Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #18060 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-09-17 00:46 -0700 |
| Last post | 2014-10-10 09:53 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 230 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.arch.embedded
Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-17 00:46 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-17 04:05 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? dplatt@coop.radagast.org (David Platt) - 2014-09-17 11:09 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-09-17 22:52 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? mroberds@att.net - 2014-09-17 08:21 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-17 02:00 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-17 13:08 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? JW <none@dev.null> - 2014-09-17 08:24 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? mroberds@att.net - 2014-09-17 21:44 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? dplatt@coop.radagast.org (David Platt) - 2014-09-17 15:04 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-18 00:28 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-18 03:41 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-18 03:31 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-18 18:12 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-18 15:53 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-18 19:22 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-18 17:18 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-09-18 21:16 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-18 21:44 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-19 09:19 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-19 01:36 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-19 11:53 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-19 03:10 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-19 13:02 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-19 04:26 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-19 13:50 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-19 10:16 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-20 16:42 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 12:19 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-20 21:58 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 13:33 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-20 23:00 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 16:14 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-21 02:12 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 20:05 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-21 12:45 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 16:34 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 13:41 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 17:29 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2014-09-21 00:12 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 19:01 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 16:17 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-21 02:17 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 22:27 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-21 13:25 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2014-09-21 15:56 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-21 18:19 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-21 09:37 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 14:22 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-21 23:13 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 14:20 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-21 23:15 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 20:20 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 16:09 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 22:05 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 23:25 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-21 03:28 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 01:27 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2014-09-21 14:20 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-21 13:09 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 12:06 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-22 09:55 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2014-09-20 23:54 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 15:46 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 19:09 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 16:29 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 22:11 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 20:40 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-21 00:56 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 23:40 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-21 03:35 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 01:47 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-21 07:33 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 11:56 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-21 20:32 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2014-09-22 11:03 +1000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 18:18 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2014-09-22 11:53 +1000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 19:05 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 19:05 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? krw@attt.bizz - 2014-09-21 11:50 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2014-09-21 18:50 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 20:09 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2014-09-21 21:25 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-21 22:12 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-23 09:38 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 10:15 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 04:59 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? krw@attt.bizz - 2014-09-22 15:38 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-22 10:02 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 01:44 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-22 05:25 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-22 12:44 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 04:33 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 13:00 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 05:02 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-22 15:19 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 14:35 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 07:55 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-22 17:35 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 10:06 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-22 10:25 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2014-09-22 19:48 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-22 20:46 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2014-10-08 12:34 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-10-08 13:10 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-10-08 17:31 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-10-08 14:53 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-10-08 