Can I handle a 64 bit computer? Time to ditch the Celeron and SPARC it?

[brian_riendeau]

I believe the time has come for my Celeron system to go the way of the communism, right into the trash. My Celeron 800 works pretty well, but lacks the overall stability and robustness I crave. This is what I am looking at upgrading too:

http://www.sun.com/desktop/sunblade100/

I still have my K6-2 400 for a backup computer, so I would have a Windows machine to fall back on in case I needed it. I rarely game on my computer anymore as I am becoming a console gaming only person. I mainly use my computer for web surfing, email, and messing with C++/OpenGL programming. I am going for a few major things with the Sun workstation, stability, something new to play with, and experience that will pay off later. I do not want to mess with Linux, and if I did, I could easily fun it on the Blade 100. The box only has 2D graphics as well, but I don't care at this point.

I can sell my Celeron 800 box for around $700, and buy the Blade 100 for $995 shipped to my door. I would pick up a KDS 17 FD Trinitron monitor as well. I can use standard PC133 ECC with the Blade 100, so I can get the box to up around 384MB for hardly anything at all...

So here is the big question, should I go for it?

 

[Sunner]

The UltraII's are hardly the fastest CPU's around, at least not the budget U2e's.

But in terms of stability the Blade100 will most likely be more stable than most Windows servers, so if stability is what you crave, go for it.

 

[Czar]

you got lots and lots of money dont you?

 

[bacillus]

<< you got lots and lots of money dont you? >>


he's obviously thought long &amp; hard about it!

 

[Sunner]

Czar, why do you say that?

The Blade100 is very cheap, dont confuse it with the 10k$ Blade1000.

 

[Double Trouble]

Any stability issues you might be facing are most likely not due to the celery, but rather winders or winders drivers. The Blade's are really nice though, and for the price differential, I'd consider it (based on your priorities).

 

[Zach]

If you are willing to loose Windows, I'd put Linux on on of those systems first.. try it out. Actually, I'd put it on the K6-2, and use that for everyday use; the Celeron could be your Windows machine for gaming (need more power...).

Dual boot is golden, too.

 

[brian_riendeau]

&quot;you got lots and lots of money dont you?&quot;

Where did this come from? It would cost me $300 to switch systems, that is hardly showing I have an excess of money when other people are spending $400+ to go from a GeForce 2 to a GeForce 2 Ultra. The new monitor ($200 at SAM'S Club) has been a long time coming since I still have a 15 inch monitor from 1995, and RAM is dirt cheap.

I am trying to figure out exactly what I can do with Solaris 8. I am trying to double check that it has a built in C++ compiler. Looks good so far though, should be a learning experience, thats for sure, and in the back of my head, that is what I am going for. I am going to see if work b0rks up my next paycheck, and try to go for it then.

I can't really do much with the K6-2 400 since a few other people use it. I am not a big Linux fan regardless...

 

[Snoop]

From what i have read over at aces, that cpu would have a hard time outpacing a K5

 

[brian_riendeau]

Oh, better research the CPU a bit more :|

 

[Diesel21]

Why don't you just change to Debian?? There is _plenty_ to play around with if you are a windows user.

 

[MGMorden]

Also if you're not a big Linux fan Solaris isn't too much different. It does seem a little more stable from my experience w/ it, but app selection is virtually the same.

 

[PG]

&quot;YOU CAN'T HANDLE 64 BIT!!&quot;

Just kidding, I'm suprised someone hadn't said it already.

I would also like to know what can be done with this computer. What would the advantages be over a normal CPU?

 

[visceral]

Aren't 64bit processors really meant for larger databases?

 

[MGMorden]

Yeah. 64-bit basicaly means you can hold larger numbers. You do ge the advantage of knowing that your computer is Y2038 compliant (since Unix keeps track of the date in the number of seconds it is past the creation of Unix. A 32-bit number will run out of space to count those seconds in 2038. A 64-bit will extend that time a few million more years ). In and of itself though, just being 64-bit doesn't mean at all that it's faster than a 32-bit machine (as bits are not a speed measurement), it just means it can handle bigger numbers (great for scientific apps and such, and would be good for general consumers if Microsoft/AMD/Intel would just push it).

