 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Country Specific / UK Mac Group / September 2008Laser printer recommendations
It seems that the latest HP printer we've bought has died a death. Troubleshooting continues, but there's no sign of it having any ability to talk to a host computer. (It was working fine, and suddenly it just stopped appearing on the LAN as far as both our Macs are concerned - and yes we've tried different cables, tried plugging it directly into each of our MacOS X Macs, tried re-installing the software and repairing permissions, cleaning caches, and probably a few other things) So: what should we replace it with? I'm after a 1200dpi mono PostScript laser printer, with the ability to print on both sides of the paper and an Ethernet connection. The only thing I care about aside from that is `Not HP'. I've had too many bad experiences with HP kit in recent years (not to mention with HP itself). Any suggestions? Rowland.  SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@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 > I'm after a 1200dpi mono PostScript laser printer, with the ability to > print on both sides of the paper and an Ethernet connection. > > The only thing I care about aside from that is `Not HP'. I've had too > many bad experiences with HP kit in recent years (not to mention with HP > itself). I was going to suggest a HP Laserjet 4100, which is what I got earlier this year. They don't get much cheaper to run than this, and it has a monthly duty cycle of about 120,000 pages. The first cartridge did 12000 pages, and cost £23 to replace. Apart from that, I have had very good experience with Kyocera Lasers in a work environment. We had them in a car dealership, and they lasted for years. My mother-in-law has a basic Kyocera (FS1 I think), and still hasn't replaced the cartridge after three years. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/> > > I'm after a 1200dpi mono PostScript laser printer, with the ability to > > print on both sides of the paper and an Ethernet connection. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > monthly duty cycle of about 120,000 pages. The first cartridge did 12000 > pages, and cost £23 to replace. Blimey. I'm not sure I'd want to buy anything else from HP - I've been very unimpressed with the longevity of the hardware, with the crapness of the software, and with the uselessness of the support. But £23 for 12000 pages? - that's tempting, that's very tempting. Hmm.... .... .... > Apart from that, I have had very good experience with Kyocera Lasers in > a work environment. We had them in a car dealership, and they lasted for > years. My mother-in-law has a basic Kyocera (FS1 I think), and still > hasn't replaced the cartridge after three years. Righto - noted. Although my other half had the bright idea of trying the USB interface on the printer and it seems that while the Ethernet interface isn't playing properly any more, it works fine via USB. There are issues regarding the tidiness of the cabling I'm now using, but the bloody thing's printing again. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@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 [..] > > I was going to suggest a HP Laserjet 4100, which is what I got earlier > > this year. They don't get much cheaper to run than this, and it has a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > unimpressed with the longevity of the hardware, with the crapness of the > software, and with the uselessness of the support. Their old Lasers are pretty solid lumps though. > But £23 for 12000 pages? - that's tempting, that's very tempting. > Hmm.... .... .... That's using refilled carts off eBay though, the second cart I got still did 11000 pages, and I've had no trouble with print quality so far. > > Apart from that, I have had very good experience with Kyocera Lasers in > > a work environment. We had them in a car dealership, and they lasted for [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > There are issues regarding the tidiness of the cabling I'm now using, > but the bloody thing's printing again. Might be worth just looking for a JetDirect card on eBay, they normally just slot in on the HP lasers. You'll need to check the configuration of yours though. SignatureAndy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/> > [..] > > > I was going to suggest a HP Laserjet 4100, which is what I got earlier [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Their old Lasers are pretty solid lumps though. The /old/ ones, yes. Nothing past a LJ4, though. I've got an HP32E calculator - from about 1978. It's better than the LCD HP32S that HP replaced it with about a decade later (I've got an HP32S as well). If I need a hand-held calculator, I pick up my 1970s HP. Old HP laser printers have legendary reliability and longevity. But HP changed into a different firm starting in the 1980s and its now just another firm that makes crappy computery stuff. HP used to be a firm that made good engineering - but like the BBC, HP seems to have replaced its engineers with marketroids and stylists and idiot managers who know sh.t about what they are doing and think that it's right that they should know sh.t about it. > > But £23 for 12000 pages? - that's tempting, that's very tempting. > > Hmm.... .... .... > > That's using refilled carts off eBay though, the second cart I got still > did 11000 pages, and I've had no trouble with print quality so far. Ah. Righto. > > > Apart from that, I have had very good experience with Kyocera Lasers in > > > a work environment. We had them in a car dealership, and they lasted for [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > just slot in on the HP lasers. You'll need to check the configuration of > yours though. Good point. