george_c — Fri, 28 Apr 2000 21:57:00 +0000

Justin,
The reason is that the site in question is currently on a RAQ(2), and I would feel more comfortable staying with that when upgrading, if at all possible. I'll give RAQ3 a try. Thanks all for the feedback.

------------------
Visit http://wsabstract.com for free JavaScript tutorials and scripts

Justin S — Fri, 28 Apr 2000 21:06:00 +0000

Why not just go with a CHEAPER linux box, instead of getting a ****pier, more expensive RAQ3?

------------------
Is this signAture short enough?

Darn- I can't even spell right...

chicken — Fri, 28 Apr 2000 03:38:00 +0000

Now I don't run one of these, so take this with that in mind, *but* I have heard that you should pump it with twice am much RAM as you would a linux box. In all, every time I think of trying one out, I get cold feet.

george_c — Thu, 27 Apr 2000 22:48:00 +0000

Thanks for the reply...actually, I know RAQ3 is different, since it uses a different kind of chip, and is actually more expensive than a similiarly equipped Linux server.

Anyone have specific info on RAQ3 (not the older models)? Thanks again.

------------------
Visit http://wsabstract.com for free JavaScript tutorials and scripts

Justin S — Thu, 27 Apr 2000 19:33:00 +0000

The only thing I know is that it's the best choice if your site is almost all HTML pages, with no heavy resource using CGI/PHP scripts like UBB or UltraBoard. If you have the money, though, I'd recommend just a regular linux server.

------------------
Is this signAture short enough?

Darn- I can't even spell right...