>(tony)
Have you read the report in Computer
Resurextion? (This is the _only_
indformation I have seen on this project). There were a couple of
things
that really upset me...
=20
I had previously heard this story directly from the gentlemen involved,
pre=
tty much verbatim. What do you find upsetting? =20
I don't have the appropriate copy of Computer Resurection to hand, but
from what I recall it said something like (this is a
paraphrase, but I
hope I've kept the meaning)
'After basic electircal safety tests we applied power and the machine
appeared to start up correctly'
'However one part proved unreliable, we replaced all the PCBs, but it was
still unreliavly. In the end we discovered the power supply was faulty,
so we replaced that' ... etc
<<<<
The article is online at
http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/CCS/res/res48.htm#e
It is worth rereading to correct your memories
It shows that a great deal of care was taken in the process.
There is, in any case, an important difference between attempting to restart
equipment that had apparently been operational only a few months earlier
before it was moved - in which case normal field-service procedures seem
perfectly adequate* - and something that had been stored for years which
might need treating as requiring the sort of investigation and testing that
would be associated with rebuilding.
* It is the experience, and thus training, of field-service organisations
that a strip-down and rebuild procedure is more likely to introduce faults
than to locate them with any reasonably modern equipment (and, in this
context, PDP11/84s can be considered "reasonably modern"); This all changes,
of course, if power-off time has been sufficient for power-supply faults to
become likely.
Andy