31 May
2005
31 May
'05
5:33 p.m.
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Tony Duell wrote:
Ok, so finally you are agreeing with me.
On Tue, 31 May
2005, Randy McLaughlin wrote:
I think that a museum or other true archivist should do only those
modifications and replace only those parts necessary to keep the machine
operational, and then the replacement parts should be clearly
identifyable as such. This would seem to agree with what is done to other
mechancial artefacts in museums (e.g. clocks). Many PC boards have had mods that are later
reversed. Anyone looking at the
repaired boards can see that it was done to put the board back to the
original state, the same can not be said if a screw is replaced.
I'm assuimg the context here is that the modifications are being done by
the archivist (if not then someone is mixing their arguments). However, I make those modifications as reversable as
possible (I would
rather not cut a PCB track, but sometimes there is no other way, for
example). And I don't make them if I don't have to (which is what this
darn thread started off about).
Different contexts, different reasons. The change was negligible.
In the end, I would agree with you: get the proper tool, and leave the
original screws in place (this is what I would do). However, your
arguments against Jules swapping screws were so entirely irrational that I
found fault with them.
--
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
[ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ]
[ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]