[Gllug] TFT Monitors

[Peter Cannon]

On Sunday 31 December 2006 12:53, Tethys wrote:

> And rightly so. Onboard graphics are almost invariably a better choice for
> pretty much any normal business desktop

A year or so ago I would have said "You are wrong" however today (2007) you 
may have a point but not for the reason you state.

Because base systems are so cheap, I saw one advertised the other day for 
£139.00 including a 15" TFT, it pays company's to buy in two or three units 
and stick them in a cupboard to be whipped out in the event of a failure. As 
one of my customers said a month or so back "I'm cancelling our maintenance 
contract, theres no point, if it breaks I'll buy a new one" the only critical 
element potentially is the hard drive anyway, but good practise is to save 
valuable stuff on the server so that shouldn't be a problem either. 

> [1]. They tend to be well supported 
> under Linux without the need for closed source drivers that leave you
> with a tainted (and hence unsupportable) kernel, they're more than fast
> enough, and they've proved less prone to failure than a PCI/AGP/PCIE card
> in my experience. Plus of course, you don't need to pay extra for them.
> YMMV.

When I first got into Linux I used to lay awake at night fretting 
over "xxxx.i386.rpm tainting kernel setting somethingorother flag" then it 
came to pass that that error message is unimportant unless your a purist as 
it has no effect what so ever on the kernel performance. :-)

I think we will agree to disagree on the on-board graphics I cant see how it 
can give as good a performance as a dedicated card and I dislike giving up 
valuable RAM space for graphics.

P'S what does YMMV mean?

-- 
Regards
Peter cannon
"There is every excuse for not knowing
There is no excuse for not asking"
-------------- next part --------------
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug