Does anyone have recommendations for buying a reasonable base unit (i.e. no screen/keyboard/mouse/etc.) I think I'd prefer an 'all Intel' system as that's any easy way to be (fairly) sure it will all work in Linux (though I'm willing to listen to alternatives).
I want something like - desktop/tower system, intel core two quad processor, 4Gb RAM (with space for more), 500Gb or thereabouts hard disk. My last system was a 'select the bits yourself' custom build from Komplett but they no longer exist. A company like them would be good.
On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 10:25:11PM +0100, Chris G wrote:
Does anyone have recommendations for buying a reasonable base unit (i.e. no screen/keyboard/mouse/etc.) I think I'd prefer an 'all Intel' system as that's any easy way to be (fairly) sure it will all work in Linux (though I'm willing to listen to alternatives).
I want something like - desktop/tower system, intel core two quad processor, 4Gb RAM (with space for more), 500Gb or thereabouts hard disk. My last system was a 'select the bits yourself' custom build from Komplett but they no longer exist. A company like them would be good.
... and no need for fantastic graphics performance, only requirement is to be able to run Vmware or Virtualbox without hassle.
On 02 Oct 22:27, Chris G wrote:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 10:25:11PM +0100, Chris G wrote:
Does anyone have recommendations for buying a reasonable base unit (i.e. no screen/keyboard/mouse/etc.) I think I'd prefer an 'all Intel' system as that's any easy way to be (fairly) sure it will all work in Linux (though I'm willing to listen to alternatives).
I want something like - desktop/tower system, intel core two quad processor, 4Gb RAM (with space for more), 500Gb or thereabouts hard disk. My last system was a 'select the bits yourself' custom build from Komplett but they no longer exist. A company like them would be good.
... and no need for fantastic graphics performance, only requirement is to be able to run Vmware or Virtualbox without hassle.
2 things:
1) You haven't given a price range 2) You haven't said if it needs an upgrade path
Cheers,
On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 10:40:19PM +0100, Brett Parker wrote:
On 02 Oct 22:27, Chris G wrote:
On Thu, Oct 02, 2008 at 10:25:11PM +0100, Chris G wrote:
Does anyone have recommendations for buying a reasonable base unit (i.e. no screen/keyboard/mouse/etc.) I think I'd prefer an 'all Intel' system as that's any easy way to be (fairly) sure it will all work in Linux (though I'm willing to listen to alternatives).
I want something like - desktop/tower system, intel core two quad processor, 4Gb RAM (with space for more), 500Gb or thereabouts hard disk. My last system was a 'select the bits yourself' custom build from Komplett but they no longer exist. A company like them would be good.
... and no need for fantastic graphics performance, only requirement is to be able to run Vmware or Virtualbox without hassle.
2 things:
- You haven't given a price range
Whatever it costs, obviously the cheaper the better.
- You haven't said if it needs an upgrade path
No need really, apart from the comment about memory. The only upgrades I've ever done have been adding memory and adding a hard disk. Space for more than one disk would be good.
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 23:01:50 +0100 Chris G cl@isbd.net allegedly wrote:
- You haven't given a price range
Whatever it costs, obviously the cheaper the better.
- You haven't said if it needs an upgrade path
No need really, apart from the comment about memory. The only upgrades I've ever done have been adding memory and adding a hard disk. Space for more than one disk would be good.
Well, unless you intend installing a 64 bit distro, there's no point in worrying about a upgrade path from 4 Gig of RAM.
As for where to buy, I'd go back to my earlier recommendation to use 121 computers in Diss. Four hundred notes should get you what you want.
Mick ---------------------------------------------------------------------
The text file for RFC 854 contains exactly 854 lines. Do you think there is any cosmic significance in this?
Douglas E Comer - Internetworking with TCP/IP Volume 1
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc854.txt ---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 07:27:26AM +0100, mbm wrote:
On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 23:01:50 +0100 Chris G cl@isbd.net allegedly wrote:
- You haven't given a price range
Whatever it costs, obviously the cheaper the better.
- You haven't said if it needs an upgrade path
No need really, apart from the comment about memory. The only upgrades I've ever done have been adding memory and adding a hard disk. Space for more than one disk would be good.
