deciding on a new amd64 system
Hi All! I've been using HP Pavilion zv5260 as a desktop replacement for a while and now decided to get a real desktop. I am not sure if I should build a new box myself or buy a pre-built one. I need a home workstation that is going to be used primarily for writing and debugging code, browsing internet, occasionally watching dvds. I don't edit video and don't play video games. So, I figured that I don't need that powerful and expensive computer. In this case does it make sense to build one myself? I googled and found that Dell offers Dimension n Series E521. http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/e510_nseries?c=uscs=19l=ens=dhs~ck=mn It comes with no Windows OS preinstalled. And Dell claims that it is ready to work under linux. Does anybody here have this machine? Are there any compatibility issues? I plan to use it with Debian Etch. Etch comes with linux kernel 2.6.18 Googling I found out about a problem with USB freezing mice and keyboards, but it seems that this problem was solved with BIOS update that Dell issued in January, 2007. Google doesn't show any more problems with it... I am thinking about choosing these parts: - Dell Dimension E521NAMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4000+ Operating System: FreeDOS included in the box, ready to install Memory 1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz- 2DIMMs Dell USB Keyboard and Dell Optical USB Mouse 19 inch SP1908FP Silver Flat Panel Monitor TrueLife (Glossy Screen) 256MB NVIDIA Geforce 7300LE TurboCache Hard Drive 250GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache No Floppy Drive Included Integrated 10/100 Ethernet Modem 56K PCI Data Fax Modem CD ROM/DVD ROM 16x DVD+/-RW Drive Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio Speakers Dell AS501 10W Flat Panel Attached Spkrs for UltraSharp Flat Panels Limited Warranty, Services and Support Options 1Yr In-Home Service, Parts + Labor - Next Business Day* FREE GROUND SHIPPING! Total Price (taxes included)$757.30 - It seems like the price is right. Before I always built computers myself, but now would I actually be able to build a box myself for this price ? Well, I don't necessarily want cheap, I just don't need a very powerful machine for what I am using it... Any advices or suggestions will be very appreciated! Thanks in advance... -- Registered Linux user number 402184. Get counted! http://counter.li.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: deciding on a new amd64 system
Alexandru: I use to buy the components and assemble what I need. There is guidance on internet, just choose a reliable guidance. If you go through a reliable European internet dealer you can save money and have just what you need (and the latest - albeit latest on European standard - components, which is never sure on buying a commercial box). francesco --- Alexandru Cardaniuc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All! I've been using HP Pavilion zv5260 as a desktop replacement for a while and now decided to get a real desktop. I am not sure if I should build a new box myself or buy a pre-built one. I need a home workstation that is going to be used primarily for writing and debugging code, browsing internet, occasionally watching dvds. I don't edit video and don't play video games. So, I figured that I don't need that powerful and expensive computer. In this case does it make sense to build one myself? I googled and found that Dell offers Dimension n Series E521. http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/e510_nseries?c=uscs=19l=ens=dhs~ck=mn It comes with no Windows OS preinstalled. And Dell claims that it is ready to work under linux. Does anybody here have this machine? Are there any compatibility issues? I plan to use it with Debian Etch. Etch comes with linux kernel 2.6.18 Googling I found out about a problem with USB freezing mice and keyboards, but it seems that this problem was solved with BIOS update that Dell issued in January, 2007. Google doesn't show any more problems with it... I am thinking about choosing these parts: - Dell Dimension E521N AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4000+ Operating System: FreeDOS included in the box, ready to install Memory1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz- 2DIMMs Dell USB Keyboard and Dell Optical USB Mouse 19 inch SP1908FP Silver Flat Panel Monitor TrueLife (Glossy Screen) 256MB NVIDIA Geforce 7300LE TurboCache Hard Drive 250GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache No Floppy Drive Included Integrated 10/100 Ethernet Modem 56K PCI Data Fax Modem CD ROM/DVD ROM16x DVD+/-RW Drive Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio Speakers Dell AS501 10W Flat Panel Attached Spkrs for UltraSharp Flat Panels Limited Warranty, Services and Support Options 1Yr In-Home Service, Parts + Labor - Next Business Day* FREE GROUND SHIPPING! Total Price (taxes included) $757.30 - It seems like the price is right. Before I always built computers myself, but now would I actually be able to build a box myself for this price ? Well, I don't necessarily want cheap, I just don't need a very powerful machine for what I am using it... Any advices or suggestions will be very appreciated! Thanks in advance... -- Registered Linux user number 402184. Get counted! http://counter.li.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: deciding on a new amd64 system