15:06 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-09 19:09 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-10-09 13:44 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-10-09 22:31 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2014-10-09 17:29 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2014-10-09 17:31 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-10-09 21:25 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2014-10-09 23:27 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-10-09 21:56 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> - 2014-10-10 18:48 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-10-10 10:43 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? mjb@signal11.invalid (Mike) - 2014-10-11 21:25 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? krw@attt.bizz - 2014-10-10 18:27 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2014-10-11 03:05 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-22 18:43 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-22 23:36 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 16:48 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-23 01:05 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 18:47 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-23 02:11 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 22:24 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 00:29 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-23 10:07 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-09-23 07:14 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-22 23:43 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? krw@attt.bizz - 2014-09-23 13:14 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-23 18:18 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 19:28 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? krw@attt.bizz - 2014-09-23 19:58 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 16:52 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? krw@attt.bizz - 2014-09-23 19:57 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2014-10-08 12:39 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-22 18:38 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-22 23:41 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-22 23:27 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-23 05:34 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 02:21 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-24 09:42 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 09:51 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-23 18:23 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 16:53 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-24 08:15 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-24 10:52 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-24 21:51 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-24 15:57 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 09:52 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 18:19 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 15:33 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 18:38 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 15:59 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 19:03 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-24 00:15 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 19:30 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 16:56 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-09-24 02:09 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 20:17 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 17:26 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 21:20 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-23 23:42 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2014-10-08 12:41 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 17:03 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-22 10:19 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-22 15:21 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 12:55 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2014-09-22 12:25 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 05:37 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 14:37 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 14:32 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 07:01 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2014-09-22 15:22 +0100
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 08:01 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 00:35 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Stef <stef33d@yahooI-N-V-A-L-I-D.com.invalid> - 2014-09-23 09:09 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-09-23 07:16 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2014-09-23 14:45 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-23 10:08 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-23 10:03 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-23 13:52 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-22 20:53 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 15:00 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-09-22 22:14 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 15:51 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-23 10:17 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-23 13:57 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-23 18:28 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-22 04:39 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? langwadt@fonz.dk - 2014-09-20 16:33 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-20 22:17 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? langwadt@fonz.dk - 2014-09-21 12:24 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-22 00:00 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2014-09-19 23:15 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-19 07:58 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-19 10:41 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-19 07:59 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-19 03:08 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-19 01:17 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-09-19 21:15 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-09-20 14:36 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <sp4mtr4p.boudewijn@indes.com> - 2014-09-19 10:02 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-19 04:20 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <sp4mtr4p.boudewijn@indes.com> - 2014-09-18 16:20 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-18 10:25 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <sp4mtr4p.boudewijn@indes.com> - 2014-09-19 09:36 +0200
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-19 01:27 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? josephkk <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> - 2014-09-19 21:35 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-20 11:54 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? mroberds@att.net - 2014-09-18 19:33 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-18 13:18 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Przemek Klosowski <przemek@tux.dot.org> - 2014-09-21 12:34 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? krw@attt.bizz - 2014-09-21 11:54 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? edward.ming.lee@gmail.com - 2014-09-17 08:10 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-09-17 15:11 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-09-17 22:53 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> - 2014-09-17 13:33 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-09-18 03:35 -0500
