16 Nov
1997
16 Nov
'97
4:50 p.m.
On Sun, 16 Nov 1997 19:26:14, Mr. Hotze remarked to us:
Possibly (out for MUCH revision...) is the definition
"Any computer
which has aged sufficently to be considered "outdated" by the computer
market and has historic signifiance, OR is 10 years old or older."
Given the marketplace today for "commodity" computers, what you buy
today is, by definition, obsolete as there'll be something "better"
along tomorrow. In a word - "why bother?".
Age, also, alone, does not make a classic. I doubt that the standard
run-of-the-mill '386 PeeCee will ever amount to anything except to,
perhaps, archaeologists who dig one out of a landfill. There were too
many of them made, and they were (are) regarded as "disposable". Look
at the construction - modern machines aren't made to be repaired any
more than a disposable cigarette lighter is made to be refilled. They
burn out, you toss' em, and buy another one.
Such was not always the case. Pre-PeeCee, machines were usually
constructed very carefully. I don't doubt for a minute that engineers
in the early '60s envisioned their creations happily hummimg away
in the year 2000 - the boxes were built to last. Pop the hood on the
latest thing to come down the 'pike - it's all ASICs, custom silicon,
and surface mount stuff on wafer-thin boards. In short - not built
to last. Nor is it designed to.
That, of course, is just my opinion. And a cynical one, too.
______________________________________________________________________
| | |
| Carl Richard Friend (UNIX Sysadmin) | West Boylston |
| Minicomputer Collector / Enthusiast | Massachusetts, USA |
| mailto:carl.friend@stoneweb.com | |
| http://www.ultranet.com/~engelbrt/carl/museum | ICBM: N42:22 W71:47 |
|________________________________________________|_____________________|
16 Nov
16 Nov
6:27 p.m.
Carl R. Friend wrote
Age, also, alone, does not make a classic. I doubt
that the standard
run-of-the-mill '386 PeeCee will ever amount to anything except to,
perhaps, archaeologists who dig one out of a landfill. There were too
many of them made, and they were (are) regarded as "disposable". Look
at the construction - modern machines aren't made to be repaired any
more than a disposable cigarette lighter is made to be refilled. They
burn out, you toss' em, and buy another one.
There are a few standouts in the genus. Notably to mind comes the NCR
PC line, specifically the PC-812 and the PC-916 from the late '80s.
Rugged construction and passive backplane -- the damned things just
wouldn't die. Built in West Germany, I assume by retired Mercedes and
Volkswagen technicians. Then NCR went to using mass-market OEM boards
and the next thing you know they're bought by AT&T.
And Zenith stands out, if only for their ability to always come up with
a chassis uglier than their previous record, with nobody else even
trying to compete. Yet their laptops generally looked good.
--
Ward Griffiths
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails
of the last priest." [Denis Diderot, "Dithyrambe sur la fete de rois"]
9:11 p.m.
Age, also, alone, does not make a classic. I doubt
that the standard
run-of-the-mill '386 PeeCee will ever amount to anything except to,
perhaps, archaeologists who dig one out of a landfill. There were too
many of them made, and they were (are) regarded as "disposable".
On the other hand, the "PeeCee" is destined to decome a classic, just
because of the huge impact they have made.
Such was not always the case. Pre-PeeCee, machines
were usually
constructed very carefully. I don't doubt for a minute that engineers
in the early '60s envisioned their creations happily hummimg away
in the year 2000 - the boxes were built to last.
I am a little uneasy with this. True, most machines in the 1960s were
built like tanks - they _had_ to be, or they would not last in the
marketplace. Buying a computer back then was a very big deal, not like
today. Today, the cost is so low on small systems that managers do not
have to worry about buying a dud - if they do, no big deal. ANS
purchased some really bad TI laptops, and we are regretting them. Did
anyone lose credibility because of a few thousand dollars worth of junky
computers? Of course not. For bigger things, the story is much different.
If a manager purchased many tens of thousands of dollars worth of junk,
they may not get thier Christmas bonus. I think they would look at
quality much more closely with real money on the line.
Just look at the quality of Sun equipment - out of the box everything
will work, nothing will be banged up, and the thing will compute forever -
when you pay $50,000 for a midrange Ultra, you buy the quality. Now look
at a $1500 PeeCee and you will see the difference. If Sun ever made a
$1500 Ultra, I think it would not be very far off from PeeCee quality.