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 11:24:11PM -0700, Alexandru Cardaniuc wrote: Hi All! I've been using HP Pavilion zv5260 as a desktop replacement for a while and now decided to get a real desktop. I am not sure if I should build a new box myself or buy a pre-built one. I need a home workstation that is going to be used primarily for writing and debugging code, browsing internet, occasionally watching dvds. I don't edit video and don't play video games. So, I figured that I don't need that powerful and expensive computer. In this case does it make sense to build one myself? I googled and found that Dell offers Dimension n Series E521. http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/e510_nseries?c=uscs=19l=ens=dhs~ck=mn It comes with no Windows OS preinstalled. And Dell claims that it is ready to work under linux. Does anybody here have this machine? Are there any compatibility issues? I plan to use it with Debian Etch. Etch comes with linux kernel 2.6.18 Googling I found out about a problem with USB freezing mice and keyboards, but it seems that this problem was solved with BIOS update that Dell issued in January, 2007. Google doesn't show any more problems with it... I am thinking about choosing these parts: - Dell Dimension E521N AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4000+ Personally at this time I would buy a Core 2 Duo instead. Faster and more efficient. Oh and it's a Dell, so the pwoer supply and mainboard and possibly other things are probably proprietary and never replaceable. And the power supply is probably only barely large enough to handle the system, so upgrades could be tricky. At least that is how Dell Dimension PCs were in the past. Operating System: FreeDOS included in the box, ready to install Memory1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz- 2DIMMs Why does Dell (and other rip of the clueless consumer name brands) insist on putting slow ram in machines with fast CPUs? 800MHz ram doesn't cost that much more. I guess they figure their customers only care about price. Dell USB Keyboard and Dell Optical USB Mouse 19 inch SP1908FP Silver Flat Panel Monitor TrueLife (Glossy Screen) 256MB NVIDIA Geforce 7300LE TurboCache And then they slow down the ram some more by making the video card borrow from it. Hard Drive 250GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache No Floppy Drive Included Integrated 10/100 Ethernet Modem 56K PCI Data Fax Modem CD ROM/DVD ROM16x DVD+/-RW Drive Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio Speakers Dell AS501 10W Flat Panel Attached Spkrs for UltraSharp Flat Panels Well all that stuff is probably typical. Limited Warranty, Services and Support Options 1Yr In-Home Service, Parts + Labor - Next Business Day* FREE GROUND SHIPPING! Total Price (taxes included) $757.30 - It seems like the price is right. Before I always built computers myself, but now would I actually be able to build a box myself for this price ? Well, I don't necessarily want cheap, I just don't need a very powerful machine for what I am using it... The difficult part in getting a price like Dells is that most people building a computer aren't willing to cut the corners Dell likes to cut. Let us try though: Athlon 64 X2 4000 $122 2 x 512MB DDR2-6400 800MHz OCZ platinum ram $80 Asus M2V mainboard (10/100/1000 ethernet, 5.1 audio) $90 WD 250GB SATA $79 LG 18x DVD+-RW $38 Antec SLK1650 (case with 350W PS) $70 USB mouse/keyboard $30 7300 video card $63 19 LCD screen $200 Total: $772 (canadian) which is about $730 US. Significantly higher quality components than the Dell, but you would have to buy and assemble parts yourself, and you don't get tech support and warrenty (well warrenty on the parts not the system). But overall, Dells price is just OK, not great. Remember the Dell is full of cheap junk which helps them keep the price down. Modem (if you actually need one) which is actually a hardware modem that works with linux is probably $75 or so. Haven't bought one in years. I tend to assume most people don't need it so I will ignore it. I would be surprised if dell included anything other than a winmodem in their system. Personally I would go with spending more on a Core 2 Duo if I was buying one, but I am not at the moment. :) And I would get a 7600GT rather than a 7300, and I would go for a silverstone TJ04-B case and probably a silverstone 450W power supply. And I wouldn't go for less than a 20 screen since I hate 1280x1024 screens, while 20 gives you 1600x1200. Of course those changes would probably add another $500 to the price. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: deciding on a new amd64 system
