> it should run more than one, right? I was compiling FORTRAN back in the day along with who knows how many other people at the same time. I have no idea about the storage.
Definitely. Most clocks average 1-2% CPU usage when none of the GUI is being used, and that includes all the Linux overhead. Once you start moving the cursor around, scrolling text, etc, the usage jumps way up. Even holding the spacebar down pumps CPU utilization up to 50%. The RasPi is handy for control applications, but it really STINKS for most interactive work. Web-browsing on a RasPi is basically death-by-torture. Generally, I have 1 RasPi for each clock. My incandescent clock (6 DTF104B numitrons, and 6 IEE single-plane displays) has a dongle cable so I can run them from the same RasPi, but that tether cable is kind of a nuisance, so I'm going to stay with 1 clock-per-RasPi. It does burn a bit more power, but not as much as a VAX. On Saturday, January 11, 2025 at 3:13:26 PM UTC-8 Mac Doktor wrote: > > On Jan 11, 2025, at 3:35 PM, gregebert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Who in their right mind would have thought of using a VAX to run a > nixie-tube clock ? > > > it should run more than one, right? I was compiling FORTRAN back in the > day along with who knows how many other people at the same time. I have no > idea about the storage. > > > Terry Bowman, KA4HJH > "The Mac Doctor" > > https://www.astarcloseup.com > > "Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out > of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm > for science intact."—Carl Sagan, *Psychology Today*, 1996 > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "neonixie-l" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/neonixie-l/823a92f9-729c-40fb-8875-f215fd622342n%40googlegroups.com.