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Allan Herriman <allanherriman@hotmail.com> - 2014-09-18 13:16 +0000
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2014-09-25 13:51 +0300
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? dplatt@coop.radagast.org (David Platt) - 2014-09-25 09:58 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2014-09-29 21:46 +0300
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> - 2014-09-25 10:07 -0700
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2014-09-25 18:32 -0400
Re: Intel Atom: pros/cons/hazzards? "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_mandic@hotmail.com> - 2014-10-10 09:53 +0000
Page 6 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 12 Next page →
| From | Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-22 10:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lvpl4g$olj$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #18249 |
On 9/22/2014 8:35 AM, David Brown wrote: >> Yet, despite all these "inefficiencies", life (business) still seems to >> go on! And, commercially, apparently pretty well! > > And you wonder why people say your posts wander... > > I made a light-hearted jibe at American measurements - I didn't plan a > discussion on every measurement system since the dawn of mankind! My point was that we all use an odd collection of units -- even "metrified" countries -- every day. And, life still goes on. If there was reason to decimalize these other things, why then, not EVERYTHING? Those souls still have to deal with "odd quantities" (how many stone do you weigh?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-22 10:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <akm02a9qae24q0i39o522hiiv1367ieask@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #18255 |
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 10:06:27 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> Gave us: >On 9/22/2014 8:35 AM, David Brown wrote: >>> Yet, despite all these "inefficiencies", life (business) still seems to >>> go on! And, commercially, apparently pretty well! >> >> And you wonder why people say your posts wander... >> >> I made a light-hearted jibe at American measurements - I didn't plan a >> discussion on every measurement system since the dawn of mankind! > >My point was that we all use an odd collection of units -- even "metrified" >countries -- every day. And, life still goes on. If there was reason to >decimalize these other things, why then, not EVERYTHING? Those souls >still have to deal with "odd quantities" (how many stone do you weigh?) > Personally, I like how we are able to discriminate a GPS signal when the received strength is right down next to the baseline noise floor. But on the lighter side... Yeah, and where do you gauge at on that silly Scientology meter thingy? Good thing the astrology circles didn't come up with too many weird quantifications, or device with which to measure them! Bwuahahahahahaha! BRL!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-22 19:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <c8b5n9Fjkd7U1@mid.dfncis.de> |
| In reply to | #18255 |
Am 22.09.2014 um 19:06 schrieb Don Y: > My point was that we all use an odd collection of units -- even "metrified" > countries -- every day. You may never have been to a truly "metrified" country, then. E.g. here in Germany there's basically no non-metric unit left in practical, much less every-day use. And it's been like that since about the 1950s, at the least. Part of the reason is that it's been made effectively illegal to offer anything to the general public if it's quantified in non-metric units, by way of "fair conduct of commerce" laws. About the last hold-out are display screen diagonals given in inches, but even those are only tolerated, as an extra bit of information. The official product specification has to be metric, though, or you open yourself to competitors' cease-and-desist, and eventual lawsuits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-09-22 20:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lvpqpn$5md$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18259 |
On 22/09/14 19:48, Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote: > Am 22.09.2014 um 19:06 schrieb Don Y: > >> My point was that we all use an odd collection of units -- even >> "metrified" >> countries -- every day. > > You may never have been to a truly "metrified" country, then. > > E.g. here in Germany there's basically no non-metric unit left in > practical, much less every-day use. And it's been like that since about > the 1950s, at the least. > > Part of the reason is that it's been made effectively illegal to offer > anything to the general public if it's quantified in non-metric units, > by way of "fair conduct of commerce" laws. > > About the last hold-out are display screen diagonals given in inches, > but even those are only tolerated, as an extra bit of information. The > official product specification has to be metric, though, or you open > yourself to competitors' cease-and-desist, and eventual lawsuits. > The main odd one out is time - we use a variety of units there, even in metric countries. Scientific and technical fields use seconds, and metric fractions thereof, but in daily life we have hours, minutes, days, months, years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-08 12:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <rqWdneKSEr8f-qjJnZ2dnUU7-dednZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #18259 |
Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote: > > Am 22.09.2014 um 19:06 schrieb Don Y: > > > My point was that we all use an odd collection of units -- even "metrified" > > countries -- every day. > > You may never have been to a truly "metrified" country, then. > > E.g. here in Germany there's basically no non-metric unit left in > practical, much less every-day use. And it's been like that since about > the 1950s, at the least. None of your electronics is 19" rackmount? -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-08 13:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <hi6b3altgs7kbqfbijo27vh8m9jh70kaks@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #18480 |
On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 12:34:00 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> Gave us: > >Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote: >> >> Am 22.09.2014 um 19:06 schrieb Don Y: >> >> > My point was that we all use an odd collection of units -- even "metrified" >> > countries -- every day. >> >> You may never have been to a truly "metrified" country, then. >> >> E.g. here in Germany there's basically no non-metric unit left in >> practical, much less every-day use. And it's been like that since about >> the 1950s, at the least. > > > None of your electronics is 19" rackmount? It is a worldwide standard. It is part of EIA-310. If you do not subscribe to EIA standards, you likely do not make it as a worldwide player. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_unit In metric, 482 mm (482.6).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-08 17:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <m14agi$rs1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18483 |