Alexandru Cardaniuc wrote: Hi All! I've been using HP Pavilion zv5260 as a desktop replacement for a while and now decided to get a real desktop. I am not sure if I should build a new box myself or buy a pre-built one. I need a home workstation that is going to be used primarily for writing and debugging code, browsing internet, occasionally watching dvds. I don't edit video and don't play video games. So, I figured that I don't need that powerful and expensive computer. In this case does it make sense to build one myself? I googled and found that Dell offers Dimension n Series E521. http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/e510_nseries?c=uscs=19l=ens=dhs~ck=mn It comes with no Windows OS preinstalled. And Dell claims that it is ready to work under linux. Does anybody here have this machine? Are there any compatibility issues? I plan to use it with Debian Etch. Etch comes with linux kernel 2.6.18 Googling I found out about a problem with USB freezing mice and keyboards, but it seems that this problem was solved with BIOS update that Dell issued in January, 2007. Google doesn't show any more problems with it... I am thinking about choosing these parts: - Dell Dimension E521NAMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4000+ Operating System: FreeDOS included in the box, ready to install Memory 1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz- 2DIMMs Dell USB Keyboard and Dell Optical USB Mouse 19 inch SP1908FP Silver Flat Panel Monitor TrueLife (Glossy Screen) 256MB NVIDIA Geforce 7300LE TurboCache Hard Drive 250GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache No Floppy Drive Included Integrated 10/100 Ethernet Modem 56K PCI Data Fax Modem CD ROM/DVD ROM 16x DVD+/-RW Drive Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio Speakers Dell AS501 10W Flat Panel Attached Spkrs for UltraSharp Flat Panels Limited Warranty, Services and Support Options 1Yr In-Home Service, Parts + Labor - Next Business Day* FREE GROUND SHIPPING! Total Price (taxes included)$757.30 - It seems like the price is right. Before I always built computers myself, but now would I actually be able to build a box myself for this price ? Well, I don't necessarily want cheap, I just don't need a very powerful machine for what I am using it... Any advices or suggestions will be very appreciated! Thanks in advance... I just had a box built at CompUSA. It took me a while to get it up, but it's happily running Linux now. I looked at the Dell Linux-ready systems but ended up with a custom system mostly because 1. I didn't want to wait. 2. The Dell AMD systems didn't include the option to remove the monitor. The Intel systems did, but I wanted AMD. 3. The Dell memory prices were too high. So I ended up with a 4 GB Athlon64 X2 4200+ If you already have a monitor, you could get the low-end Dell Intel Linux-ready system without one and save about $150US, IIRC. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: deciding on a new amd64 system
Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 11:24:11PM -0700, Alexandru Cardaniuc wrote: Hi All! I've been using HP Pavilion zv5260 as a desktop replacement for a while and now decided to get a real desktop. I am not sure if I should build a new box myself or buy a pre-built one. I need a home workstation that is going to be used primarily for writing and debugging code, browsing internet, occasionally watching dvds. I don't edit video and don't play video games. So, I figured that I don't need that powerful and expensive computer. In this case does it make sense to build one myself? I googled and found that Dell offers Dimension n Series E521. http://www.dell.com/content/topics/segtopic.aspx/e510_nseries?c=uscs=19l=ens=dhs~ck=mn It comes with no Windows OS preinstalled. And Dell claims that it is ready to work under linux. Does anybody here have this machine? Are there any compatibility issues? I plan to use it with Debian Etch. Etch comes with linux kernel 2.6.18 Googling I found out about a problem with USB freezing mice and keyboards, but it seems that this problem was solved with BIOS update that Dell issued in January, 2007. Google doesn't show any more problems with it... I am thinking about choosing these parts: - Dell Dimension E521NAMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core 4000+ Personally at this time I would buy a Core 2 Duo instead. Faster and more efficient. Oh and it's a Dell, so the pwoer supply and mainboard and possibly other things are probably proprietary and never replaceable. And the power supply is probably only barely large enough to handle the system, so upgrades could be tricky. At least that is how Dell Dimension PCs were in the past. Operating System: FreeDOS included in the box, ready to install Memory 1GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz- 2DIMMs Why does Dell (and other rip of the clueless consumer name brands) insist on putting slow ram in machines with fast CPUs? 800MHz ram doesn't cost that much more. I guess they figure their customers only care about price. Dell USB Keyboard and Dell Optical USB Mouse 19 inch SP1908FP Silver Flat Panel Monitor TrueLife (Glossy