23 Jan
2007
23 Jan
'07
11:41 a.m.
I feel I should repsond to this part, since it does have quite a bit to
do with classic computing.
Your personal preference for only using computers you
can rebuild for the
next 100 years is so pervasive that quite often it colors your posts and
advice to the point that it can seem quite condescending. To be perfectly
honest, I've been offended (indirectly) on more than a few occasions by
the... vitriol... that you may or may not even know is present in many of
I apologise. This is certainly _not_ my intention.
your posts WRT either 1) computers that can't be
troubleshot at the gate
level, or 2) people who cannot troubleshoot computers at the gate level.
OK, let me raise a few points.
Proper troubleshooting -- meaning making measurements and thinking about
them before making any changes is, IMHO, the only way to end up with a
reliable working machine. We've had this debate <n> times before, and I
really don't want to start it up again.
And in the case of classic computers, assemnbly-level spares may well be
unavaialble other than by canivalising another example of the machine.
Which is not a Good Thing. OK, some components may only be avaialble that
way too, but by taking the smallest possible part each time it means you
may be able to use the same donor machine to repair several others.
I think _everyone_ here could do component-level troubleshooting if they
wanted to. It's mostly a matter of logical reasoning, and I think everone
here can think logically.
This last part may explain why I'm so fanatical about it. I find it fun.
I like solving puzzles. I like logic puzzles particularly. And that's
exactly what rtoubleshooting should be. A puzzle. It's like detective
work. You gather the clues, think about them, and find the cluprit.
Fortunately for me, the rsults of being wrong are somewhat less serious
than sending an innocent man to the gallows ;-)
I guess troubelshooting is one reason that I mess around with old
hardware. I do enjoy it.
-tony