Main Frames anyone?

[The Rabbi]

I have a now stay at home mom and two teenaged kids (or almost anyway).  Everyone wants to use the one computer in the house.
I thought about getting a couple of PCs and then networking them somehow onto the internet line.
But I also thought about a mainframe with terminals around the house.  I believe I could get one pretty reasonably (a friend was in the business and has a stash of them) but wonder what the downside might be.

[mtnbkr]

Unless things have changed since I last used a "mainframe", they're not going to offer the functionality your "users" are expecting.

A better solution would be to build a largish Linux system and use cheap machines as XWindows terminals. 

Chris

[richyoung]

Having tended such beasts in the not-so-distant past:

If its a recent one, the room it takes up is not so bad - I went from one that filled a room, to one that was the size of two refigerators, to one slightly larger than a full tower PC  -  and that was ten years ago.  The problem you wil find is that maintenance is expensive, the environmental requirements for temperature and relative humidity are narrower, and require expensive equipment to maintain, it likely won;t run the games and such your kids will want, or use common document suites like Office or familiar web browsers either.  Lastly, GOOD terminals aren't a whole lot cheaper than a PC anyway, and you still have to wier them in - realistically, your easiest solution is a DSL or cable conection, either a wireless or cabled router, and PCs.

[richyoung]

...or what Chris said - that works too...

[Sindawe]

Well, I doubt if any mainframe is gonna run Windows or the current OS from Apple.  Unless you're one of THOSE PEOPLE who use Linux.  Unless you're an old mainframe or mini computer guy, I suspect that path is just gonna make your hair turn grey and fall out.

But I thought you had a couple of PCs in the house Rabbi.  Did'nt you look for wireless networking options about a year or so ago?  If not, and you don't need the PC for gaming (you did mention kids), an inexpensive older PC will work just fine for web surfing and word processing.  Pick up a wireless access point that will handle NAT & act as a DHCP server, a PC for the kids (or you and the wife) and that should keep everybody mostly content for awhile.

[mfree]

I use an ancient Armada M300 laptop as a remote desktop terminal to my desktop when I'm lounging in front of the TV (for now, new laptop on the way).

The less tech savvy way to do things is indeed just to grab a lot of cheap PCs and use 802.11 Draft-N or just G to wirelessly network them all (no wires, whee!). Upside: No lag, all multimedia works. Downside: multiple machines to handle for upgrades/patches/licenses, possibility of abuse without detection

The more tech savvy thing to do is to buy (or "obtain") a copy of server 2003 and a handful of remote desktop licenses... or use the bunches of other software packages out there for terminal access. The beauty of this is that the remote terminal isn't really doing any work...  Upside: cheap hardware (PII-500 would work just as well as a brand new box for a terminal), ultimate central control. Downside: harder to configure, multimedia and gaming wouldn't work.

It's really going to depend on what your intentions for use at the remote terminals is going to be. For kids limited to research and writing papers, option #2 is just ducky. IF they want to game though, option #2 is fowl.

[The Rabbi]

Sindawe,
You can tell how fast I move on any decision like this.  Heck, I'm still trying to decide if I want black abacus beads or white ones.
I appear to be getting the thumbs down on the idea, which is fine.  Thats why I asked.
Yes, the little varmints are going to want to play games or listen to YouTube etc.  They'll probably want to play Delta Force 2 (which I never play, of course).  I guess cheap PCs with a wireless network is the way to go.

[mtnbkr]

Well, I doubt if any mainframe is gonna run Windows

I did some work with a Sequent box a few years ago that was nothing more than a giant X86 system with a dozen or so Pentium processors.  It would run either Windows NT or Sequent's flavor of *nix.  I should've installed NT before the box went into production just to see how it would run.

I just had an amusing mental image of Rabbi's house with an old IBM System 36 in the basement, thick coax cables running all over the place, and a green screen terminal in each of the kids' rooms.

I guess cheap PCs with a wireless network is the way to go.

Absolutely the easiest and cheapest solution.  If you want to buy new, wait till Dell has their low end system on sale for $299.  You'll need monitors, but those last for years, so you'll be able to use the same monitor even when you replace a PC.

