Re: IceBreak as an alternative to Apache?

[Thorbjoern Ravn Andersen <ravn@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Den 01/01/11 20.39, Joe Pluta skrev:
> > I do not agree with this conclusion.  The single largest reason for
> > large amounts of memory being needed for a Windows machine is the
> > graphics module which the IBM i doesn't have.  Just see how much more
> > the Aero capability for Vista/7 requires in terms of computer power (but
> > it is nice).
> You may not agree with my conclusion, but I don't agree with yours,
> either.  There's simply no reason for graphics to require a gigabyte of
> memory.  My PS3 has graphics that are as good as Windows and yet only
> requires 256MB of memory.  If you're saying that the graphics engine on
> Windows is the main driver behind the gigabyte requirement then that's
> some horribly bloated code.
I am not saying that the usage of Aero is reasonable, I agree it is 
quite the opposite, but that is what Microsoft chose to let Aero 
actually use.  I have no idea why, but they have to do SOMETHING to have 
people buy new machines and since the cpu's do not get faster anymore, 
they had to move to something else that did, and be hogs in the process 
too.  In other words, deliberately bloated.

Personally I'm actually fine with Remote Desktop, which still works very 
well.

> > > So, yes, other operating systems have shared code.  But like so many
> > > things, the i has had it for a much longer time.  The IBM i - we have
> > > technology before technology is cool<smile>.
> > I agree that the i appears to be very efficient in how things work.
> "appears"??  Heeeee!  Yes, and the Sun appears to be hot, doesn't it? :)
As you may know I live in Denmark (same height as New Foundland), where 
the Copenhagen climate summit on Global Warming was caught in a blizzard 
a year ago and we have had two months of similar winter now, so these 
days it is a bit hard to see.  I believe you though :)