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. ;-)
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Warning: This encrypted signature is a dangerous
munition. Please notify the US government
immediately upon reception.
0000 0000 0000 0000 0001 0000 0000 0000 ...
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
