Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!caen!news.cs.indiana.edu!msi.umn.edu!noc.MR.NET!gacvx2.gac.edu!gacvx2.gac.edu!scott From: scott@erick.gac.edu (Scott Hess) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: 030/040 Duality? Message-ID: Date: 23 Feb 91 14:30:13 GMT References: <1991Feb22.034020.24127@cbnewsl.att.com> <5337@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> Organization: Gustavus Adolphus College Lines: 29 Nntp-Posting-Host: 138.236.10.8 In-reply-to: pfkeb@ebnextk.SLAC.Stanford.EDU's message of 23 Feb 91 05:14:53 GMTLines: 29 In article pfkeb@ebnextk.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Paul Kunz) writes: Too bad if we can't keep the '030 board and run it inside the same Cube. What I would do with it is to let it run my printer. Then, when someone does complex graphics printing on my machine, I wouldn't be so slowed down. Even with the 2.0 I have, which lowered the priority of the printing processes, I still suffer when someone on my network prints to my machine. This is all a great idea (keeping the '030 along with the '040), and there's no really uncircumventable reason not to. You can conceivably do it. The main problem with many of the things mentioned on this newsgroup (running it as a print server, compute server, whatnot) is that you aren't licensed to run NextStep 2.0 on both machines. I suppose you could get a new license, but even then, I'm not sure how that would work (are you licensed to run it on the machine, or on the CPUs, or what - I assume that the CPU is the level at which you license it). Of course, we _could_ port Reno . . . Later, -- scott hess scott@gac.edu Independent NeXT Developer GAC Undergrad "Tried anarchy, once. Found it had too many constraints . . ." "Buy `Sweat 'n wit '2 Live Crew'`, a new weight loss program by Richard Simmons . . ." Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com