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@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 > > [..] > > > > I was going to suggest a HP Laserjet 4100, which is what I got earlier [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > The /old/ ones, yes. Nothing past a LJ4, though. Oh yes, the LJ5s. Solid as a rock with one at home and several at work over many years. I am almost decided on getting a laser. I looked at the HPs, but the thing that puts me off is the reports of them telling you they are out of toner when they are far from it. We have a couple of large HP lasers at work and although they work fine, I can't say they are anything special. I am getting close to getting the samsung 2160N as it seems to tick all of my boxes, and has a cheap running costs. It is apparently not that fast but I am not in that much of a hurry, and it is not great at photos, but I have a canon inkjet for that. Either that or another canon inkjet. SignatureWoody www.alienrat.com On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 19:53:03 +0100, Woody wrote > I am getting close to getting the samsung 2160N as it seems to tick all > of my boxes, and has a cheap running costs. It is apparently not that > fast but I am not in that much of a hurry, and it is not great at > photos, but I have a canon inkjet for that. I've just bought a Samsung SCX-4500 and, so far, am very pleased with it > > > [..] > > > > > I was going to suggest a HP Laserjet 4100, which is what I got [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Oh yes, the LJ5s. Solid as a rock with one at home and several at work > over many years. If you've got a laser printer and it fails to work for many years without a hiccup, it's a pile of crap as far as I'm concerned. I am, for example, inclined to put the HP LJ 1320n sat behind me in that category. The tendency of modern electronic kit to pack up after 3-5 years use is a distressing symptom of the modern age. 3-5 years before death for a PC or its printer is not even fit for purpose as far as I'm concerned, never mind being of adequate quality. Considering something `solid as a rock' just because it's succeeded in demonstrating that it's not a rip-off pile of shoddy unreliable junk like most PC related stuff these days is not much of a recommendation. > I am almost decided on getting a laser. I looked at the HPs, but the > thing that puts me off is the reports of them telling you they are out > of toner when they are far from it. I don't think those reports are true. Mine started reporting `low toner' when toner was indeed low and *just* before print quality started to go. Thing is, you'd've had to have been a madly paranoid careful examiner of the paper to have seen it. While `draft mode' (600dpi, toner density minimum) started to look a bit lighter shortly after `low toner' turned up, but it was only noticable if I compared `before' and `after'. But `best quality' (1200dpi, no interpolation, normal toner density) looked as good as ever, even side by side with before and after - unless one peered /very/ closely and carefully under bright light (and okay, my eyes are 41 years old now). So toner was definitely low, and it was definitely affecting quality, but it was a good few thousand pages after `low toner' before I reckoned it had got to the stage of needing a new cartridge. Once it started to need shaking, that was about it. I suspect what I saw was standard behaviour - and I also suspect that most people would call it `giving you a toner warning far too early'. > We have a couple of large HP lasers at work and although they work fine, > I can't say they are anything special. HP kit used to be special. It's not any more. > I am getting close to getting the samsung 2160N as it seems to tick all > of my boxes, and has a cheap running costs. It is apparently not that > fast but I am not in that much of a hurry, and it is not great at > photos, but I have a canon inkjet for that. > > Either that or another canon inkjet. I've always hated Canon printers - which is faintly odd, given that the Canon cx print engine ran half the world's laser printers for years and many of them were really excellent. But it's not odd when you consider that all actual Canon /printers/ I've used have proven horribly unreliable and had a tendency to produce crappy output. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@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 > > > > [..] > > > > > > I was going to suggest a HP Laserjet 4100, which is what I got [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > If you've got a laser printer and it fails to work for many years > without a hiccup, it's a pile of crap as far as I'm concerned. I would agree with that. > I am, > for example, inclined to put the HP LJ 1320n sat behind me in that > category. No real experience of any laserjets after they went past single figures. > The tendency of modern electronic kit to pack up after 3-5 years use is > a distressing symptom of the modern age. 3-5 years before death for a > PC or its printer is not even fit for purpose as far as I'm concerned, > never mind being of adequate quality. I guess it depends on the purpose. The only machine i have actually had die in recent years is a macbook pro (this one), which was rather annoying (but luckily covered by applecare as it went at one year and one day). The motherboard died. I haven't actually had another computer go within 5 years, without external damage. I have a collection of PCs that are old and I don't use any more, and they all work (or did last time I looked). The laserjet 