Chris

[mtnbkr]

Some info on Sequent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequent_Computer_Systems

I was working with a Numa-Q box. 

I wonder how it would run Vista...

Chris

[wmenorr67]

It all depends on how much money you are willing to spend.

[Sindawe]

If looking for inexpensive PCs, check out Dell's outlet site: http://www.dell.com/content/default.aspx?c=us&cs=28&l=en&s=dfb

Usually killer deals on decent systems.  I've put four online from them.  Two in friends/family homes and two here at my home that run my firewall and DC/Exchange test boxes.  The only failure I've encountered was a with a friend who bought one for his wife that was shipped with a bad video card.  Dell replaced the card under the 90 day warranty.

[Manedwolf]

PCs, like business, have decentralized. For example, go in any place that does video, you won't find a 1980's or movie-style "mainframe" in the basement, you'll find a "render farm" of a bunch of interlinked regular desktop G5s or Core Duos that share processing tasks.

Cheaper, more efficient, uses much less power.

[mtnbkr]

Don't forget Linux.  Some of those render farms run linux.  I'm almost positive Titanic was rendered on a Linux "farm".

I never toyed around with it, but there's a Linux distro designed to turn networked PCs into a giant, yet cheap, SMP system.  I think those have also been used to render the effects for movies.

Chris

[Manedwolf]

Don't forget Linux.  Some of those render farms run linux.  I'm almost positive Titanic was rendered on a Linux "farm".

I never toyed around with it, but there's a Linux distro designed to turn networked PCs into a giant, yet cheap, SMP system.  I think those have also been used to render the effects for movies.

Chris

I also remember a couple of years ago, one of the worlds's most powerful supercomputers being made out of 1100 interlinked rackmount Apple Xserve G5s. They also see heavy use in biotechnology (that sort of matrix computing) for DNA sequencing tasks.

Matrix computing is definitely the way things will be, I think. If your company already has a lot of computers, why not simply use their processors in a matrix of distributed processing, especially when they're otherwise idle at night?

[roo_ster]

Rabbi:

1) Wired or wireless router, your choice.
2) 2x low-end PCs
3) OS & Software


1) Wired or Wireless Router
Your druthers.  Wired is faster between PCs on your LAN, wireless means no dragging ehternet cabling.  $50 for the box.  If wireless, budget $25-$50 for each wireless card.

2) 2x Low-End PCs
Low-end PCs ($300-$500/ea for the CPU).  Buy your monitors used & force them to go with CRT rather than LCD.  Much more bang/buck.  Four years ago I bought a used 21" Dell Trinitron flat CRT for $120, one of a truckload.  Awesome monitor.  Freakin' huge, but terrific quality.  Should be less, nowadays.  Keyboards & mice are cheap.

I have had every big vendor I have recommended in the past crap out on me or the person who bought on my reccomendation.  So, I'll recommend buying from a local white-box builder.  Scan any local computer/geek magazine & ask who builds good boxes.  Then ask the builder & get a quote.  The upside to using a local guy is if hte machine craps out, toss it in your auto & take it to him.  That beats waiting for a tech subbing to Dell coming to your house 1 hour later than the appointment.

3) Operating System & Software
Do your rugrats require Windows?  Are you savvy enough to install an operating system on your lonesome? 

If the answers are No & Yes, you could skip the largest expenditure (OS & office software)you are contemplating by going with a linux distribution.  The newer standard distrobutions and live CD distros (Knoppix, Gnoppix, Ubuntu, others) install more easily with better hardware support than Windows.  No joke, I have installed WinXP & Fedora linux on the same box & Windows was more cranky.

If you require Windows, get ready for your time in the barrel.  You will likely spend 3/4 to the full amount you spend per PC on each PC for MS Windows OS and MS Office.

Eitehr way, good luck.

[Gewehr98]

Manedwolf has tunnel vision, it appears.

Don't forget Linux.  Some of those render farms run linux.  I'm almost positive Titanic was rendered on a Linux "farm".

Chris, you are correct, and my IBM Intellistation M-PRo dual-XEON graphics workstation came from the 150 or so that Weta Digital used to render Lord of the Rings.  It's not an exclusive thing to Apple, as much as some wish it would be.  Nor should we forget the good folks at Silicon Graphics. 

