From: Wesley Darlington (wesley at domain blackstar.co.uk)
Date: Thu 17 May 2001 - 14:41:18 IST
On Thu, May 17, 2001 at 02:27:51PM +0100, Paul Jakma wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2001, Jerry Walsh wrote:
> > Why do you want a bleeding edge graphics card in a SERVER?
> well i don't know why.. it's a server so you put the best hardware in
> it? And of course, cutting edge server OSes, like Windows2000 have
> those nice graphical management tools that make working on them such a
Like, of course! *Everybody* knows you can't have a computer without
a keyboard, a monitor and (most importantly) a mouse. What sort of
computer can /possibly/ do any useful work without these things???
(How can you talk to it? How can you tell it what to do? How do you
configure its bios, darnit??? Tell me that, eh!)
As such, it follows that if one is going to connect a monitor, it
is remiss not to install a quality graphics card. Anyway compared to
the cost of the rest of the hardware and the os and backoffice licences,
the difference in cost between a barely tolerable graphics card and
something decent is trivial.
> like the Compaq Proliant servers had Ati RagePro chips in them, back
> when RagePro wasn't too bad.
> And of course linux didn't properly support those chips for ages.
> Remember trying to install RH6.1 or somesuch on a Proliant and the
> bloody GUI install thingy wouldn't work... typical.
> really just fed up with this Unix stuff now.... think i'll go get an
> MCSE and work on proper OSes.
I'm with you, man. Let's go get ... certified!
PS. I'm just trying to get in the spirit of things here, folks. Apologies
if I'm not being successful.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:10:20 GMT