5 still works, or did when I put it on a few years ago, but it uses too much power to leave on, and I need colour for most prints now. The brother inkjet has a fault at the moment. The canon inkjet works ok at printing, but uses a lot of ink, and is getting a bit hit and miss at picking up single papers. Before that I had an epson inkjet that I threw out (actually gave away) at 8 months old because it was a pile of sh.t. Well, its print quality was stunning, when you could get to do it, but it was frustrating to use as a printer, as you couldn't rely on it working at any given time. > Considering something `solid as a rock' just because it's succeeded in > demonstrating that it's not a rip-off pile of shoddy unreliable junk > like most PC related stuff these days is not much of a recommendation. Fair enough. To me, that says solid as a rock. > > I am almost decided on getting a laser. I looked at the HPs, but the > > thing that puts me off is the reports of them telling you they are out > > of toner when they are far from it. > > I don't think those reports are true. I have no way of saying as I don't have one, but there are quite a lot of reports saying that is what happens. > So toner was definitely low, and it was definitely affecting quality, > but it was a good few thousand pages after `low toner' before I reckoned [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I suspect what I saw was standard behaviour - and I also suspect that > most people would call it `giving you a toner warning far too early'. Maybe > > We have a couple of large HP lasers at work and although they work fine, > > I can't say they are anything special. > > HP kit used to be special. It's not any more. Last thing from them I was impressed with was a digital oscilliscope, but only long enough for the techtronics ones to turn up and be more impressive! > > I am getting close to getting the samsung 2160N as it seems to tick all > > of my boxes, and has a cheap running costs. It is apparently not that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > used have proven horribly unreliable and had a tendency to produce > crappy output. I never had a canon before the current one, but after being pissed off with epson and HP inkjets, someone recommended them and I got the i865. I have to say it is the most impressive inkjet I have ever had. Colour is superb and the printer has been great. I recommended them to several people, who have all been very impressed with them. If I were to get another inkjet, they would be pretty well the only ones I would consider. But I will probably end up with the samsung laser - I have no idea what they are like, but the reviews seem ok. SignatureWoody www.alienrat.com > > > > > [..] > > > > > > > I was going to suggest a HP Laserjet 4100, which is what I got [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > No real experience of any laserjets after they went past single figures. <shrug> The Ethernet connection died. The actual Ethernet interface seems okay, but the printer can't talk to the computer via Ethernet any more. > > The tendency of modern electronic kit to pack up after 3-5 years use is > > a distressing symptom of the modern age. 3-5 years before death for a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > external damage. I have a collection of PCs that are old and I don't use > any more, and they all work (or did last time I looked). I've had two tower Macs and one iBook die in service - none of them suffered rough handling or any kind of abuse of any sort at all. Our 2G4 died shortly after AppleCare was up. The previous 400MHz G4 tower had never worked reliably, then got *really* unreliable - and the Apple Authorised Service Provider claimed that it had a haunted case. (Well, it was still displaying faults after they had replaced all working parts with known good parts - what else could the fault be, if not `haunted case'?) The iBook died due to a design fault - but of course Apple failed to tell us about the design fault it had put in the machine we'd bought, so we didn't find out about it until the fault appeared, some years after the free repair programme, the bastards. This 'ere 4G5 has had at least three trips to the menders so far. I think it's less than two years old. Apple's hardware quality is shite these days. As far as I know, all the 68k Macs in the house still all work perfectly. > The laserjet 5 still works, or did when I put it on a few years ago, but > it uses too much power to leave on, and I need colour for most prints [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > was stunning, when you could get to do it, but it was frustrating to use > as a printer, as you couldn't rely on it working at any given time. <heh> So: I've personally had nothing but bad experiences with Canon printers. I've never trusted anything from Brother - too fragile and unreliable from what I've seen of it. I really don't like Epson kit in general. And HP and Apple have gone completely crap these days. Are there *ANY* firms still making home computer equipment that's not an unreliable joke? > > Considering something `solid as a rock' just because it's succeeded in > > demonstrating that it's not a rip-off pile of shoddy unreliable junk > > like most PC related stuff these days is not much of a recommendation. > > Fair enough. To me, that says solid as a rock. `Solid as a rock' to me means `much better than you'd expect as baseline reliability'. If I get `baseline reliability', that's not `solid as a rock', that's just `okay'. `Solid as a rock' means better than baseline. > > > I am almost decided on getting a laser. I looked at the HPs, but the > > > thing that puts me off is the reports