22 Oct
2010
22 Oct
'10
4:42 p.m.
> We catalog the top-level items (CPU, disk drives,
tape drives,
> printers, etc.) when they come in. The low-level items (disk packs
> and cartridges, tapes, boards, etc.) are fuzzier: Loose items, like
> spare boards, are catalogued when they come in, but boards installed
> in larger items only get catalogued when they are pulled for repair or
> replacement.
Hmm.. I don't think I am terribly happy about
that. I would want to open
up every machine as it was being catalogued and recurd all the intenral
PCBs, what options are installed, and so on.
Museums have lots of constraints. The most onerous is almost always
funding. I'm sure we'd all love to see such complete records created
and maintained, but the cost of such cataloging is phenomenal. In
addition to the added cost, the more detail you collect the more staff
you need to gather it, and the more variation you're going to get in
the judgement calls made by different individuals.
That said, I _can_ see some value in tracking certain kinds of options
that add major functionality. For example, if your IBM 3090 has the
vector facility that seems noteworthy. (Ok, that's not the best
example, since the model number of such a machine reflects the vf, but
pretend it doesn't for the sake of argument.)
De