On 10/8/2014 4:10 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: > On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 12:34:00 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> Gave us: > >> >> Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote: >>> >>> Am 22.09.2014 um 19:06 schrieb Don Y: >>> >>>> My point was that we all use an odd collection of units -- even "metrified" >>>> countries -- every day. >>> >>> You may never have been to a truly "metrified" country, then. >>> >>> E.g. here in Germany there's basically no non-metric unit left in >>> practical, much less every-day use. And it's been like that since about >>> the 1950s, at the least. >> >> >> None of your electronics is 19" rackmount? > > It is a worldwide standard. > > It is part of EIA-310. > > If you do not subscribe to EIA standards, you likely do not make it as > a worldwide player. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_unit > > In metric, 482 mm (482.6). I don't like to quote Wikipedia as a reference for facts (they don't consider themselves to be a primary reference) from the wiki page linked above... "What is important to note is that although it is called a 19" inch rack unit, the actual mounting dimensions of a 19" inch rack unit are 18.19" inches (462 mm) wide, center to center." I don't think I ever figured out what feature of a 19" rack was actually 19 inches. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-08 14:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0jcb3a1to13fm7l0fgn5bp0g645lmm7c5k@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #18484 |
On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 17:31:34 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> Gave us: >On 10/8/2014 4:10 PM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote: >> On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 12:34:00 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> Gave us: >> >>> >>> Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote: >>>> >>>> Am 22.09.2014 um 19:06 schrieb Don Y: >>>> >>>>> My point was that we all use an odd collection of units -- even "metrified" >>>>> countries -- every day. >>>> >>>> You may never have been to a truly "metrified" country, then. >>>> >>>> E.g. here in Germany there's basically no non-metric unit left in >>>> practical, much less every-day use. And it's been like that since about >>>> the 1950s, at the least. >>> >>> >>> None of your electronics is 19" rackmount? >> >> It is a worldwide standard. >> >> It is part of EIA-310. >> >> If you do not subscribe to EIA standards, you likely do not make it as >> a worldwide player. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_unit >> >> In metric, 482 mm (482.6). > >I don't like to quote Wikipedia as a reference for facts Nobody ever said you was very bright. That is NOT how one "uses it". > (they don't >consider themselves to be a primary reference) No shit, Sherlock. > from the wiki page linked >above... We DO NOT need a fucking PRIMER about WIKIPEDIA from you, DOLT!!! >"What is important to note is that although it is called a 19" inch rack >unit, the actual mounting dimensions of a 19" inch rack unit are 18.19" >inches (462 mm) wide, center to center." > >I don't think I ever figured out what feature of a 19" rack was actually >19 inches. The bolt hole center is not what is being declared. If one takes that 19 inch width as being the outermost dimension of the flanges on each side of the rack, known to the industry as "ears", one can see where the number comes from. Of course, the bolt hole center dimension is the only one that is truly hard and fast as modern "designers" scrimp on every gram of steel or Aluminum they can (in all the wrong places), like idiots. Modern rack designs use at least three different attachment methodologies. The one I like the most is the cage nut method, as the captured nut is a case hardened, properly threaded component, which floats a bit in it location, allowing for mismatches to be more easily dealt with. The standard was for a #10 screw for a long time as well. I like, however, the newer 6mm screw variety, as it threads in much easier and is far less likely to jam up during installation or field servicing. The number ten screws simply bugger up too easily, and the holes are machine drill and tapped and they never change out the taps often enough and there is never a lead in chamfer on the holes, so screws and holes get messed up, especially when using power driver devices. The 6mm screws using the cage nut are rolled thread, hard screws and the cage nuts are all made with a proper lead in. Shtuff goes together much smoother.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-08 15:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <l8db3ap30t95e6n4bm0t0a97eo4kcdn1mq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #18485 |
On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 14:53:37 -0700, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> Gave us: >On Wed, 08 Oct 2014 17:31:34 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> Gave us: > >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_unit >>> >>> In metric, 482 mm (482.6). >> >>I don't like to quote Wikipedia as a reference for facts > > Nobody ever said you was very bright. That is NOT how one "uses it". Friggin' crybabies who need their hand held every step through life. Almost unbearable. Especially at your age. Here, crybaby... http://www.server-racks.com/eia-310.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-09 19:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m16mhr.2c4.1@stefan.msgid.phost.de> |
| In reply to | #18480 |
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
>>Am 22.09.2014 um 19:06 schrieb Don Y:
>>>My point was that we all use an odd collection of units -- even "metrified"
>>>countries -- every day.
>>
>>You may never have been to a truly "metrified" country, then.
>>
>>E.g. here in Germany there's basically no non-metric unit left in
>>practical, much less every-day use. And it's been like that since about
>>the 1950s, at the least.
(I still occasionally buy bread by the pound, and I believe you can
still buy coal by the hundredweight. Both metric, of course (500g, 50kg).)
> None of your electronics is 19" rackmount?
That's the same trick they used for floppies: "19-inch rack" is a type
specification, not a size, much like "3-1/2 inch floppy" is a type
specification for a magnetic disc within a 89mm plastic case.
Bicycles are also sold by inch sizes ("a 28-inch bike") intended as type
specifications. An anecdote I heard a while ago was that one bus
operator wrote in their terms and conditions that bikes "up to 20 inch"
are free, meaning children's bikes. Somebody used this to say "by
<insert old obscure definition of inch here>, my bike has just 19,5 inch
wheels, so it's free", and got admitted.
Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-09 13:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <2rld3apiflqapaqjnb8m9jnt9t1ugif59p@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #18487 |
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 19:09:46 +0200, Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> wrote: >Michael A. Terrell wrote: >> Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote: >>>Am 22.09.2014 um 19:06 schrieb Don Y: >>>>My point was that we all use an odd collection of units -- even "metrified" >>>>countries -- every day. >>> >>>You may never have been to a truly "metrified" country, then. >>> >>>E.g. here in Germany there's basically no non-metric unit left in >>>practical, much less every-day use. And it's been like that since about >>>the 1950s, at the least. > >(I still occasionally buy bread by the pound, and I believe you can >still buy coal by the hundredweight. Both metric, of course (500g, 50kg).) > >> None of your electronics is 19" rackmount? > >That's the same trick they used for floppies: "19-inch rack" is a type >specification, not a size, much like "3-1/2 inch floppy" is a type >specification for a magnetic disc within a 89mm plastic case. "3 1/2 inch" floppies are actually 90mm.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-09 22:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m16rb2$923$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #18488 |
On 09/10/14 20:44, Robert Wessel wrote: > On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 19:09:46 +0200, Stefan Reuther > <stefan.news@arcor.de> wrote: > >> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>> Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote: >>>> Am 22.09.2014 um 19:06 schrieb Don Y: >>>>> My point was that we all use an odd collection of units -- even "metrified" >>>>> countries -- every day. >>>> >>>> You may never have been to a truly "metrified" country, then. >>>> >>>> E.g. here in Germany there's basically no non-metric unit left in >>>> practical, much less every-day use. And it's been like that since about >>>> the 1950s, at the least. >> >> (I still occasionally buy bread by the pound, and I believe you can >> still buy coal by the hundredweight. Both metric, of course (500g, 50kg).) >> >>> None of your electronics is 19" rackmount? >> >> That's the same trick they used for floppies: "19-inch rack" is a type >> specification, not a size, much like "3-1/2 inch floppy" is a type >> specification for a magnetic disc within a 89mm plastic case. > > > "3 1/2 inch" floppies are actually 90mm. > I had someone in my office today looking for a 3.5" floppy - it turns out that they are still useful. (Apparently they make excellent IR filters!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-09 17:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <aaGdnY_olcXbY6vJnZ2dnUU7-U2dnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #18489 |
David Brown wrote: > > On 09/10/14 20:44, Robert Wessel wrote: > > On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 19:09:46 +0200, Stefan Reuther > > <stefan.news@arcor.de> wrote: > > > >> Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >>> Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote: > >>>> Am 22.09.2014 um 19:06 schrieb Don Y: > >>>>> My point was that we all use an odd collection of units -- even "metrified" > >>>>> countries -- every day. > >>>> > >>>> You may never have been to a truly "metrified" country, then. > >>>> > >>>> E.g. here in Germany there's basically no non-metric unit left in > >>>> practical, much less every-day use. And it's been like that since about > >>>> the 1950s, at the least. > >> > >> (I still occasionally buy bread by the pound, and I believe you can > >> still buy coal by the hundredweight. Both metric, of course (500g, 50kg).) > >> > >>> None of your electronics is 19" rackmount? > >> > >> That's the same trick they used for floppies: "19-inch rack" is a type > >> specification, not a size, much like "3-1/2 inch floppy" is a type > >> specification for a magnetic disc within a 89mm plastic case. > > > > > > "3 1/2 inch" floppies are actually 90mm. > > > > I had someone in my office today looking for a 3.5" floppy - it turns > out that they are still useful. (Apparently they make excellent IR > filters!) I have about 1000 new ones in sealed boxes from my days of computer repair. They were bought for pennies on the dollar and what I used of them have already paid for all of them. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-09 17:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <aaGdnY7olcVfY6vJnZ2dnUU7-U0AAAAA@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #18487 |
Stefan Reuther wrote: > > Michael A. Terrell wrote: > > > None of your electronics is 19" rackmount? > > That's the same trick they used for floppies: "19-inch rack" is a type > specification, not a size, much like "3-1/2 inch floppy" is a type > specification for a magnetic disc within a 89mm plastic case. Not a size? So you can shove anything you want, into a 19" relay rack? Just because you tack a metric measurement on it, doesn't mean it isn't 19". -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-09 21:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <coge3adij4o9pc87rphn7u18h7b0c7lko0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #18491 |
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:31:45 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote: > >Stefan Reuther wrote: >> >> Michael A. Terrell wrote: >> >> > None of your electronics is 19" rackmount? >> >> That's the same trick they used for floppies: "19-inch rack" is a type >> specification, not a size, much like "3-1/2 inch floppy" is a type >> specification for a magnetic disc within a 89mm plastic case. > > Not a size? So you can shove anything you want, into a 19" relay >rack? Just because you tack a metric measurement on it, doesn't mean it >isn't 19". I think his point is that (usually) none of the actual dimensions on a 19" rack are actually 19 inches.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-09 23:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <R5OdndKOFJCVz6rJnZ2dnUU7-cednZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #18493 |