Screen) 256MB NVIDIA Geforce 7300LE TurboCache And then they slow down the ram some more by making the video card borrow from it. Hard Drive 250GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM) w/DataBurst Cache No Floppy Drive Included Integrated 10/100 Ethernet Modem 56K PCI Data Fax Modem CD ROM/DVD ROM 16x DVD+/-RW Drive Integrated 7.1 Channel Audio Speakers Dell AS501 10W Flat Panel Attached Spkrs for UltraSharp Flat Panels Well all that stuff is probably typical. Limited Warranty, Services and Support Options 1Yr In-Home Service, Parts + Labor - Next Business Day* FREE GROUND SHIPPING! Total Price (taxes included)$757.30 - It seems like the price is right. Before I always built computers myself, but now would I actually be able to build a box myself for this price ? Well, I don't necessarily want cheap, I just don't need a very powerful machine for what I am using it... The difficult part in getting a price like Dells is that most people building a computer aren't willing to cut the corners Dell likes to cut. Let us try though: Athlon 64 X2 4000 $122 2 x 512MB DDR2-6400 800MHz OCZ platinum ram $80 Asus M2V mainboard (10/100/1000 ethernet, 5.1 audio) $90 WD 250GB SATA $79 LG 18x DVD+-RW $38 Antec SLK1650 (case with 350W PS) $70 USB mouse/keyboard $30 7300 video card $63 19 LCD screen $200 Total: $772 (canadian) which is about $730 US. Significantly higher quality components than the Dell, but you would have to buy and assemble parts yourself, and you don't get tech support and warrenty (well warrenty on the parts not the system). But overall, Dells price is just OK, not great. Remember the Dell is full of cheap junk which helps them keep the price down. Modem (if you actually need one) which is actually a hardware modem that works with linux is probably $75 or so. Haven't bought one in years. I tend to assume most people don't need it so I will ignore it. I would be surprised if dell included anything other than a winmodem in their system. Personally I would go with spending more on a Core 2 Duo if I was buying one, but I am not at the moment. :) And I would get a 7600GT rather than a 7300, and I would go for a silverstone TJ04-B case and probably a silverstone 450W power supply. And I wouldn't go for less than a 20 screen since I hate 1280x1024 screens, while 20 gives you 1600x1200. Of course those changes would probably add another $500 to the price. -- Len Sorensen Well ... I don't want to get into Intel vs. AMD (until the AMD Quad Cores are out, anyhow) :). But I can't conceive of running a processor that fast in Linux with only a GB of RAM, and I can't conceive of
Re: deciding on a new amd64 system
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 08:24:07AM -0700, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: Well ... I don't want to get into Intel vs. AMD (until the AMD Quad Cores are out, anyhow) :). But I can't conceive of running a processor that fast in Linux with only a GB of RAM, and I can't conceive of getting only 5.1 sound and not 7.1. But I do a lot of scientific and audio computing, so the RAM isn't wasted. :) Well I would certainly prefer 2 or 4GB ram on a new system. As for AMD, well when they come out with the quad, assuming it does what they claim it will do, then they will probably be back on my list of recommended parts. Lots of boards have 7.1 audio, I just tried to show that making a PC from quality parts that matched the Dell price was trivial. I was surprised that it didn't even need going to generic ram to beat Dell's price. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: deciding on a new amd64 system
Lennart Sorensen wrote: Well I would certainly prefer 2 or 4GB ram on a new system. Are we talking about desktop workstations here? Forgive my ignorance, but what on earth requires that much RAM? Video processing? I have 1 GB in my desktop at the moment, and that's useful for when I'm running VMWare, but that's about it. Most of the time, it's just being used for disk cache. As for AMD, well when they come out with the quad, assuming it does what they claim it will do, then they will probably be back on my list of recommended parts. I think I must have gone to sleep for a couple of years. When I was last looking at Intel vs AMD, they were saying that AMD's architecture was much better than Intel's, because (I think this is right) for communication between cores, the AMD doesn't have to go off-chip, but Intel's architecture requires use of the external bus, and AMD's design just plain scaled better. Or something. Then fast forward to today, where apparently Intel's Core 2 Duo is apparently kicking the pants off AMD... how did this happen? Is Intel really all that much better? Also, I only really hear comparisons between the Core 2 Duo and Athlon. How about Opteron? Is the Opteron still a good choice for servers? Or has Xeon leapt ahead there too? Sorry for the ignorance. I don't pay much attention to hardware stuff in between computer purchases. Last time I really looked was in 2005 or so. Thanks! /Neil -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: deciding on a new amd64 system
