From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Jun 30 14:21:49 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from imo-d05.mx.aol.com (imo-d05.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.37]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D26137B401 for ; Sat, 30 Jun 2001 14:21:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Bsdguru@aol.com) Received: from Bsdguru@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id k.81.c6bd74a (16783); Sat, 30 Jun 2001 17:21:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Bsdguru@aol.com Message-ID: <81.c6bd74a.286f9cc5@aol.com> Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2001 17:21:09 EDT Subject: Re: Status of encryption hardware support in FreeBSD To: nate@yogotech.com, hackers@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 139 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In a message dated 06/30/2001 3:44:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, nate@yogotech.com writes: > > Your premise that "embedded appliances" are somehow doomed to use pitifully > > > outdated processors is simply wrong. > > Who said anything about pitifully outdated processors. I can buy a heck > of alot of CPU horsepower w/out buying the latest/greatest CPU. > > As a matter of fact, in almost all cases, the best bang for the buck > would be for processorts that you imply to 'pitfully outdated'. I think you've missed the fact that the '486 solution requires an add-on board (priced at $80.) and the faster cpu solution doesnt. That adds a lot of margin to get a faster MB, more than enough to compensate for the board. Bryan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message