<html>
At 06:35 AM 1/10/2001 -0800, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>"Barbara A. Kucera" wrote:<br>
<br>
> share the info. I'm sure the ANL folks and others understand
that you're<br>
> not being critical, just trying to be helpful so others don't
find<br>
> themselves in the same spot.<br>
<br>
Well, I hope there was no offense taken. </blockquote><br>
No, certainly not! I don't like mistakes slipping out into published
documents. <br>
<br>
Throughout the process we've been trying to only publish recommendations
of hardware we've used in house. The machines in the appendix broke this
rule, since we haven't purchased new PC hardware since the very beginning
of the project and what we have is fairly obsolete (PIII/550, 440BX
chipset I think). As a result, I spec'd machines of the appropriate
power, but didn't check the details well enough -- the purpose of the
configurations was mostly to come up with ballpark pricing on the
computing side of the picture.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite> I was coming at this from<br>
the point that, up to now they've probably dealt with folks who<br>
do this every day, but now the dummies like me are coming out,<br>
and not necessarily looking at the specs in the way they'd hoped.<br>
I recall my real motivation for going with the SAG specs was just<br>
a sense of confidence that getting "those" machines would
eliminate<br>
compatibility problems. </blockquote><br>
That was the intent, sigh. My apologies, Don.<br>
<br>
--bob</html>