iPhone
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Woody on 19 Feb 2010 08:50 On 19/02/2010 13:35, Rowland McDonnell wrote: > Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > >> Rowland McDonnell wrote: >>> Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> Rowland McDonnell wrote: >>>>> Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Rowland McDonnell<real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Those watches were reliable if you'd made them carefully enough. What I >>>>>>> recall reading, the dodgy ones were dodgy due to dodgy construction, not >>>>>>> dodgy design. >>>>>> >>>>>> These were the ones already built, and they were anything but reliable. >>>>> >>>>> But how does that preclude the accuracy of my `dodgy build' memory? >>>> >>>> Well, I guess it doesn't, but if the factory where they were made can't >>>> make them well, that doesn't make them very reliable. As was quoted, the >>>> return rate was enormous, so it can hardly have been that reliable. >>> >>> Yes, but the point I was getting at is that the basic design was okay, >>> it was let down by poor quality problems elsewhere in the supply chain. >>> >>> Or so my memory says.<shrug> >> >> Well, clearly the design wasn't ok if it couldn't be manufactured by the >> facilities they had. > > That effect can be explained by bad production engineering every bit as > much as bad design, although obviously if the designer were truly > competent he'd design for the available production engineering ability. Yes, something a bit more robust. As the article on here said, they had difficulty assembling themselves. The ease of assembly is one facet of the design and a good design should reduce the construction risks, especially when you know you are not good at it. > But my point is that Sinclair didn't have a clue about production > engineering - so your point is missing my point slightly. No, I didn't miss it, I fully agreed with it. He didn't pay anywhere near enough attention to the process of production, which is what brought them down several times. >> But no, as a design they used far too much power >> and were too likely to drift due to temperature variations. > > The battery in my original Commodore digital watch needed replacing > every month or so, IIRC. 10 days is less than that, but only 1/3 of it. > It's bad, but not as dreadfully awful as it seems these days. No, not dreadfully awful, but in using too much power they didn't have a way of controlling the heat. All in all, it was a good design in paper, but as an actual constructed item it lacked. Which is a shame as it looked great! > [snip] > >> But then on the fascinating things my uncle had (which was most things, >> he was the reason I got into electronics) was a nixie tube clock. I >> loved watching that thing. Oh god that was a stupid thing to remember.. >> look at all the pretty nixie tube clocks on google..<wanders off>.. > > Nixie tube wristwatch: > > <http://www.cathodecorner.com/nixiewatch/watchhist/watchhist.html> Ooh - impressive. Obviously wouldn't want to wear something like that but damn good. Unfortunately having now looked at the nixie tubes, however much I want one, there is no way I am paying those prices for a bit of nostalgia! -- Woody
From: David Sankey on 19 Feb 2010 09:49 In article <1je5xzg.x4dqqdx6ynctN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>, real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > David Sankey <David.Sankey(a)stfc.ac.uk> wrote: > > > real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote: > [snip] > > > > The data's not just held at CERN. It's a *BIG* job, a vast ocean of > > > numbers, and it's backed up all over the globe! It's staggering! Big > > > enough to make even Google blink. > > > > We still lose tapes. > > CERN's got robots on the job. No, we still lose tapes. We're one of the sites providing primary offsite copies and take some 10% of CERN data, but tapes still break. That said, more often it's the metadata getting snarled so the data still exist, you just don't know where. Also we tend to have more on disk, our pool for January being 2.9PB disk vs 2.2PB tape. Disks being continuously on tend to fail more often than tapes, we lost some 400 disks last year. RAID saves you, file system loss was only 4. Dave
From: Rowland McDonnell on 19 Feb 2010 10:13 D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > > > I think you're being insulting to me for the sake of it. > > I can assure you that I would never be insulting for the sake of it. I > am only insulting as a means to some other end. Oh, okay. Rowland. (who had a very bad Tuesday) -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Rowland McDonnell on 19 Feb 2010 10:13 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > Woody<usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: [snip] > >> But then on the fascinating things my uncle had (which was most things, > >> he was the reason I got into electronics) was a nixie tube clock. I > >> loved watching that thing. Oh god that was a stupid thing to remember.. > >> look at all the pretty nixie tube clocks on google..<wanders off>.. > > > > Nixie tube wristwatch: > > > > <http://www.cathodecorner.com/nixiewatch/watchhist/watchhist.html> > > Ooh - impressive. Obviously wouldn't want to wear something like that > but damn good. Why `obviously'? > Unfortunately having now looked at the nixie tubes, however much I want > one, there is no way I am paying those prices for a bit of nostalgia! I think the only sane approach is to hunt around for old Nixie tube gear and make your own clock-in-a-cigar box like this bloke: <http://www.selectric.org/nixie/> Thing is, �280 isn't all that much for a fancy watch, not in the grand scheme of things. Quite cheap, given that you're getting something utterly astonishing. But I think most people with a spare �300 are going to think of spending it on something else... Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 19 Feb 2010 10:15
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:07:11 +0000, real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote: >Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > >> One reason Sinclair and the other British micro makers died is that they >> did spend the money on half-decent customer service > >I think you're looking back fondly at a past that never really existed. >The customer in those days was generally the last thing on anyone's >mind. Sinclair did do a pretty good job on returns+repairs, though. More through practice and necessity than through actual customer service, I suspect. And at least the postman had the customer on their mind... Cheers - Jaimie -- When the ad says "Kills 99.9 percent of bacteria!" my reflexive response is "...and the 0.1 percent left can bench-press a truck" -- David Staples, asr |