On May 22, 2007 02:37:41 pm Neil Gunton wrote: Lennart Sorensen wrote: Well I would certainly prefer 2 or 4GB ram on a new system. Are we talking about desktop workstations here? Forgive my ignorance, but what on earth requires that much RAM? Video processing? I have 1 GB in my desktop at the moment, and that's useful for when I'm running VMWare, but that's about it. Most of the time, it's just being used for disk cache. With the pricing on DDR2 ram now a days it is an easy decision to go with 2gb I got my 2gb for a little over $140 CAD just over a month ago and can get the same ram today for just under $120 CAD plus the caching does not hurt either just speeds up the machine even more. I am almost tempted to get another 2gb to throw in just for the hell of it. As for AMD, well when they come out with the quad, assuming it does what they claim it will do, then they will probably be back on my list of recommended parts. I think I must have gone to sleep for a couple of years. When I was last looking at Intel vs AMD, they were saying that AMD's architecture was much better than Intel's, because (I think this is right) for communication between cores, the AMD doesn't have to go off-chip, but Intel's architecture requires use of the external bus, and AMD's design just plain scaled better. Or something. Then fast forward to today, where apparently Intel's Core 2 Duo is apparently kicking the pants off AMD... how did this happen? Is Intel really all that much better? Intel just did not stand still when getting their ass kicked they went out and designed something better. The Core 2 Duo is definitely faster when I built my new machine I just moved the hard drive from my old system AMD X2 939 running at 2.4ghz 2gb ram to new Core 2 Duo 2.49ghz 2gb ram. I re-complied the kernel on old for the modules needed to boot the new system it took just like it always did about 12 minutes on new machine it takes just about 8 and a half minutes. Now even with the new being ~100mhz faster and the ram running at 356FSB (DDR712) 5-5-5-15 vs old 240FSB (DDR480) 3-3-3-7 I don't think that can account for about a 3 and a half minute difference. Also, I only really hear comparisons between the Core 2 Duo and Athlon. How about Opteron? Is the Opteron still a good choice for servers? Or has Xeon leapt ahead there too? From my experience of having had two different Opterons in my 939 board both of which I ran as fast as my X2 there was next to no difference in the performance of them vs X2. So Opteron vs Core 2 the Core 2 is faster against the Xeon I have no clue never had one of them. Sorry for the ignorance. I don't pay much attention to hardware stuff in between computer purchases. Last time I really looked was in 2005 or so. Thanks! /Neil Stephen -- GPG Public Key: http://users.eastlink.ca/~stephencormier/publickey.asc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: deciding on a new amd64 system
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 12:37:41PM -0500, Neil Gunton wrote: Are we talking about desktop workstations here? Forgive my ignorance, but what on earth requires that much RAM? Video processing? I have 1 GB in my desktop at the moment, and that's useful for when I'm running VMWare, but that's about it. Most of the time, it's just being used for disk cache. Ram is cheap, firefox leaks memory (or wastes it) like crazy. KDE doesn't seem much better. Until people start taking code quality seriously, it is simpler to throw more ram at it. I think I must have gone to sleep for a couple of years. When I was last looking at Intel vs AMD, they were saying that AMD's architecture was much better than Intel's, because (I think this is right) for communication between cores, the AMD doesn't have to go off-chip, but Intel's architecture requires use of the external bus, and AMD's design just plain scaled better. Or something. Then fast forward to today, where apparently Intel's Core 2 Duo is apparently kicking the pants off AMD... how did this happen? Is Intel really all that much better? The Core 2 Duo has an internal connection between the two cores (they are a single die) just as the Athlon 64 X2 does. The Core 2 Quad has two Core 2 Duo dies attached together using the front side bus. So for a quad design, the Core 2 is similar to the dual core design intel did with the Pentium 4 (aka Pentium D). The Core 2 is based on the Pentium-M core which goes back to the PPro (it is derived from the P6 core). The pipeline is in the low to mid teens, unlike the netburst which managed to go past 30 stages (great for clock frequency, bad for dealing with conditional branches). So in terms of design, the Core 2 has a lot more similarity with the Athlon than the Pentium 4, except it is a bit more modern and has some clever tricks, which makes it able to run faster than the Athlon 64 at the same clock speed. Hopefully those improvements AMD is promising in the next version of the Athlon 64 will in fact give them the same or hopefully better performance per clock than the Core 2 Duo. Also, I only really hear