[Bogie]

Campers, campers, campers...
 
It's about sharing an internet connection. And probably Mickeysoft Word for school stuff.
 
BIG DEAL.

The bottleneck is going to be the internet, even if you are using a cable modem.
 
I'd get each of the kiddies a $150 refurbed XP Home "business box" from Tiger Direct, and plug the cable modem into a wireless router (MUCH cheaper than running wire). The last CRT monitor I bought was a 19" from a Goodwill. $5 out the door, and if it didn't work, I was instructed to chuck it and just come back for another one.
 
Yeah, you can go with Linux. Do you wanna have the headache of explaining to the kiddies that this different operating system is better than what they're using at school?
 

[RevDisk]

I have a now stay at home mom and two teenaged kids (or almost anyway).  Everyone wants to use the one computer in the house.
I thought about getting a couple of PCs and then networking them somehow onto the internet line.
But I also thought about a mainframe with terminals around the house.  I believe I could get one pretty reasonably (a friend was in the business and has a stash of them) but wonder what the downside might be.

I think you mean "server", rather than mainframe.  Mainframes generally cost a couple million bucks these days and require a large amount of infrastructure.  Not to meantion, few if any run Windows, MacOS or Linux.  z/OS, AIX, etc are fairly common.  Servers are similiar to PC's in most regards, except they're meant for multiple users, being left on all the time, longer lasting components and such.  Rack mountable ones look like metal pizza boxes. 

For a home server, you'd be fine with a regular PC with a few extra hard drives. 

You have a couple options. 

Centralized - a heavy server and lots of 'thin clients'.  Thin clients are a nice way of saying "PC's that suck".  It's a regular PC with no extras and maybe not even a hard drive.  That'd be fine if you just wanted to browse the web and maybe some light word processing.  It can be a pain to set up but usually doesn't have issues afterwords.  Thing is, if your server goes down, your thin clients will too.

Decentralized - a light server and normal PC's for around the house.  Get unexpensive computers and do most of the work on them.  Just store stuff on the server.  If your server or any one computer crashes, the rest still work just fine.

A router can manage your networking.  A decent LinkSys home router can do DHCP, NAT and act as a simple firewall.  If you get one with a couple ports or wireless, you can network your computers through it as well to make them talk to each other.

The more tech savvy thing to do is to buy (or "obtain") a copy of server 2003 and a handful of remote desktop licenses... or use the bunches of other software packages out there for terminal access. The beauty of this is that the remote terminal isn't really doing any work...  Upside: cheap hardware (PII-500 would work just as well as a brand new box for a terminal), ultimate central control. Downside: harder to configure, multimedia and gaming wouldn't work.

There's really no need to pirate Server 2003 R2.  Microsoft makes a version called "SBS", which is a lightweight version of the regular server software.  Stands for Small Business Server.  Server 2003 comes with 5 built in CAL's (number of users or devices allowed), before you need to purchase additional terminal services licenses.  It's not that expensive.

Going with a couple light PC's for normal day to day stuff shouldn't be too expensive either.  If you wanted multimedia or gaming, you could have one higher end machine for such things. 

[BakerMikeRomeo]

And for God's sake, if you do set up a wireless network, don't buy D-Link. Don't buy D-Link.

DON'T.

BUY.

D.

LINK.

My brother is the primary go-to guy in my family, and among all his friends (among family, I am the secondary go-to guy, being my big brother's little brother, and thusly osmosing knowledge from him), and time and again people ask him what to get to set up a wireless network, and he tells them "Not D-Link", and they go and buy a damned D-link because it was 15 dollars cheaper, and it breaks, and then they get a pillowcase full of "I told you so, moron." and oranges in the face.

~GnSx

[Manedwolf]

And for God's sake, if you do set up a wireless network, don't buy D-Link. Don't buy D-Link.

DON'T.

BUY.

D.

LINK.

