Most of my experience here is in system administration / configuration. I'm
willing to go the *what I consider slight* extra mile to get the stuff to
run on alpha.... the throughput is A lot better than most of the current
intel based hardware that I have seen and or messed with. I do most of my
Comp - Sci work on my DEC Alphas... and where else can you get a 400MHz
processor w 2MB of cache and a 256bit data bus on a server for only $500 on
Most of my programming has been done on DEC Alphas (either running DU or
linux) so I tend to stick with an arch that is reliable and can handle
large user loads with ease.
"W Bauske" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>"Michael A. Smith" wrote:
>> If Alpha Linux is more finicky/troublesome than Linux Intel why are some
>> you using it?
>For me, it's no worse than an x86, at least for what I'm
>running. I have no interest in sound/multi-media/games on
>Linux. I use a W98 box for that, maybe 2-3 times a month.
>> I guess I'm using it out of curiosity. I've been put off by the 64-bit
>> Merced hype, knowing that a real, live 64-bit processor has been around
>> *years.* Only now, has Intel started making us think that we *need* it.
>> and the SETI@home platform statistics really piqued my interest.
>Raw single cpu FP performance, a compact foot print, and a 64
>bit file space. Takes a lot of x86's to equal a UP2K with dual
>processors. Definitely won't fit in a 3U rack space...
>To unsubscribe: send e-mail to email@example.com with
>'unsubscribe' as the subject. Do not send it to firstname.lastname@example.org
-- To unsubscribe: send e-mail to email@example.com with 'unsubscribe' as the subject. Do not send it to firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail version 2a22 on Sat Apr 1 04:15:00 2000 PST
Send any problems or questions about this archive to email@example.com.