Re: [PLUG] AMD or Intel P4??

[gabriel rosenkoetter <gr@eclipsed.net>]

On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 08:30:12PM -0400, Paul wrote:
> Things I'm not aware of.  That lack of awareness also leads business 
> administrators to choose Windows servers on PC platforms.  It's just 
> easier because it's familiar.  Not that it's truely better.  The 
> important thing is to choose the right hardware for the job.  For some 
> jobs that means PC hardware.  The other important thing is to let 
> computer people choose the computers!

This whole thread began because someone asked a qualitative question
("Which is, AMD or Intel?"), and my response was to suggest that he
wasn't considering enough options and that, in fact, there was
significantly better hardware to be had at (what I think are)
reasonable prices, and it should be considered.

Are you agreeing with that statement now?

> Workstations.

So they replaced some Indys or (outside shot) Octanes with
much newer Intel boxes. Whatever. If they'd gotten shiny new O2s,
they'd have significantly better graphics performance (2D and 3D),
but they would have paid about twice as much per workstation. They
accepted the trade-off, since they didn't really need more than
the IA32-based machines could provide. That's totally reasonable,
but one should be aware that wone is accepting a tradeoff.

(Probably, they could have bought used O2s and been just as happy,
but businesses will almost never buy "used" hardware; outside chance
"refurbished".)

> Basic network stuff like DNS is what they were planning when I left.

... which I could do (and have done) for even a large domain on a
mac68k. You don't need anywhere near as many horses as are in any of
the computers under discussion to do DNS. I'm looking for more
things to do on an Ultra 5 right now, since it seems like a waste of
it to only do DNS, NIS, and NFS home directories. (Note that if it
were Linux, that'd be plenty. Cf, how I feel about NFS on Linux.)

> That's true.  It does preach.  But, they are also interviewing people in 
> the industry.

Oh, come on. Which of those people do you think they interviewed,
the ones that have changed and are happy, or the ones that haven't
changed over? What about those who changed over, hated it, and went
back? (Are you *sure* they don't exist? How?)

> One thing that makes a Windows server easy to run, if badly, is the fact 
> that it feels like a Windows PC.  With so many people using Linux, 
> running Linux/Unix servers will seem easier for more people, even if 
> they do it badly.  Having people that can take care of the hardware is 
> important.  The more competition there is, the less a company has to pay.

So we should lower our standards? That's totally ridiculous.

> The point that I'm trying to make is that, in isolation, good technology 
> is good.  In the real, imperfect world, good technology is subject to 
> forces that I can't even explain.  It's mostly about money and business.

Sure, it is about money and business. As in, "I can give you more
for your money and sustain your business longer, more efficiently,
and more reliably, if you let me use Sun hardware to do it.[1]"

> In this case I am forced to replace the hardware because I sold most of 
> my PC.  8-)

Fair enough.

[1] But for your sysadmin's sanity, don't buy your disk from Sun!
Buy it from someone who knows what they're doing, like EMC or
Xyartex!

-- 
gabriel rosenkoetter
gr@eclipsed.net

Attachment: pgp67Yj6oWCyi.pgp
Description: PGP signature