28 Mar
2002
28 Mar
'02
12:04 p.m.
At 19:36 28/03/2002, you wrote:
To Sinclair, that probably *was* a real reason. Don't forget, he's a huge
(pardon the pun) fan of miniaturisation.
Like I said, it was mostly reliable. If you got a duff one, you were in for
a world of pain. But that's true of everything.
Taking a soldering iron to your only computer, when unable to afford a
replacement, is *not* clever.
>Why is
size/weight important for a machine that's not designed as a
portable?
Smaller is Better? Wasn't that always Sinclair's design philosophy?
I was looking for a real reason.... In my view larger is better, since
it's a lot easier to work on when it needs repair...
Mostly agreed. Things can get *too* big (ain't no way I'm going to fit a
VAX8800 in my "machine room" (aka the spare bedroom)). OTOH, bigger tends
to mean more modular, which tends to make repairs easier as well.
So true. OTOH,
the QL was mostly reliable. Certainly more reliable than
any
I know people who had a lot of trouble with them... single one of
my PCs here (all of which have, at some time or another, had
something fail in them). What makes the PC forgivable is that it's
generally a plug-in plug-out component, rather than some integral part of
the only circuit board in the thing. Although, come to think of it, I have
What's that got to do with it? Anyway, I repair my PCs to component level as well..
Doesn't everybody???
No.
--
Cheers, Ade.
Be where it's at, B-Racing!
http://b-racing.com