Well, unless you intend installing a 64 bit distro, there's no point in worrying about a upgrade path from 4 Gig of RAM.
I'm running a 64-bit Fedora at the moment, for Vmware/Virtualbox it makes sense. I have 6Gb of memory.
As for where to buy, I'd go back to my earlier recommendation to use 121 computers in Diss. Four hundred notes should get you what you want.
Ah yes, I'd sort of forgotten about them, they were in Ipswich but have now been replaced by 1st Graphic there. Thanks.
Thanks to all who have suggested things.
Chris G wrote:
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 07:27:26AM +0100, mbm wrote:
Well, unless you intend installing a 64 bit distro, there's no point in worrying about a upgrade path from 4 Gig of RAM
I'm running a 64-bit Fedora at the moment, for Vmware/Virtualbox it makes sense. I have 6Gb of memory.
Assuming hardware supports it (most new hardware will, surely) is there any good reason *not* to install a 64-bit O/S now?
I've been running 64-bit Ubuntu since 7.04 (maybe before that, I can't remember) and never had any significant problems. It's only where you need to use Windows code (eg ndiswrapper, flash*) that it tends to be problematic but there's workarounds for stuff like that. Generally, though, Linux has been 64-bit capable for so long that O/S problems have been ironed out long ago.
[*] OK Flash has native Linux binaries but they're only 32-bit. Adobe is probably just too small a company to be able to recompile with a different set of compile flags. Or maybe it's badly written or something. Who knows?!
Hi
2008/10/3 Mark Rogers mark@quarella.co.uk:
Chris G wrote:
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 07:27:26AM +0100, mbm wrote:
Well, unless you intend installing a 64 bit distro, there's no point in worrying about a upgrade path from 4 Gig of RAM
I'm running a 64-bit Fedora at the moment, for Vmware/Virtualbox it makes sense. I have 6Gb of memory.
Assuming hardware supports it (most new hardware will, surely) is there any good reason *not* to install a 64-bit O/S now?
Depends if you really mean OS as in the kernel and not the userland applications too. I think I saw that Gentoo masks some things out (compiz?) on the amd64 architecture due to insuficient testing. Could just be an archaic Gentoo-ism. :)
I've been running 64-bit Ubuntu since 7.04 (maybe before that, I can't remember) and never had any significant problems. It's only where you need to use Windows code (eg ndiswrapper, flash*) that it tends to be problematic but there's workarounds for stuff like that. Generally, though, Linux has been 64-bit capable for so long that O/S problems have been ironed out long ago.
64bit kernel, 32bit userland? I heard this was possible but never tried it. Might try it on my laptop as part of a tripple boot.
- Srdjan
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 09:38:19AM +0100, Srdjan Todorovic wrote:
Hi
2008/10/3 Mark Rogers mark@quarella.co.uk:
Chris G wrote:
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 07:27:26AM +0100, mbm wrote:
Well, unless you intend installing a 64 bit distro, there's no point in worrying about a upgrade path from 4 Gig of RAM
I'm running a 64-bit Fedora at the moment, for Vmware/Virtualbox it makes sense. I have 6Gb of memory.
Assuming hardware supports it (most new hardware will, surely) is there any good reason *not* to install a 64-bit O/S now?
Depends if you really mean OS as in the kernel and not the userland applications too. I think I saw that Gentoo masks some things out (compiz?) on the amd64 architecture due to insuficient testing. Could just be an archaic Gentoo-ism. :)
I've been running 64-bit Ubuntu since 7.04 (maybe before that, I can't remember) and never had any significant problems. It's only where you need to use Windows code (eg ndiswrapper, flash*) that it tends to be problematic but there's workarounds for stuff like that. Generally, though, Linux has been 64-bit capable for so long that O/S problems have been ironed out long ago.
64bit kernel, 32bit userland? I heard this was possible but never tried it. Might try it on my laptop as part of a tripple boot.
It's what I do for the 'difficult' applications. I run 64-bit Fedora and most applications are 64-bit as well but I run a 32-bit Firefox so I don't get any issues with ndiswrapper, flash, etc. Yes, I know there are workarounds for 64-bit Firefox but it's just *easier* to run the 32-bit version and it's dead easy in a 64-bit installation.
