OT: redhat

[Fairlight]

Yo, homey, in case you don' be listenin', Bill Vermillion done said:
> > > And X seems to grow larger faster than the base OS :-)
> 
> > Debatable, but close.
> 
> Did I forget to mention Xorg?

Oh..."that".  :-/  Just what we needed--another splinter.

> The Celeron is not the fastest chip on the block and since you
> didn't spec the model number there is no way to tell which you
> have. One 2.6Ghz version comes with 128K of L2 while the other
> comes with 256K L2 cache.

I sure as heck honestly don't know.  My wife went with her dad.  I didn't
go.  I actually didn't want to be involved, and I -was- only going to do
the router configuration, but ended up doing most of the XP configuration
as well.  I'll let Kelly do the apps config, as I have no interest in doing
that--I just figured I'd save her time on the system-level work.

All I know is it's an E-Machines Celeron 2.66GHz/256MB/60Gig, with an EEPro
100 onboard, as well as a modem and sound, etc.  They got it at Best Buy.
What can I say?  I mean, seriously...you're right, and I can't probably
compare the two honestly--especialy running different OSes--but it
certainly seems like it has more overhead, and therefore runs slower.

> I'm running a 2.4Ghz P4 and it has either 512K or 1GB cache - I
> think the former.  Then you have the motherboard and the speed of
> the glue chips and how the memory is laid out.  All can have major
> effects on performance.

You know, "I don't know," is an acceptable answer to me in this case.  I
didn't even want to be involved in this.  I'm only doing it because Kelly
volunteered us.  *sigh*  Yes, I agreed in advance--I'm wishing I hadn't,

> I think you misread that.  The MareNostrum is hoped to be the 10th
> fastest computer in the world with 4564 PowerPC chips.  It will
> clock at out 31 Tflops when fully populated.   It have a footprint
> of 160 square meters, 22 times SMALLER than the Earth computer.
> And besides being that much smaller - though still large compared
> to a Palm :-) - it doesn't require water cooling.

That's not what the article said.  It said it tops out at 31Tflops -now-
with 'x' many, but when they get it up to full population, they expect peak
performance of 40Tflops.  It's not yet fully populated.

We may have both misread parts, but I distinctly remember that bit.  Here:

"
   The system currently comprises 3,564 PowerPC processors, but will have
       4,564 processors by the time it is fully completed, IBM said.

       IBM expects the computer's peak performance to reach 40T flops
    (floating point operations per second). At its current configuration
   the computer already reached a sustained performance of 20.53T flops,
              with peak performance of 31.36T flops, IBM said.
"

The part about the Earth Modelling computer is something I misread from
your comments on the size--that it's smaller in footprint than that one.
That wasn't part of the article proper.  My mistake.

> By only specing CPU speed and not mentioning how fast the FSB is
> and if it runs interleaved memory you are comparing Apples to
> Oranges.  Of course comparing those can be done.  See the tests
> in The Annals of Improbable Research and you will find they are
> remarkable similar. You just have to choose the tests you are going
> to run :-)

I think my FSB is 366 on the 2.4.  Pretty sure.  No idea on the RAM on
either--I didn't spec either myself.

> > There is more clutter, cruft, and utter crap on the screen
> > at any given time in the later versions that I can believe.
> > It seems that in trying to make things more user friendly,
> > they've only suceeded in creating something that will probably
> > overwhelm most anyone who's at all technophobic.
> 
> I've not noticed that.  But I installed it from an OEM distribution
> and so I did not see what might be in a standard included dist.
> I've gotten to like it actually.

What, all the annoying sidebar with all the extra options and "you can do
this here" stuff doesn't bother you?  It's like an OS for kids--that
manages to intimidate tech-wary adults.

> > Aside from the added clutter onscreen, "It's just another
> > 'doze."
> 
> It surely doesn't act like it.  If you have programs stuck the
> ctl-alt-del will bring up the task manager so you can kill
> individual pieces.  It's starting to act more like a Unix system.
> You need to get more familiar with it before you say it's just
> another Windows.  

Uhm, Windows 2000 already did all of that, Bill.  We use it all the time on
Opal.

> You would need to test it on the same machine that your Win2K is
> running upon to make an legitimate claim.   You don't know how fast
> the disk to buffer interface is in the HD, you don't know the
> interface speed and what mode it is running under.  Every one of
> those does make a difference.  Even having a wrong IDE cable
> can cut the speed by 1/2 or more.

True, true, true, true, true.  I don't deny that.  I can say, subjectively,
"It -feels- slower."  But then...I start to sound like George Simon.  :)  I
think I'll just stop making rash generalisations and admit that you're
correct, it would need a full apples<->apples benching to really say for
certain.

> And as I recall until you got W2K you felt that you never needed
> anything better than Win95!!

Actually, I never planned on going past win98.  I wanted (needed) USB
support.  Win2K came with Opal, and I've come to like it after a few
days--it's far more stable.  After last night's run-through, I can say I
really -do not- like XP, and I'd rather have win2k.  Unfortunately, this
thing (which thankfully isn't mine) came with XP, so that's what they get.

> And as I recall the SFU with Perl, GCC, KSH, awk, and about 100
> other Unix tools is only available on XP or W3K. You are missing
> a few things.

Bill, if I want a *nix box, I have my own, plus a few zillion shells out
there.  I'll use *nix when I want *nix.  As long as I have perl (which is
readily available for any win32) and PuTTY, I'm satisfied enough.  But that
would be for a machine for me.  This is for someone else entirely.

And gcc has limited usefulness without the Windows networking API.  You
really need VC++, which actually can be had in the CLI-only mode for
absolutely free (I saved the link someone posted to the perl/Tk newsgroup a
while back).  You only needed win2k at a minimum there.

> > What's more absurd is that when my wife went with her dad to buy the
> > system, 
> 
> So what's the brand of the system anyway.  That might help figure
> out what's inside.

E-Machines  T2862  
iNTEL Celeron 330 2.66GHz (256K L2, 533 FSB)
256MB DDR SDRAM
60Gig Ultra ATA HD (no make/model/speed specs on the box)
CDRW/DVD combo drive (yadda yadda speeds..it's okay)
iNTEL Extreme Graphics 3D Card
iNTEL PRO 10/100 Ethernet (It reads as an EEPRO 100)
56K ITU v.92 modem
8-in-1 Media Reader

$400.  I personally think he got screwed, but that's what happens when you
buy at a mass consumer outlet.  He'd rather not deal with a specialised
shoppe, but someplace convenient that he can just go and "pick something
up".  So be it.  It's not my machine, and I don't have to deal with it past
configuration.

BTW, the warranty says Gateway.  I didn't realise they'd
merged/bought-out/whatever.

mark->
-- 
Bring the web-enabling power of OneGate to -your- filePro applications today!

Try the live filePro-based, OneGate-enabled demo at the following URL:
               http://www2.onnik.com/~fairlite/flfssindex.html