Robert Wessel wrote: > > On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:31:45 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" > <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > >Stefan Reuther wrote: > >> > >> Michael A. Terrell wrote: > >> > >> > None of your electronics is 19" rackmount? > >> > >> That's the same trick they used for floppies: "19-inch rack" is a type > >> specification, not a size, much like "3-1/2 inch floppy" is a type > >> specification for a magnetic disc within a 89mm plastic case. > > > > Not a size? So you can shove anything you want, into a 19" relay > >rack? Just because you tack a metric measurement on it, doesn't mean it > >isn't 19". > > I think his point is that (usually) none of the actual dimensions on a > 19" rack are actually 19 inches. They are, with specific tolerance to make sure the equipment fits neatly between the rails and math the specified height increment. Relay racks have been around for over 100 years. -- Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-09 21:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <mdpe3a9t7g8nsud2pmv5crtf0bvo9uns3k@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #18494 |
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 23:27:01 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> Gave us: > > They are, with specific tolerance to make sure the equipment fits >neatly between the rails and math the specified height increment. Relay >racks have been around for over 100 years. I cannot imagine why none of these dopes could manage to examine to friggin' wiki site. It has the history. It also lists numerous alternate information sources. Most of which are listed as sources for the site material. Anyone ever stop to think that it may have been meant to declare the maximum length of a device chassis? That way, the rack cabinet designers and the system integration engineers can manage the "back of the rack" particulars better. I have had problems with HP and their FOOL length DL 360 server chassis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-10 18:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <m199mj.1r8.1@stefan.msgid.phost.de> |
| In reply to | #18493 |
Robert Wessel wrote: > On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:31:45 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >>Stefan Reuther wrote: >>>Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>>> None of your electronics is 19" rackmount? >>> >>>That's the same trick they used for floppies: "19-inch rack" is a type >>>specification, not a size, much like "3-1/2 inch floppy" is a type >>>specification for a magnetic disc within a 89mm plastic case. >> >> Not a size? So you can shove anything you want, into a 19" relay >>rack? Just because you tack a metric measurement on it, doesn't mean it >>isn't 19". > > I think his point is that (usually) none of the actual dimensions on a > 19" rack are actually 19 inches. Precisely. A 19" rack is one specific type of rack, with a specific width and depth, and specific mounting holes. You can probably get some kind of IKEA furniture that is 19 inches wide and which would possibly even be able to hold some electronic equipment, but that wouldn't be a '19" rack'. Stefan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno <DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-10 10:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8e6g3a9bjb5mqbe9sufhmguqeas8crg845@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #18510 |
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:48:51 +0200, Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> Gave us: >Robert Wessel wrote: >> On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:31:45 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell" >>>Stefan Reuther wrote: >>>>Michael A. Terrell wrote: >>>>> None of your electronics is 19" rackmount? >>>> >>>>That's the same trick they used for floppies: "19-inch rack" is a type >>>>specification, not a size, much like "3-1/2 inch floppy" is a type >>>>specification for a magnetic disc within a 89mm plastic case. >>> >>> Not a size? So you can shove anything you want, into a 19" relay >>>rack? Just because you tack a metric measurement on it, doesn't mean it >>>isn't 19". >> >> I think his point is that (usually) none of the actual dimensions on a >> 19" rack are actually 19 inches. > >Precisely. A 19" rack is one specific type of rack, with a specific >width and depth, and specific mounting holes. You can probably get some >kind of IKEA furniture that is 19 inches wide and which would possibly >even be able to hold some electronic equipment, but that wouldn't be a >'19" rack'. > > > Stefan Specifically, with that in mind. A "19" rack" is a cabinet of various heights, but with a specific front side opening and front side rail face mounting hole configuration. If that opening does not match or the drilled hole pattern, it cannot be called a 19" rack, because the devices meant to mount in such cabinets are what define the standard, and both have to marry. The original equally spaced drill pattern was abandoned for the current schema. So, it is about what industry elements mount in it that defines what one can properly call any given cabinet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mjb@signal11.invalid (Mike) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-10-11 21:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m1c3nc$aa8$1@posie.signal11.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #18510 |
In article <m199mj.1r8.1@stefan.msgid.phost.de>, Stefan Reuther <stefan.news@arcor.de> wrote: >Precisely. A 19" rack is one specific type of rack, with a specific >width and depth, and specific mounting holes. You can probably get some >kind of IKEA furniture that is 19 inches wide and which would possibly >even be able to hold some electronic equipment, You certainly can. http://www.instructables.com/id/8U-Rack-Case-From-IKEA-RAST-Table/ http://www.instructables.com/id/20-units-instrument-rack-from-Ikeas-Lack-tables/ -- --------------------------------------+------------------------------------ Mike Brown: mjb[-at-]signal11.org.uk | http://www.signal11.org.uk --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.arch.embedded
csiph-web