On Fri, 2008-10-03 at 09:22 +0100, Mark Rogers wrote:
Assuming hardware supports it (most new hardware will, surely) is there any good reason *not* to install a 64-bit O/S now?
Not really, you suffer from missing 64bit versions of closed software *cough* skype. but usually it is trivial to fix it so that the 32bit version works. However if you were limited on ram and have no intention of upgrading then I would say stick to 32bit as the memory footprint of a 32bit system should be smaller.
I've been running 64-bit Ubuntu since 7.04 (maybe before that, I can't remember) and never had any significant problems. It's only where you need to use Windows code (eg ndiswrapper, flash*) that it tends to be problematic but there's workarounds for stuff like that. Generally, though, Linux has been 64-bit capable for so long that O/S problems have been ironed out long ago.
I find ndispluginwrapper also has a neat side effect in that Flash doesn't seem to be able to take firefox with it when it goes bang. Generally if something goes pop with flash then I just get no flash until I restart firefox.
On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:22:05 +0100 Mark Rogers mark@quarella.co.uk allegedly wrote:
Chris G wrote:
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 07:27:26AM +0100, mbm wrote:
Well, unless you intend installing a 64 bit distro, there's no point in worrying about a upgrade path from 4 Gig of RAM
I'm running a 64-bit Fedora at the moment, for Vmware/Virtualbox it makes sense. I have 6Gb of memory.
Assuming hardware supports it (most new hardware will, surely) is there any good reason *not* to install a 64-bit O/S now?
I've been running 64-bit Ubuntu since 7.04 (maybe before that, I can't remember) and never had any significant problems. It's only where you need to use Windows code (eg ndiswrapper, flash*) that it tends to be problematic but there's workarounds for stuff like that. Generally, though, Linux has been 64-bit capable for so long that O/S problems have been ironed out long ago.
Yes I'd use a 64 bit distro as a server - particularly if I was going to virtualise servers on top. I tried running a 64 bit distro on my desktop about 3 or 4 years ago (not sure exactly which one, but it was probably Suse since that was what I was using at the time). I had several problems with desktop apps not being available in the 64 bit version (and I couldn't be bothered to try to fix them all because I had better things to do).
If it is now possible to get a fully usable 64 bit personal desktop running I'll give it a go. Anyone got any current experience to share? Mark?
Mick ---------------------------------------------------------------------
The text file for RFC 854 contains exactly 854 lines. Do you think there is any cosmic significance in this?
Douglas E Comer - Internetworking with TCP/IP Volume 1
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc854.txt ---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 09:50:51AM +0100, mbm wrote:
If it is now possible to get a fully usable 64 bit personal desktop running I'll give it a go. Anyone got any current experience to share? Mark?
I've been running a 64 bit Debian desktop since earlier this year. The only thing I have any issue with is Flash, and it mostly works but just requires restarting the browser more often than usual when it plays up.
J.
mbm wrote:
If it is now possible to get a fully usable 64 bit personal desktop running I'll give it a go. Anyone got any current experience to share? Mark?
Well I obviously consider mine to be fully usable!
I'm a relatively recent convert to Linux desktops, having used them at a commandline level for servers for ages (my desktop was still Windows as too many things "needed it"). One day NTFS decided to reorganise my data in the same way girlfriends do with CD collections, and suddenly discovered it couldn't find anything, so in a fit of frustration I installed Ubuntu (6.x I think) fully aware that after a week I'd be forced back to go back to Windows, but instead I'm now at 8.04 at work and just started playing with 8.10 (pre-release) at home.
My work desktop is an old 32-bit processor, my home one a newer 64-bit CPU, so I use 32-bit and 64-bit distros respectively. I do use them for different things, but a lot of the core apps (Thunderbird, FireFox, OOo, etc) are the same, and I don't generally notice much difference between them; I can't think of the last time the 64-bit nature of my home O/S has been a limitation in any way.
If I had a 64-bit laptop I might be more careful due to things like wireless drivers but to be honest I'd definitely suggest a 64-bit desktop install as the default choice for any 64-bit CPU owner.
