Talk:SGI O2

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I have just noticed that UMA is linked to Shared Memory Architecture. This in incorrect in my view, as the SGI implementation UMA is very different from SMA:

• Firstly, SMA is intended to cut costs. It could be argued that UMA has the same goal, but the main difference with UMA is that it aims to be better than SMA while being cheaper than systems that use the higher end crossbar architecture.

• UMA also intends to reduce bottlenecks by connecting major components to the memory controller with dedicated links, and these themselves are high bandwidth - for example, the link from the memory controller to the GDE consists of dual 64 bit 133 MHz buses, not exactly cheap (for the time).

• Another difference in that unlike SMA, I do not believe UMA poses any restriction on the amount of RAM available to the system, the memory the GPU uses is still the main memory, still accessible. What memory the GPU uses is treated as used system RAM, and is fully dynamic.

I'm not too familiar with UMA or the O2, but I think that this requires some discussion as to whether UMA is the same as SMA. If it isn't I think the link should be removed. Rilak (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needing more detail on how the O2+ differed from the O2. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purple skins and a + on the silkscreen. 203.160.69.190 (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Workstation's dimensions: 12"H x 9"W x 10.5"D (30.48cm H x 22.86cm W x 12.7cm D)
• Weight: 22 lbs / 9.9 kg
• Power Requirements: 100 - 132 VAC, 2.4 - 1.8A / 200 - 264 VAC, 1.2 - 0.9 A / 47 - 63 Hz / 3-pin, earth grounded plug
• Heat Dissipation: 245 watts
• Noise: 35 dB (A) in typical operating position

^{[1] [2]} The O2 was also produced as a vanity free / metal-case only rack-mount version.^[3]

Let's include some technical specs

Zuckerberg (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can confirm - they are quite dense and loud. Suggest this be raided for citations and/or used as an external link [1] Rhoark (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loud ? Who is this posting, the princess who could detect the pea under 47 mattresses ? The stock O2 is a pretty quiet computer, especially for its time. Replacement of one fan in the power supply with a quieter Noctua makes these boxes almost silent. They are not loud, even stock. 203.160.69.190 (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]