<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Robert Arkiletian wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:a18d8e260910130942u1396a1f9t43edd309f4067e24@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Joseph Bishay <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:joseph.bishay@gmail.com"><joseph.bishay@gmail.com></a> wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Hello, I hope everyone is doing well. I have been working to tighten up the network and one of the options that I have is to try to upgrade our thin clients (they are all Pentium I/II and some IIIs with about 128 MB RAM) or to upgrade our entire network speed to gigabit. We don't use any locally-run applications. We are running K12linux based on Fedora. What do you think? </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Upgrade the clients. 100Mbps is fine for clients but have a gigabit uplink to server. </pre> </blockquote> That depends on what is meant by "upgrade the clients." If you mean "add some DRAM to the existing clients," then I'd agree, 'cause there's nothing wrong with those clients. A few years back, 32MB in the clients was enough, but now I typically put 256MB in mine 'cause of the way Firefox does image caching in X11. I still have a Pentium-166 MMX and some AMD K6-2's from 10-12 years ago, and they work great. They have 100Mbps cards, and they have decent video boards (Matrox Millenium G400, ATI Radeon 7500, etc.). +1 on the "upgrade the *server* to Gigabit" suggestion. --TP <div class="moz-signature"> _______________________________ Do you <a href="http://www.gnu.org">GNU</a>? <a href="http://www.cmosnetworks.com">Microsoft Free since 2003</a>--the ultimate antivirus protection! </div> </body> </html>