| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 43521 | 2004-03-17 08:55:00 | A Computer Shared | Poppa John (284) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 223260 | 2004-03-18 04:53:00 | I agree with Susan and Graham. Stuff the razor, toothbrush is something that should not shared... Not even if I were married would I share it :p And my first impression was to suggest Linux, but I dunno how keen PJ would be on Maryann totally changing the PC (Hint for MA: Do it while he sleeps ;-)). It'd do exactly what they want though, and much more to say the least :-) ...Would only need it on the main PC.... Then they'd have to make sure they keep their network running though :D Chill. |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 223261 | 2004-03-18 08:11:00 | OK. I don't think we want to get into Linux The Server thought. At the last job I was allowed to have, there were about 20 computer workstations. If memory chip serves me right, mostly they would be connected to the "Office Server" (?) to use the company system/records/ sales etc But also possible to use as a pc of ones own on ones desk. Does that sound right?.. So..... that means Maryann & PJ having a "workstation computer" & a third computer as a "Server". Does that sound right??. Suppose that XP was on the server m/c, could both M & PJ use the server XP at the same time ??? The two workstations would be "networked" some how to the server??? The problem for us at the moment is we both want to use the Sigma/XP m/c because it is faster etc., the screen is bigger, all M's photographic stuff is in it (wait there is more !!!!). Yes I then go over to the Dell/98se, but oh so slow. WE are networked but it is not perfect, functional yes, not all XP folders/files can be accessed. The Dell has a 450 motherboard, a 400 processor, 170 ram (250 max) . The Sigma has a 3gb motherboard, a 1400 processor, 512 ram. You can see why we both want to be on the Sigma m/c.. ( The Sigma is a shop built computer, made in Papatoetoe by Sigma Computers) PJ |
Maryann (2010) | ||
| 223262 | 2004-03-18 08:35:00 | PJ again. Had a look in Google & came up with :- Client/server networking, Peer to Peer networking, what we have now I think, & Null modem cable connection. PJ | Maryann (2010) | ||
| 223263 | 2004-03-18 08:45:00 | Hi Maryann, If I have your idea correct, what you are interested in is process migration. This is designed to move the currently running process (or program ;) ) on to a faster computer like the Sigma. If you were running linux on both the Dell and Sigma I would suggest using Open Mosix (http://openmosix.sourceforge.net) which alters the operating system. I would imagine that there would be something similar available for Windows but it most likely would cost :) Although, having said that you might like to have a read of this pdf file (www.public.asu.edu) that discusses using Windows 2000. HTH :D |
Gorela (901) | ||
| 223264 | 2004-03-18 08:47:00 | it can be done, i have seen it done. what i saw was a windows 2k system with USB keyboards and USB mouse, twin head display. as for the software side of things i dont know. key point is that yes it can be done. |
robsonde (120) | ||
| 223265 | 2004-03-18 22:08:00 | You don't need "process migration" or any other dreams/research projects of the "computer scientists". What's needed is a multiuser OS. That's what we used for decades before PCs had been dreamed of. You sat at a terminal and logged into the computer. You ran your programme on the computer. There were other people sharing the disk, the memory and the CPU. People doing serious work started batch jobs with a deck of cards and a few tape reels. In Linux, you use one computer as "the computer".One user logs into that using an X Window server as a terminal. The other computer runs an X Window server, and the other user uses that as a terminal. You don't need a very fast PC to run an X Window server. Linux is a *nix, and that's how it was/is used on mini computers and mainframes. You might be able to do a similar thing with XP. Can you run a terminal on your W98 machine and log on to the XP machine, so there are two interactive users? I have an idea that you can't. Maybe in W2k. You need a multiuser timesharing OS. Of course the fast machine with two users gives each user a little less than "half" the resources --- it doesn't miraculously give twice the power. It was noticable on a mainframe when the number of interactive users went above the critical number. (Or some idiot ran a programme with an infinite loop). |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 223266 | 2004-03-19 00:45:00 | Is "a computer shared" a "problem halved"? | Jester (13) | ||
| 223267 | 2004-03-19 03:12:00 | > it can be done, i have seen it done. > > what i saw was a windows 2k system with USB keyboards > and USB mouse, twin head display. > > as for the software side of things i dont know. > > key point is that yes it can be done. > > > Yes it can be done this way, the accessablity features in win2k and more than likley XP can be used to achive it. I have seen it done at learning centers. It is a pain when it comes to setting the focus on apps and if your mouse happens to stray of the screen onto the other monitor all sorts of fun can insue... The other big problem is that many apps will not allow multipile occurances of themselves to run at the same time. If you are feeling brave enough to try it then mickysoft have lots of info on how to setup and use the accessablity features. Personaly I would put Linux on the fast PC and use a couple of crappy PCs as VNC clients... |
ugh1 (4204) | ||
| 223268 | 2004-03-19 03:53:00 | > Is "a computer shared" a "problem halved"? No . In PJ's case, a computer shared is "double trouble" . He wouldn't be able to stop interfering with Maryann's side of the system . Trust me on this . . . . Plus, you may think the XP is fast . Double up everything on it and it will be as slow as the 98 machine, for both of you . |
godfather (25) | ||
| 223269 | 2004-03-19 04:32:00 | godfather...you are so right, and SO understanding!! ;\ ;\ | Maryann (2010) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||