing up Linux diskless then running
> Windows from within a QEMU or VmWare emulator on an image
> stored on the server; Windows thinks it's local but it's
> not. ;-)
>
I was thinking about this for a while after I posted this, but I wonder how
this would work as far as the registration of Windows is concerned. I don't
know if they still do that thing where they mark the drive outside of the
normal formated volumes.
|
|
