[H]omer <spam@xxxxxxx> espoused:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Jerry McBride spake thusly:
>
>> If a company brings a new processor... faster than before... better than
>> before... more bits than before... People will buy it thinking they are
>> getting something good. Never mind it only gets a 2 hour battery life, it
>> needs to be rebooted two or three times an hour... Dude... it's better,
>> they said so...
>
> I built a system around a P4 Prescott, thinking it was "better" because
> of the magic 3.6GHz number.
>
> Oh, it was better alright.
>
> Better at heating my room, better at giving me a permanent headache due
> to the fan noise, and better at eating power supplies (three down,
> awaiting number four ... all rated >500W).
>
> And the real bitch ... my 2GHz AMD64 laptop is faster.
>
I've reached much the same conclusion. You only need high performance
machines for certain types of application, which include gaming
(although consoles are arguably better), audio/video processing and studio
work, or real data-centre or telco machines. Pretty much any other
usage can readily be met with fairly mean capabilities. The PS3 is a
good example, get YDL on it, and it will do what most people want. I'm
currently looking at Tranquil PC here, and another, efficientpc.co.uk.
Both have ubuntu options, and are offering power consumption of between
25 and 60 Watts, so not only would there be silent running, but I could
avoid some house-heating, too.
--
| 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/ |
|
|