 

[pm]

Well, I personally wouldn't do it. I personally think you get more bang for the buck sticking with PC's, and if you are looking for experience in an OS then I'd say that Linux is a better choice than Solaris. As far as stability, Intel (and AMD) CPU's are widely in webservers, so as far as stability, I don't think people would say that PC's are inherently unstable. Problems tend to occur with low-budget hardware and with OS/driver issues. So, if you ask me, I'd say no and I'd recommend a prebuilt Linux machine from one of the big vendors. I don't think big negative things of the SunBlade 100 - we have one here that I use occassionally for remote access - I just think there are better choices available.

 

[brian_riendeau]

I don't think my PC is inherently unstable, it just ticks me off that over time it starts to slow down and become unstable. Then I format, and poof, its all better, everytime. I hate that, I don't feel I should have to wipe everything and reinstall to regain performance even over a 1 year span. Win2000 will NOT install on my computer due to an ACPI issue that was supposed to be totally cleared up from the betas.

In the past I have run Redhat and Caldera distros of Linux, and both left a sour taste in my mouth (Caldera moreso than Redhat). This was ~2 years ago though, so surely it has gotten better by now...

Solaris on SPARC hardware has always intrigued me. While not being the fastest, it seems to be damned near the most stable. In the past I almost bought a used Ultra 5 workstation and a Sun laptop on the cheap. Both times I backed out. The Blade 100 looks to be a better deal than the other two, more current. CPU does seems a little pokey though. Correct me if I am wrong here, but I could run Linux on the Blade 100 if I wanted?

 

[pm]

I am, among other things, one of the main guys responsible for a small subnet here at Intel. One day a little over a year ago, our only DHCP server died. We scoured around and couldn't find a replacement, the IT guys said it would take a day or two (for various reasons), so, since about 100 people couldn't work, a buddy and myself went to Best Buy and bought the cheapest computer we could find which was an HP Pavillion with a really slow (relatively speaking) Celeron processor, with 64MB and an integrated everything motherboard in this tiny little box. We brought that computer back, wiped the HD clean and installed Red Hat on it, and within an hour and a half we got the whole thing up and running again. We have been using it as a DHCP/Samba/web/print server for a small, but moderately active network used by approx. 100 people daily. I had to take it down yesterday to physically move the box and I looked at the uptime - a little over 7 months - and the use statistics were pretty amazing too. My point is that I think the problem in your case is probably the OS - not the hardware.

But I don't want to say, &quot;Don't get the SunBlade&quot;. Sun makes good, stable boxes and now that they have competition, they are starting to price them effectively too. I just think a prebuilt Linux box - with Linux installed and totally pre-configured is a more cost-effective solution. There certainly is the coolness factor - which the SunBlade wins hands-down in my opinion.

Edit: You should be able to run Linux on the Sunblade. I would think that it would work fine, but I would bet that it would be a little harder than getting it running on a PC since Linux is mostly aimed at PC's.

 

[Sunner]

IMO for programming, some office type stuff, and other &quot;general use&quot;, the Blade100 will be plenty for you.

I worked with an Ultra5 with a 360 MHz U2 and 256 MB of RAM before, and it was surprisingly fast for such weak hardware.

Another option if you want a really powerful OS would be a BSD of some flavour, having used Linux as well as Solaris I was interested in it and started using it recently, very nice OS indeed.

 

[brian_riendeau]

I am trying to finalize the sale of my current system right now. Looks like it may take my friend a little bit to get the cash. If he does not buy my system, looks like I am stuck with it, doh!

What is the difference between Linux and BSD (particulary FreeBSD). I am not to up on the BSD news at all...

 

[esung]

I am also thinking about getting the Blade100 pizza box as well.. the most important thing to me is does it come with C compiler? if it is, then it's not a bad deal. and I could jack up the RAM some more.

 

[brian_riendeau]

I was told by a friend that Solaris *should* come with a C compiler, but he was not sure which one or how featured it was. You can always download GCC from http://www.sunfreeware.com

Getting some verification on this would be very nice...

 

[Zach]

Check out Penguin Computing if you want a new box..

I'd just install Redhat or build a new box for linux though. I'll remind you about dual booting again also. You don't have to loose windows.

 

[Almighty1]

Well, Linux is a Unix like OS. BSD is one of the two standards of Unix. The other being System V from Unix Software Labs. TCP/IP and Networking came from BSD. Also, Yahoo, USWest, Genuity/BBN, and various others run FreeBSD... Even the internals of hotmail uses FreeBSD. SUNOS 4.2 which is BSD based is actually better than SUNOS5.x which is what Solaris basically is...