comparisons between the Core 2 Duo and Athlon. How about Opteron? Is the Opteron still a good choice for servers? Or has Xeon leapt ahead there too? The Opteron is an Athlon 64, except it (usually) uses registered memory (allows more banks of memory in the server, at a slight speed penalty). Current Xeon's are Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quads, with a different bus speed (I believe they tend to run 1333MHz effective bus rather than the 1066MHz of the Core 2 desktop chips). Xeon's also usually have more cache. Of course the opteron has the fast hypertransport link between cpus, and per cpu memory controllers, so the memory bandwidth is better on the opteron with lower latency, which is why the opteron still scales better than the xeon. For single or dual cpu the xeon is usually fastest, but for 4 or more cpus the opteron is better off since the xeon still has to share a single bus to the chipset for all the cpus while the opteron has the hypertransport links between cpus instead for memory accesses and only has to use the link to the chipset for accessing devices. Adding opterons and memory gives more overall memory bandwidth. Adding cpus to a xeon system doesn't add bandwidth, just processing power. Until intel some day gets an on chip memory controller. Sorry for the ignorance. I don't pay much attention to hardware stuff in between computer purchases. Last time I really looked was in 2005 or so. Lots has happened. It is nice to have some competition between AMD and intel to keep them both going, although I like to root for AMD being the underdog. -- Len Sorensen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Installing flash plugin
On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 01:00 -0300, Stephen Cormier wrote: On May 22, 2007 12:18:04 am José Alburquerque wrote: Hi. I recently read the Plugin thread started on 5/4/07 that explains that in order to use the flash plugin the nspluginwrapper can be used. I was able to install the package because I'm running lenny (amd64/unstable). Would someone be able to tell me where I can get the flash plugin from? I've looked for it and I can't find it. This is what I'm using as my apt source.list: deb http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ unstable main non-free contrib deb-src http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ unstable main non-free contrib deb http://debian-multimedia.dfoell.org unstable main deb-src http://debian-multimedia.dfoell.org unstable main Thanks. You download the plugin from the Adobe website extract the tarball then copy the files (.so and .xpt) to the /usr/lib/plugins/mozilla directory then run the nspluginwrapper -i /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so command to install it. The file I used was install_flash_player_9_linux.tar.gz putting this into Google should come up with it. Stephen Something I was struck by while looking at Googled sites... do I need to have a 32 bit Iceweasel for this to work? Or will it function under the regular one? (Or am I off my rocker thinking that this is a 64 bit app? ;-) Kenward -- The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church.--Ferdinand Magellan
Re: Installing flash plugin
On May 22, 2007 11:46:34 pm Kenward Vaughan wrote: On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 01:00 -0300, Stephen Cormier wrote: On May 22, 2007 12:18:04 am José Alburquerque wrote: Hi. I recently read the Plugin thread started on 5/4/07 that explains that in order to use the flash plugin the nspluginwrapper can be used. I was able to install the package because I'm running lenny (amd64/unstable). Would someone be able to tell me where I can get the flash plugin from? I've looked for it and I can't find it. This is what I'm using as my apt source.list: deb http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ unstable main non-free contrib deb-src http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ unstable main non-free contrib deb http://debian-multimedia.dfoell.org unstable main deb-src http://debian-multimedia.dfoell.org unstable main Thanks. You download the plugin from the Adobe website extract the tarball then copy the files (.so and .xpt) to the /usr/lib/plugins/mozilla directory then run the nspluginwrapper -i /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins/libflashplayer.so command to install it. The file I used was install_flash_player_9_linux.tar.gz putting this into Google should come up with it. Stephen Something I was struck by while looking at Googled sites... do I need to have a 32 bit Iceweasel for this to work? Or will it function under the regular one? (Or am I off my rocker thinking that this is a 64 bit app? ;-) No it works with the 64bit apps with the wrapper running the plugin I would think translating the 64 to 32 bits to communicate with the plugin then back again I am really no expert on it but that is the only way I can see it working. Kenward Stephen -- GPG Public Key: http://users.eastlink.ca/~stephencormier/publickey.asc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
