Re: [9fans] gumstix displays
On Wed Dec 8 22:14:45 EST 2010, lu...@proxima.alt.za wrote: if you want to go for a cheap atom, i think you can beat that price. Yes, but two weeks later you can't get the same device anymore, even though the successor, incompatible in fifteen different ways, is 2 USD cheaper. And all of it is buggy in some fashion or other. And VGA is its own reward. that's simply not true. i wouldn't recommend bad solutions. i use this motherboard http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/ATOM/945/X7SLA.cfm?typ=H and this motherboard http://www.supermicro.com/products/motherboard/ATOM/ICH9/X7SPE.cfm?typ=H they're not cheep. but with a $100 chassis+power supply, you have a $230-260 computer that's pretty fast (especially compared to a gumstix) and will Just work with 9atom. the first motherboard is completely fanless. these motherboards have been around for more than a year, and they're listed as embedded, which means long support life. i'm sure there are better and cheeper motherboards out there. i stopped looking when i found one that worked well. - erik
Re: [9fans] gumstix displays
Erik, if I want fast I know where to look. I still have a 20€ seagate dockstar wasting my electricity for debian. Bad as a terminal but maybe something for a server. I'm still unsure if I should solder some serial. Did somebody already try plan 9 on this box?
Re: [9fans] gumstix displays
On Thu Dec 9 12:17:28 EST 2010, 23h...@googlemail.com wrote: Erik, if I want fast I know where to look. i believe the op's original adjective cheep. not fast. - erik
Re: [9fans] gumstix displays
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 9:22 AM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote: On Thu Dec 9 12:17:28 EST 2010, 23h...@googlemail.com wrote: Erik, if I want fast I know where to look. i believe the op's original adjective cheep. not fast. another part of my objective is open down to the metal. PCs just are not in that space any more, at least not for me. In fact PCs are now living the innovator's dilemma. ron
Re: [9fans] gumstix displays
On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:17:17 +0100 hiro 23h...@googlemail.com wrote: I forgot to make this fortune nomination: i wouldn't recommend bad solutions . Except to your frenemies?
Re: [9fans] gumstix displays
Seems a little small for a terminal, 4.3 at 480x272 resolution. Maybe I'm crazy.
Re: [9fans] gumstix displays
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Jacob Todd jaketodd...@gmail.com wrote: Seems a little small for a terminal, 4.3 at 480x272 resolution. Maybe I'm crazy. That's better than what you got on the iPaq, and I found that to be reasonably usable. John
Re: [9fans] gumstix displays
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 6:29 PM, hiro 23h...@googlemail.com wrote: There have been cheaper terminals for ages. But small may look nice in some cases... If you can point me at such a cheap graphical terminal that is still being made, I just might buy one tonight :) Grab a pentium from the loading dock doesn't count! John
Re: [9fans] gumstix displays
On Wed Dec 8 19:00:57 EST 2010, slawmas...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 6:29 PM, hiro 23h...@googlemail.com wrote: There have been cheaper terminals for ages. But small may look nice in some cases... If you can point me at such a cheap graphical terminal that is still being made, I just might buy one tonight :) Grab a pentium from the loading dock doesn't count! it shouldn't be difficult to beat the gumstix on a pure cost basis. by the time you put together a complete computer with a power supply, ethernet and display, they're at least $300 without a case. if you want to go for a cheap atom, i think you can beat that price. - erik
Re: [9fans] gumstix displays
if you want to go for a cheap atom, i think you can beat that price. Yes, but two weeks later you can't get the same device anymore, even though the successor, incompatible in fifteen different ways, is 2 USD cheaper. And all of it is buggy in some fashion or other. And VGA is its own reward. Ron has a point. ++L
