Get the latest and interesting computer tips tricks ,and hidden knowledge computer knowledge










from my latest and top most rated website









http://www.setmech.com/

Although servers can be built from commodity computer components—particularly for low-load and/or non-critical applications—dedicated, high-load, mission-critical servers use specialized hardware that is optimized for the needs of servers.


A server rack seen from the back

For example, servers may incorporate “industrial-strength” mechanical components such as disk drives and computer fans that provide very high reliability and performance at a correspondingly high price. Aesthetic considerations are ignored, since most servers operate in unattended computer rooms and are only visited for maintenance or repair purposes. Although servers usually require large amounts of disk space, smaller disk drives may still be used in a trade-off of capacity vs. reliability.



CPU speeds are far less critical for many servers than they are for many desktops. Not only are typical server tasks likely to be delayed more by I/O requests than processor requirements, but the lack of any graphical user interface (GUI) in many servers frees up very large amounts of processing power for other tasks, making the overall processor power requirement lower. If a great deal of processing power is required in a server, there is a tendency to add more CPUs rather than increase the speed of a single CPU, again for reasons of reliability and redundancy.

The lack of a GUI in a server (or the rare need to use it) makes it unnecessary to install expensive video adapters. Similarly, elaborate audio interfaces, joystick connections, USB peripherals, and the like are usually unnecessary.

Because servers must operate continuously and reliably, noisy but efficient and trustworthy fans may be used for ventilation instead of inexpensive and quiet fans; and in some cases, centralized air-conditioning may be used to keep servers cool, instead of or in addition to fans. Special uninterruptible power supplies may be used to ensure that the servers continue to run in the event of a power failure.

Typical servers include heavy-duty network connections in order to allow them to handle the large amounts of traffic that they typically receive and generate as they receive and reply to client requests.

The major difference between servers and desktop computers is not in the hardware but in the software. Servers often run operating systems that are designed specifically for use in servers. They also run special applications that are designed specifically to carry out server tasks.

Servers have a unique property where the more powerful and complex the system, the longer it takes for the hardware to turn on and begin loading the operating system. Servers often do extensive pre-boot memory testing and verification, along with starting up remote management services. The hard drive controllers then start up banks of drives in sequence so as not to overload the power supply with the sudden surge of everything turning on at once, then followed by RAID system prechecks for correct operation of redundancy. It is not uncommon for all these preboot hardware checks to take several minutes, but then for the machine to run continuously for over a year of uptime.

Some popular operating systems for servers—such as FreeBSD, Solaris, and Linux—are derived from or similar to the UNIX operating system. UNIX was originally a minicomputer operating system, and as servers gradually replaced traditional minicomputers, UNIX was a logical and efficient choice of operating system for the servers. UNIX-based systems, many of which are free, are the most popular.


Server-oriented operating systems tend to have certain features in common that make them more suitable for the server environment, such as the absence of a GUI (or an optional GUI); the ability to be reconfigured (in both hardware and software) to at least some extent without stopping the system; advanced backup facilities to permit online backups of critical data at regular and frequent intervals; facilities to enable the movement of data between different volumes or devices in such a way that is transparent to the end user; flexible and advanced networking capabilities; features (such as daemons in UNIX or services in Windows) that make unattended execution of programs more reliable; tight system security, with advanced user, resource, data, and memory protection, and so on. Server-oriented operating systems in many cases can interact with hardware sensors to detect conditions such as overheating, processor and disk failure, and either alert an operator, take remedial action, or both, depending on the configuration.

Because the requirements of servers are, in some cases, almost diametrically opposed to those of desktop computers, it is extremely difficult to design an operating system that handles both environments well; thus, operating systems that are well suited to the desktop may not be ideal for servers and vice versa. Regardless of OS vendor, system configurations that are ideal for servers may be unsatisfactory for desktop use, and configurations that perform well on the desktop may leave much to be desired on servers. As a result many operating systems have both a server and a desktop version released. Nevertheless, the desktop versions of Windows and the Mac OS X (also Unix-based) operating systems are used on a minority of servers, as are some proprietary mainframe operating systems, such as z/OS. The dominant operating systems among servers continues to be UNIX versions and clones.