My brother is the primary go-to guy in my family, and among all his friends (among family, I am the secondary go-to guy, being my big brother's little brother, and thusly osmosing knowledge from him), and time and again people ask him what to get to set up a wireless network, and he tells them "Not D-Link", and they go and buy a damned D-link because it was 15 dollars cheaper, and it breaks, and then they get a pillowcase full of "I told you so, moron." and oranges in the face.

~GnSx

LinkSys is good stuff. Cheap, too. And it stacks neatly hidden in a closet without falling over.

[lee n. field]

A better solution would be to build a largish Linux system and use cheap machines as XWindows terminals. 

Or if they just gotta have RedmondOS, a nice beefy Windows 2003 server, terminal server licenses, and your thin client of choice.

Do you wanna have the headache of explaining to the kiddies that this different operating system is better than what they're using at school?

My wife and youngest kid are completely un-tech-savvy, and have no problem at all using my Linux box.

There's really no need to pirate Server 2003 R2.  Microsoft makes a version called "SBS", which is a lightweight version of the regular server software.  Stands for Small Business Server.  Server 2003 comes with 5 built in CAL's (number of users or devices allowed), before you need to purchase additional terminal services licenses.  It's not that expensive.

Small Business Server It's actually not lighter weight, though there are some significant limitations.  One of which is that it can't act as a terminal server.  If you want a Windows Terminal Server, you have to have a separate W2K3 Server box.  SBS  is the cheapest way to get into W2K3 server, but that doesn't make it always appropriate.

And for God's sake, if you do set up a wireless network, don't buy D-Link. Don't buy D-Link.

I second that.  I've seen too much of the Dlink wireless gear go belly up.

[BakerMikeRomeo]

LinkSys is good stuff. Cheap, too. And it stacks neatly hidden in a closet without falling over.

Heck yeah. A WRT-54G is wirelessing the pants off my house right now, and back when I was at college, failing it, I had set up a WRT-54GC so I could internet on my laptop without getting out of bed.

~GnSx

[tyme]

I don't like the idea of a wireless home network at all.  Wireless should be used when wireless is mandatory: for laptops, in coffee shops, etc.  Fixed machines should be wired, IMO, and with GbE, not 100Mbit.  I'm not aware of any consumer GbE dsl/cable routers, though, so you'd have to connect all the computers to a GbE switch (they're not very expensive), then connect that switch to your linksys router.  Cables need to be cat-5e.

Revdisk is right about you mixing up mainframes and servers.  If you want a mainframe as a server for 2 kids and a wife, you don't know what a mainframe is.  If a friend can get you "mainframes" for cheap, they're old, old enough that they'll be totally useless aside from running up your electric bill.  There's no bright line between mainframes and servers, though, so it's possible your friend is calling yesteryear's server a "mainframe."  In that case, they're what you might see on an ebay search for "server."

Give up on the thin client idea.  It's used at companies and in computer labs to ease maintenance.  It's not a good idea for two teens and a wife.  A central server for storage, running samba and NFS perhaps, and interfacing with a printer, is a good idea.  But that adds another computer to the setup.

[Cromlech]

I don't like the idea of a wireless home network at all.  Wireless should be used when wireless is mandatory: for laptops, in coffee shops, etc.  Fixed machines should be wired, IMO, and with GbE, not 100Mbit.  I'm not aware of any consumer GbE dsl/cable routers, though, so you'd have to connect all the computers to a GbE switch (they're not very expensive), then connect that switch to your linksys router.  Cables need to be cat-5e.

Gigabit Ethernet routers are common here in the U.K, are they really more rare in the States?

[Gewehr98]

I don't like the idea of a wireless home network at all.  Wireless should be used when wireless is mandatory: for laptops, in coffee shops, etc.

I'll have to remember that when I want sit on my back deck with my Dell Inspiron laptop.

I'd just LOVE to have a Cat5e ethernet cable dragging around out there.

My former residence in Florida was a cinderblock bomb shelter thingie that was provided for me by the Air Force.  I wireless networked that place because I didn't want to buy a masonry bit, nor did Iwant to get charged for the holes afterwards. 

If you're going to hop in and say stuff like that, please expound on it.  There are too many regular users of 802.11b/g/n out there who have no problems, use proper wireless encryption, and don't appreciate slinging cables who never knew that hardwired networks should be mandatory.