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 09:22:05AM +0100, Mark Rogers wrote:
Chris G wrote:
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 07:27:26AM +0100, mbm wrote:
Well, unless you intend installing a 64 bit distro, there's no point in worrying about a upgrade path from 4 Gig of RAM
I'm running a 64-bit Fedora at the moment, for Vmware/Virtualbox it makes sense. I have 6Gb of memory.
Assuming hardware supports it (most new hardware will, surely) is there any good reason *not* to install a 64-bit O/S now?
The R documentation ("R Installation and Administration", Section "8 Choosing between 32- and 64-bit builds", see http://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/R-admin.html) says that for a given amount of data, you'll need less memory on 32 bit due to smaller pointer sizes, and that for the same reason, R can be faster on a 32 bit OS.
Does anyone here have practical experience with this?
Best regards, Jan
On Thursday 02 October 2008 22:25:11 Chris G wrote:
Does anyone have recommendations for buying a reasonable base unit (i.e. no screen/keyboard/mouse/etc.) I think I'd prefer an 'all Intel' system as that's any easy way to be (fairly) sure it will all work in Linux (though I'm willing to listen to alternatives).
I want something like - desktop/tower system, intel core two quad processor, 4Gb RAM (with space for more), 500Gb or thereabouts hard disk. My last system was a 'select the bits yourself' custom build from Komplett but they no longer exist. A company like them would be good.
On the occasions that we bought PCs at work (my colleagues were all Mac geeks) we bought them from DNUK. (I, of course, don't buy computers because I'm a student.)
They supply reasonably Linux compatible workstations (and will even pre-install some distros for you) and allow you to configure quite a bit (including having no keyboard, monitor etc.)
Cheers, Richard
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 22:25 +0100, Chris G wrote:
I want something like - desktop/tower system, intel core two quad processor, 4Gb RAM (with space for more), 500Gb or thereabouts hard disk. My last system was a 'select the bits yourself' custom build from Komplett but they no longer exist. A company like them would be good.
Sounds similar to the system I built for myself last year. I did it all from ebuyer bits. I ended up with Core2Quad 4GB 1TB of raid5 and a good graphics card for less than £700 using quality bits and I am guessing it would be even cheaper now. Nevermind that over £100 of that was the GFX card.
For business customers we tend to buy off the shelf brand name machines simply because for general desktops it isn't worth our time assembling them and dealing with warranty support etc. But for personal machines I have always built them myself partly because I take pleasure in it and partly because in the interests of Linux compatibility and upgrade paths I like to have full control of the components used.
I think at the time I built my box a Dell of similar spec came out over £1000.
If you are not happy with self assembly then there is http://efficientpc.co.uk/ who I haven't used but heard reasonable things about. I have just roughly spec'ed out my box on their site and it comes to £636 inc VAT
On Fri, Oct 03, 2008 at 12:55:06AM +0100, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 22:25 +0100, Chris G wrote:
I want something like - desktop/tower system, intel core two quad processor, 4Gb RAM (with space for more), 500Gb or thereabouts hard disk. My last system was a 'select the bits yourself' custom build from Komplett but they no longer exist. A company like them would be good.
Sounds similar to the system I built for myself last year. I did it all from ebuyer bits. I ended up with Core2Quad 4GB 1TB of raid5 and a good graphics card for less than £700 using quality bits and I am guessing it would be even cheaper now. Nevermind that over £100 of that was the GFX card.
For business customers we tend to buy off the shelf brand name machines simply because for general desktops it isn't worth our time assembling them and dealing with warranty support etc. But for personal machines I have always built them myself partly because I take pleasure in it and partly because in the interests of Linux compatibility and upgrade paths I like to have full control of the components used.
I think at the time I built my box a Dell of similar spec came out over £1000.
If you are not happy with self assembly then there is http://efficientpc.co.uk/ who I haven't used but heard reasonable things about. I have just roughly spec'ed out my box on their site and it comes to £636 inc VAT
Thanks, I've built all my systems myself so far, I might go that route. However I'll look at efficientpc.co.uk too.
-
Brett Parker -
Chris G -
Jan T. Kim -
Jonathan McDowell -
Mark Rogers -
mbm -
Richard Lewis -
Srdjan Todorovic -
Wayne Stallwood