Pop the hood on the
latest thing to come down the 'pike - it's all ASICs, custom silicon,
and surface mount stuff on wafer-thin boards. In short - not built
to last. Nor is it designed to.
Why is surface mount, etc., not mean quality? It is just a different way
to manufacture electronics. After all, the Cray X/MP and Y/MPs are built
with ASICs, custom silicon, and surface mount stuff on wafer-thin boards.
Modern stuff would be repairable if their was a market to repair it. Just
like the TV repair business, the home computer repair business has not
been around for a good 15 years.
William Donzelli
william(a)ans.net
4:57 p.m.
Age, also,
alone, does not make a classic. I doubt that the standard
run-of-the-mill '386 PeeCee will ever amount to anything except to,
perhaps, archaeologists who dig one out of a landfill. There were too
many of them made, and they were (are) regarded as "disposable".
On the other hand, the "PeeCee" is destined to decome a classic, just
because of the huge impact they have made. I am a little uneasy with this. True, most machines in
the 1960s were
built like tanks - they _had_ to be, or they would not last in the
marketplace. Buying a computer back then was a very big deal, not like
today. Today, the cost is so low on small systems that managers do not
have to worry about buying a dud - if they do, no big deal. ANS
purchased some really bad TI laptops, and we are regretting them. Did
anyone lose credibility because of a few thousand dollars worth of junky
computers? Of course not. For bigger things, the story is much different.
If a manager purchased many tens of thousands of dollars worth of junk,
they may not get thier Christmas bonus. I think they would look at
quality much more closely with real money on the line.
Right. Now no one but very
few dared to repair digital boards at
component level. :( Except for monitors, they still require
repairs. I do not needlessly toss boards out if I can fix 'em and
even do some UNauthorized modifications on them. One example:
swapped out the both 386sx 20 and osc for 25mhz parts on a LTE
386s/20 successfully. One thing, this is ONLY comsumer-quality
computer using aero-space technologies. One-piece fold up
motherboard via flexiable flat cables as part of PCB material, You
know, that rigid PCB board with flex-cables enbedded in it. Closest
sibling that uses similar chipsets is SLT 386s/20.
(AHHHHHHHHH! others runs out for their life from a true h/w hacker.)
:)
Just look at the quality of Sun equipment - out of the
box everything
will work, nothing will be banged up, and the thing will compute forever -
when you pay $50,000 for a midrange Ultra, you buy the quality. Now look
at a $1500 PeeCee and you will see the difference. If Sun ever made a
$1500 Ultra, I think it would not be very far off from PeeCee quality.
Agreed with
this point, but I can't see point of ripping too much
strictly to keep investors happy these days. :( This is my pick
bone. RIght now too many are cutting to keep investors bubbling
happy. Seez! They can't make more $ if jobs are cut. They get $
but the $ flows to everywhere else, opening up jobs in turn and
incrases in next investing in the end. Now it's matter of short
term instead of long-term.
Pop the hood
on the
latest thing to come down the 'pike - it's all ASICs, custom silicon,
and surface mount stuff on wafer-thin boards. In short - not built
to last. Nor is it designed to.
Why is surface mount, etc., not mean quality? It is just a different way
to manufacture electronics. After all, the Cray X/MP and Y/MPs are built
with ASICs, custom silicon, and surface mount stuff on wafer-thin boards. Modern stuff would be repairable if their was a market
to repair it. Just
like the TV repair business, the home computer repair business has not
been around for a good 15 years.
Truth. But cost of new parts is too low to cover
still increasing
wages and parts to repair 'em SO, users just chuck parts out for
new one if something breaks after warrenty or upgrades. New age
version of swapper-fixuppers, dumb people comes out in that end, and
few smarts in the end and too many average people. Sorry but I had
to say that. In past, before 80's there were lot of smart people who
appreciate quality and have knowledge but right now we're allowing
requirements relax in education systems and those who can't find jobs
because some future employers have few people needed in key positions
and have technologies to be productive and have better machines.
We're should have kept the silicon technologies also keep some key
manufacturing sites free of those silicon and bring back several
labour intersive manaufacturing and depend less on technologies that
uses semi for most applications and they can be blown to bits with
back EMF from atomic blast.
Very distressing.
William Donzelli
william(a)ans.net
Troll
9904
days inactive
9904
days old
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
carl.friend＠stoneweb.com -
gram＠cnct.com -
jpero＠cgo.wave.ca -
william＠ans.net