Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 12 Jan 2002 10:16:31 -0600
From:      "Mike Meyer" <mwm-dated-1011284192.5f8463@mired.org>
To:        Jud <jud@operamail.com>, Cliff Sarginson <cliff@raggedclown.net>
Cc:        questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Parts I recommend (formerly "Workstation and server-market")
Message-ID:  <15424.24927.625589.897924@guru.mired.org>
In-Reply-To: <32111090@toto.iv>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jud <jud@operamail.com> types:
> Re mice, I'm very pleased with my Logitech Trackman FX trackball.  It 
> was recommended by a number of people on another ML I subscribe to 
> as a preventative/cure for repetitive stress disorders (e.g., carpal tunnel 
> syndrome).  Since I use a computer during most of my waking hours 
> and was beginning to feel twinges in my wrist, I decided to try it, and 
> was very happy I did.

I've been using the Logictech Trackman long enough that the first one
I bought came with an ISA card (that I didn't use because I plugged it
into an Amiga). They're wonderful things, and I've not been happy with
anything that makes me move my hand to move the pointer since.

Cliff Sarginson <cliff@raggedclown.net> types:
> On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 05:02:30PM -0500, Matthew Graybosch wrote:
> I would also be circumspect about a 21 inch screen for a workstation, 
> the cost differential is phenemonal, and unless you are a graphic designer (
> and have the stength to lift it) I would make very sure that you will
> feel comfortable with it. Many people (including me) find that size of
> screen very over-whelming to work on. There are a lot of psychological
> factors involved here ! A 19" I would say is good for most people's
> needs. If I had the money I would still prefer a TFT flat screen
> personally, visually they are just gorgeous on your eyes.

I love my 21" monitor. Crank the resolution up - someone mentioned
1600x1200 - then crank the text sizes up as well to keep my aging eyes
happy.

> > --Disk space? The more the merrier. Especially for a server, and especially
> > if you're doing a http/ftp server or running an RDBMS. I recommend a bare
> > minimum of a 7200RM disk with 20GB capacity. For a workstation, you can
> > probably get away with ATA100 disks, but with a server you need SCSI or a
> > RAID configuration.
> Don't live in the same room as a server with SCSI drives though. They
> are significantly noisier than ATA ones.

Not that I've noticed. I've never used anything but SCSI drives for my
workstations, dating back to the days when drives were $10/mb or
more. Of course, I'm comparing them to things like rm05s :-).

I agree with Anthony about SCSI being good for workstations because
they get you lots of devices with few IRQs and controllers. Before
USB, devices that needed fast I/O came with el cheapo SCSI cards, and
many of those can be hung off the system SCSI bus instead of that card
and they'll just work. Scanners and Iomega drives come to mind. It was
really depressing seeing a system with both ATA controllers in use and
two SCSI cards as well, because that's what the hardware installation
instructions said to do.

> Don't forget about the requirements to keep the things cool .. :)

I think running FreeBSD is sufficiently cool :-).

	<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>			http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15424.24927.625589.897924>