Re: Re: Storage subsystem for HA server

[Chris Hunter <cjhunter@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

the IIfx failures were after about 30,000 hours / 10,000 on/off cycles
...

the updates are so few because system updates don't generally demand
application updates ... indeed, the versions of Excel & Word I use
everyday are the ones we bought in 1991 ... OTOH, 'prefer Word to Pages,
'though Keynote is better than Powerpoint, including dealing with old
Powerpoint material ... ClarisCAD is better than Vectorworks, but
long-since discontinued ...



Chris



Chris Hunter wrote:

> >component failure ...
>
>that's another issue ... in nearly twenty years of 'Mac the only
falures
>we've had have been a display card in our IIfx, an intermitent fault in
>the monitor power unit of the same machine, which needed the screen
>plugged in & out every now & then, to keep it flowing properly,
and the
>keyboard of our G4 (which shouldn't count really, 'cos it wa due to  a
>G&T being tipped onto it, and washing it out left a couple of key
not
>working totally reliably) ...
>
> >updates ...
>
>the only updates we've bought since we got the G4 five years ago have
>been OSX & the necessary MS Office update to go with it ('though
the
>latter was a total waste of money, it being a bodged job) ... plus a
few
>extras - ie: WiFi (Airport), a CD-burner, a scanner, and an Ethenet hub
>... otherwise it still performs better than anything we have at work,
>despite all the updates we've had there ...
>
>Chris
>
>
>
>Ian Lowe wrote:
>
>
>
>>>plus going the PC route seems to be a recipe for getting
sucked-in to
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>lots of unplanned costs over time ... which we've found tends not
to be
>>the case with Apple ...
>>
>>See, I just don't get this...
>>
>>The only reasons I have ever had for upgrading my hardware are
component
>>failure, or because my needs changed. If you have a windows server
just
>>ticking away, doing it's do, then it will do the same job for years
without
>>ever needing new hardware until something fails.
>>
>>The unplanned costs over time are because the platform provides you
with so
>>many new things to try that you grow the requirements beyond the
original
>>and start asking the server to do more and more with each passing
year.
>>
>>The Xserve units always leave me cold - if you want a nice desktop
OS, Macs
>>are great, and parallels brings a whole new dimension to that, but
if you
>>want a general purpose server, you simply cannot beat Server 2003
R2, or one
>>of the variety of Linux SME distros, if you have an anti-microsoft
beef.
>>
>>Xserve strikes me as not solving any technical need, just providing
another
>>route for Mac Zealots to purchase from the Temple of Jobs!!
>>
>>Ian
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]