Scratch

Umm, okay? Do you need help, or are you just posting that here? If you want help I can give at least a little bit of assistance. My current go-to private server is an old 2003 Sony laptop, with Ubuntu Server installed and running nginx. I have it off right now, but I may bring it back up as a local dev server (so I can modify OnSchedule without affecting users currently online) or as a pen testing box to do some practice hacking on.
Unless you're creating a site that needs TONS of traffic, any normal computer would probably be fine. GPU is irrelevant, all you need is a few cores, some RAM and a good internet connection. Most likely if you host at home you're internet connection will slow you down before your server itself does, as long as you have a moderately new computer for your box.

Last edited by 16Skittles (2013-05-02 08:02:55)

Salvahkiin wrote:

If funds aren't a problem here, 8GB DDR3, AMD FX 8350, Good quality Mobo, and a 2TB SATA3 HDD/Large SSD, and a comfortable case.

Sorry, but no... For a server you definitely do NOT want an SSD. There's just no point in dumping all that cash for something that would be bottlenecked by internet speed. Instead go for multiple 1TB drives and put them in a RAID system so that you have backups.

What kind of server exactly?

I'm assuming you mean web, then any old computer that can run XP can run a web server, even RPi can run a web server. Even an android tablet can run a web server.

poemon1 wrote:

jji7skyline wrote:

What kind of server exactly?

I'm assuming you mean web, then any old computer that can run XP can run a web server, even RPi can run a web server. Even an android tablet can run a web server.

I want to make a server for pictures

Then what you want is a web server.  Even though a windows can run a webserver, I recommend that you use Ubuntu Server for your server because it will run faster and better.  Windows XP requires 256MB RAM, and all newer versions require more.  In comparison, Ubuntu Server requires 128MB of RAM.  Additionally, Ubuntu Server will allow you to do more with your server if you ever decide to later.

jji7skyline wrote:

GeonoTRON2000 wrote:

poemon1 wrote:

I want to make a server for pictures

Then what you want is a web server.  Even though a windows can run a webserver, I recommend that you use Ubuntu Server for your server because it will run faster and better.  Windows XP requires 256MB RAM, and all newer versions require more.  In comparison, Ubuntu Server requires 128MB of RAM.  Additionally, Ubuntu Server will allow you to do more with your server if you ever decide to later.

Or you can get a Mac which has web server capabilities built right into the system. But you'll probably just install Ubuntu because Macs are expensive right? 

I wouldn't pay for an expensive operating system which is not meant for servers but can be used as one when there's a free operating system that is meant for servers right at Ubuntu.com.

jji7skyline wrote:

GeonoTRON2000 wrote:

jji7skyline wrote:

Or you can get a Mac which has web server capabilities built right into the system. But you'll probably just install Ubuntu because Macs are expensive right? 

I wouldn't pay for an expensive operating system which is not meant for servers but can be used as one when there's a free operating system that is meant for servers right at Ubuntu.com.

Macs are often used as servers. In fact, the paid hosting service I use for my website uses a Mac web host.

But all that aside, you can use packages like MAMP, WAMP, LAMP and XAMPP for hosting 

The point: why pay when you can not pay and get the same or better results?

jji7skyline wrote:

GeonoTRON2000 wrote:

jji7skyline wrote:

Macs are often used as servers. In fact, the paid hosting service I use for my website uses a Mac web host.

But all that aside, you can use packages like MAMP, WAMP, LAMP and XAMPP for hosting 

The point: why pay when you can not pay and get the same or better results?

Better features, namely, being able to more easily host multiple websites that are completely separated from each other.

Anyways... -.-

Heard of virtual hosts?

jji7skyline wrote:

GeonoTRON2000 wrote:

jji7skyline wrote:

Better features, namely, being able to more easily host multiple websites that are completely separated from each other.

Anyways... -.-

Heard of virtual hosts?

I know they work on other operating systems, but it doesn't work straight out of the box, and is easily configured like on OSX.

[/offtopic]

But they can work straight out of the box and be pretty easily configured, with all options available to you when you use something like XAMPP

The main point here was that it's ridiculous to just buy a Mac to be a server if you can get something else that works exactly the same for cheaper.