The rise of the microprocessor-based server was facilitated by the development of several versions of Unix to run on the Intel x86 microprocessor architecture. The Microsoft Windows family of operating systems also runs on Intel hardware, and versions beginning with Windows NT have incorporated features making them suitable for use on servers.


Whilst the role of server and desktop operating systems remains distinct, improvements in both hardware performance and reliability and operating system reliability have blurred the distinction between these two classes of system, which at one point remained largely separate in terms of code base, hardware and vendor providers. Today, many desktop and server operating systems share the same code base, and differ chiefly in terms of configuration. Furthermore, the rationalisation of many corporate applications towards web-based and middleware platforms has lessened the demand for specialist application servers.

The USB stumper


I have only one USB slot on my laptop. I use my laptop to play music and watch television, but mostly to work on my novel. I like being able to move around while I'm working, or take it to another room, or another place entirely.

I only have one printer/scanner/copier. If I want to print something from my laptop, I've got to crawl under my desk, pull out my USB printer cable, plug it into my laptop, and then do everything in reverse when I'm done.

Plus, I only have one USB slot on my laptop! If I wanted to plug in some future prolific jump drive and a PDA, a fight could break out and I could get hurt. And what if I get more than four USB things to plug into my PC? I could have a device riot and my desk would be ripped to shreds.

Fortunately, there are a multitude of solutions. There are USB extenders that lengthen your USB reach. There are hubs that will split one USB port into many. Some of these also sit on your desktop so you won't smack your head on its underside anymore. No more stars and cussing. Unless you want to.

There are cards you (if you are brave) or your computer guy or girl can add into your computer to provide more slots. There are all kinds of cool adapters that convert just about any other weird plug or slide thingy into a USB one. These also work for those laptops that don't have any USB slots. How dare they!

Most of these things include wireless capabilities, too. Soon everything will be wireless, cables will become the new floppy disk, and there will be invisible signals dancing everywhere. Maybe they'll add laser lights and we can have little shows.

I've converted to the USB age. Yeah, it took a little longer than some of you, but I still have Watergate and flowers on my mind. Okay I'm exaggerating, but I know I'm not alone and I hope this makes it easier for others who feel a little overwhelmed by it all.

I still haven't seen that bus full of serial killers either.

Shawn is an experienced freelance editor, proofreader, and writer. An award-winning journalist, columnist, and trumpet player, her knowledge of performance will enhance your copy. Visit Editing, Proofreading and Writing With a Punch! for grammar, punctuation, and spelling snippets, a trade talk blog, and superior services for help with all your writing needs.

For some fun and entertainment, visit Shawniverse for stories, poems, and an unusually entertaining blog.

More information about computers, electronics, and stuff to buy at great prices backed by excellent customer service can be found at sewelldirect.com, where Shawn was the former editor.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Shawn_Shearer

There's a war going on and the latest battle continues to offer the promise of good prices to consumers looking for the best stuff for their computer.


Since the inception of dual-core processors a little while back the race has been on to see who can get the better chip with this dual-core processor technology.

During the final days of the single-core battles, there was a stalemate between AMD and Intel. Intel's clocked higher but were unable to match the speeds that the AMD managed at lower clock speeds.

The oldest difference between them has been their suitability for specific tasks. AMD have had the gaming sector in the bag, especially in terms of the value for money possible with their lower clocked chips, which could be overclocked to the same speeds as their top models. Intel has the crown for general performance. When it comes to office related tasks, Intel processors are able to outperform AMD chips in these areas.

As the ability to clock the chips any higher became more and more difficult technically, the next step was to just add another core, theoretically allowing twice as much number crunching in a dual-core processor. This is not exactly how it works however.

Modern operating systems and programs have not been designed with multiple-core or dual-core processors in mind. They were designed to make use of one core on one processor. The major expense that went with multiple processor computers was the circuitry needed to split tasks up amongst the processors and sharing cache.

Dual-core processors simply act like two places for tasks to go. Instead of single tasks getting split up and performed in two different places, as is the case with traditional single core processors, single threads get split up amongst the cores. This essentially means that each program gets assigned to a core.

Because of this there is absolutely no increase in speed for gaming from dual-core processor chips. Only once the games themselves have been programmed to take advantage of dual-core processors will there be a difference. This is due to the intensive nature of games and the number crunching needed for intense graphics, which for now cannot be split over multiple cores in dual-core processors.

