Last year I stuck a video on "FOSS adoption in developing countries" on the demo Linux PC.
This year I ran across a site which served up Creative Commons video for download, and have a number of new videos to choose from.
I'm considering trying to scrounge up a 1.4Ghz or 1.5Ghz machine as the demo PC, since apparently Ubuntu's "Beryl" desktop runs comfortably at that speed. It would be nice to be able to demonstrate a Linux desktop which offered more eye candy than Vista on systems which won't run Vista.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/
On 9/28/07, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm considering trying to scrounge up a 1.4Ghz or 1.5Ghz machine as the demo PC, since apparently Ubuntu's "Beryl" desktop runs comfortably at that speed. It would be nice to be able to demonstrate a Linux desktop which offered more eye candy than Vista on systems which won't run Vista.
More important than that would be to put a capable video card in it, or use one with an integrated chipset that is supported (and capable). I've run Beryl on P3 machines with nVidia GF2 MX200 32MB cards and it was tolerable, but not fast. I've got a fast-ish P4 with just a lowly GF4 MX440 and it's quite acceptable, but still not fast. The P4 is over 3x the clock speed the P3 ran at, but it sure isn't 3x faster when using Beryl effects. I'd think anything P3 on up with a full power (ie, non-MX series nVidia and non-RxxxV ATI) should handle Beryl fine.
Jon.
--- Jon Pruente jdpruente@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/28/07, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
I'm considering trying to scrounge up a 1.4Ghz or 1.5Ghz machine as the demo PC, since apparently Ubuntu's "Beryl" desktop runs comfortably at that speed. It would be nice to be able to demonstrate a Linux desktop which offered more eye candy than Vista on systems which won't run Vista.
More important than that would be to put a capable video card in it, or use one with an integrated chipset that is supported (and capable). I've run Beryl on P3 machines with nVidia GF2 MX200 32MB cards and it was tolerable, but not fast. I've got a fast-ish P4 with just a lowly GF4 MX440 and it's quite acceptable, but still not fast. The P4 is over 3x the clock speed the P3 ran at, but it sure isn't 3x faster when using Beryl effects. I'd think anything P3 on up with a full power (ie, non-MX series nVidia and non-RxxxV ATI) should handle Beryl fine.
Hmmm. If the system requirement for Beryl is that close to the system requirement for Aero, then that might defeat the entire purpose of having Beryl at ITEC.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/
On 9/29/07, Leo Mauler webgiant@yahoo.com wrote:
Hmmm. If the system requirement for Beryl is that close to the system requirement for Aero, then that might defeat the entire purpose of having Beryl at ITEC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Aero#Requirements
A GF2 card should function ok. Beryl should do well on a full GF3 or 4 or better card. My personal examples were with the GeForce derived & budget oriented OEM MX-series cards. Like I posted, a non-MX nVidia should do Beryl fine. My GF2 MX200 card is an old slow 32MB 64-bit wide SDR setup. Plainly, it sucks. The GF4 MX 440 is roughly on par with the 2 generations-previous GF2 Ti chips. My point of it was that even the wide spread of CPU power between a mid-end P3 (933MHz) and a decent P4 (2.8 Ghz HT) still didn't make up for having an anemic video card.
-
Jon Pruente -
Leo Mauler