12 Aug
2012
12 Aug
'12
8:18 a.m.
There's a lot to that report. It is also only
dealing with semiconductor devices. While semiconductors are a crucial component, they are
not the only one.
Yes, but it is basically the first thing I found (and being tired
after going to the Kagan memorial, I was not about to make a big
project about it). The point is that Ian wanted a citation, so I gave
him one, in less than a minute's worth of Google.
There are similar studies on other components and materials,
certainly. Even the paint industry has its own bushel of studies about
paint aging. I will leave the discovery of those to you guys.
The problem is that none of these documents are
studies on conservation. The way I see it, this is still in its larval form. Only 70 years
ago these machines hadn't even been invented yet, that is within the life span of
quite a few people who are still around. We just don't know how best to preserve a
computer. The world needs data.
Very, true, but we can make some very good guesses on how to preserve
these machines. At least with the modern materials found in computers
- materials that "normal" museums do not have to deal with -
conservators can look to the bushels of engineering reliability
studies, like that Panasonic one I pointed out, for some guidance. It
is not shooting in the dark.
The only way to get data is to do our best, and try
different strategies. There are many very clever people on this list and elsewhere. With
enough effort, anything can be made and replaced. It's going to be a crapshoot either
way until we've had more experience with this stuff.
Yes, we need more data on this. But, one way to certainly taint that
data is to keep using the materials (keep running the machines).
It's not necessary to convey the experience
exactly. But an approximation can give people the feel of what it was like.
Yes, and this is why simulations and living museums, like the Living
Computer Museum, are good as well. For the time being, until we can
have our perfect virtual reality simulators, having a running machine
in a raised floor room is the best we can do, but it uses the artifact
and changes what it is (I am not sure I want to get into a "historic
fabric" fight with anyone at this point). Those changes can not be
reversed, no matter what anyone says.
This is why it is good to have machines that are in museums, preserved
and not run at all. Everyone, please do not hate on the museums that
preserve the machines by not running them - they have a point for
doing so.
--
Will