So back to the battlefield.

AMD were the first to introduce their dual-core processor solution to a desktop computer. This gave them a slight lead over Intel. Despite this, AMD gave people a bit of a surprise with their new offering.

Always having been renowned for giving far more than expected for the price, these new dual-core processors were very expensive. Part of what managed to give AMD a hold in a market previously dominated by Intel was their good pricing. This shock did not go down well with consumers.

To add insult to injury, Intel's dual-core processor offerings came in at remarkably good value. Both of their initial dual-core processors cost less than AMD's lowest priced model. That's right, AMD's cheapest dual-core processor cost more than Intel's most expensive. This definitely put the ball in Intel's court and was downright disappointing for AMD fans.

AMD did manage to introduce a cheaper model to compete better with the Intel offerings. Despite this, Intel was still the forerunner in this area.
Performance remains an area that is sketchy.

With the relatively new technology involved it is hard to draw a clear conclusion on who is faster. With operating systems only recently oriented towards fully utilizing dual-core processor technology, it is still new territory. Both offer increased performance, but as to who will rule the roost, we'll have to see.

For the meantime it would probably be advisable to just watch. Being a cautious buyer I prefer to buy into a sure thing, once things have settled down, prices will balance out and all the related technology will be in place. Then we will be able to get a true opinion on where to put your hard earned cash.

Get the most honest and useful reviews and Dual-core processor reviews at our Desktop Computer Hardware Reviews site or get practical computer buying tips at our Computer Buying Guide site

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Peter_Stewart

The Celeron and Pentium Processors are two of Intel's best selling CPUs. They are found in a majority of home computer systems. When comparing the two processors it should be first understood that there are different types of Pentium processors - the original Pentium all the way to the Pentium 4 (the latest Pentium processor). The Celeron processors are more or less the same, although you will find them in a wide variety of speeds.

The Intel Celeron processor was always designed to be a low-cost alternative to the Pentium processor line. It is much like a car company that offers various priced cars from the luxury sedan to the economy compact. The Celeron is simply a downgraded Pentium, that almost anyone can afford (it is essentially the compact). To begin, Celeron chips have a smaller L2 cache 9128kb compared with 512kb in the Pentium 4 Northwood, which translates into slower processing speeds. In fact, current Celerons have a clock speed limit of about 2.0GHz, where as the Pentium for is capable of speed in excess of 3.0GHz. In addition, the Pentium runs at a lower core voltage because it is more energy effecient (1.75V vs. 1.5V).

In summary, the Pentium 4 is more powerful than the most advanced Celeron processor on the market. However, Intel has planned it to be this way. Many applications will work just great with a Celeron processor, despite a little less power than the Pentium 4. It is a way to save a little cash when buying a new pc - but don't forget the saying "you get what you pay for." Celeron processors are of good Intel quality, but they will never be as good as the Pentium.

This Celeron vs. Pentium review was brought to you by SciNet Science and Technology Search Engine. SciNet is not affiliated with or specifically endorses the Celeron or Pentium processors or the manufacturer, Intel Corp. Please consult the Celeron and Pentium product information and configuration before you purchase either processor. It is also a good idea to seek other up-to-date product reviews and information as necessary.

Bradley James is a senior editor at SciNet.cc, a website containing many helpful consumer electronics review articles. For more information on Celeron and Pentium processor technology, please visit our Celeron vs Pentium webpage.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Bradley_James

10 Facts you should know about Universal Type Server.




1. Fits any corporate or workgroup environment—regardless of size, workflow or IT support

2. Designed from the ground-up using modern architecture for great stability and speed

3. Leverages SQL-based server and clients with state-of-the-art user interfaces (Cocoa and .NET), outstanding previews and enhanced font handling

4. Supports Mac and Windows environments, offering a great user experience regardless of platform

5. Features web-based administration. Manage your type libraries, users, and backups from anywhere—anytime

6. Includes powerful User Roles for easier administration and more granular control

7. Tracks font licenses and provides reports on usage

8. Provides a seamless transition for both Suitcase Server and Font Reserve Server customers with free migration tools and Active Directory import

9. Meets compatibility requirements: Windows (including Vista), Mac OS X (including Leopard), Adobe CS2/CS3, and QuarkXPress 6.5/7

10. Universal Type Server will be available Spring 2008