of them telling you they are out [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I have no way of saying as I don't have one, but there are quite a lot > of reports saying that is what happens. Yeah, but can you trust the data collection? In this case, I think not. And remember you're hearing from someone who's /really/ got it in for HP and has no qualms at all about slagging off shoddy products that fail to perform adequately. > > So toner was definitely low, and it was definitely affecting quality, > > but it was a good few thousand pages after `low toner' before I reckoned [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > but only long enough for the techtronics ones to turn up and be more > impressive! Tektronics, surely? Anyway, Tektronics 'scopes are always the really impressive ones. The last bit of HP electronic test gear I used had a manual that made it impossible to learn how to use it. All you could do was look up the procedure for performing particular tests - nothing about operating principles or anything to permit the novice user to learn about the instrument and how to use it. So there was no way I could trust any of the data it gave me - a very expensive and scientifically totally useless bit of test gear. > > > I am getting close to getting the samsung 2160N as it seems to tick all > > > of my boxes, and has a cheap running costs. It is apparently not that [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > If I were to get another inkjet, they would be pretty well the only ones > I would consider. I've never met a Canon printer that worked reliably. > But I will probably end up with the samsung laser - I have no idea what > they are like, but the reviews seem ok. Righto. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@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 > > The laserjet 5 still works, or did when I put it on a few years ago, but > > it uses too much power to leave on, and I need colour for most prints [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Are there *ANY* firms still making home computer equipment that's not an > unreliable joke? Thats why I was looking at a samsung! I have no idea what they are like. There are lexmark too, although I had a cheap one of those that came free with a dell that was very expensive to run. I don't know if that is indicative of lexmarks, I think it is a trait of all cheap printers, but it put me off. But when it comes down to it, computers are very cheap now compared to how they were, and not all of that comes from improvements. In a fiercly competitve world, if you can save $1 on the cost of a motherboard by using cheaper capacitors, you have to do it. I had an old Sun sparc that I eventually threw out (well over 15 years old). It was so well built. Every componant was thought out and well placed. The disk cables had metal shielding knitted into the fabric cable shields. The hard disk interlocks were really well made. The plugs were solid but well strain relieved. The framework would survive most things. But on the downside, they cost a stupid amount of money when they were made. My powerbook 160/40 cost £1600 in 1992. How much does that compare with my macbook pro at £1100 in 2007? > > > Considering something `solid as a rock' just because it's succeeded in > > > demonstrating that it's not a rip-off pile of shoddy unreliable junk [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > `Solid as a rock' to me means `much better than you'd expect as baseline > reliability'. Same here. It is the most reliable printer I have ever had, so it is better than I expect. > If I get `baseline reliability', that's not `solid as a > rock', that's just `okay'. `Solid as a rock' means better than > baseline. For me it is. > > > > I am almost decided on getting a laser. I looked at the HPs, but the > > > > thing that puts me off is the reports of them telling you they are out [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yeah, but can you trust the data collection? In this case, I think not. I neither trust or distrust it. Currently there are people that say it happens and people that say it doesn't. It is enough to create doubt. > And remember you're hearing from someone who's /really/ got it in for HP > and has no qualms at all about slagging off shoddy products that fail to > perform adequately. True, that counts. Anyway, there isn't anything in the HP laser catagory that seems to get good reviews anywhere. They seem over expensive for what they are. > > > So toner was definitely low, and it was definitely affecting quality, > > > but it was a good few thousand pages after `low toner' before I reckoned [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Tektronics, surely? Anyway, Tektronics 'scopes are always the really > impressive ones. Yes, that is them. Actually i was never a huge fan of Tektronics scopes. Their normal analogue ones left me fairly cold. Their digital ones were far better. I had a philips dual channel 100MHz which was brilliant and prefered it to every tektronics I tried. Then the HP rep came round and I got a HP quad channel 200MHz pure digital scope. it was pretty good, but the display on the next generation of tektronics digitals was better. Technically the HP was better but the tektronics was much faster to use and had better triggering. Tektronics excelled at vectorscopes, but luckily I didn't have to do much of that. HP did make very good logic analysers, although a bit expensive. That was a different time, different place though. I now don't do electronics but did buy a handheld 20MHz digital scope that runs on batteries. Technology has got so trivial now. > The last bit of HP electronic test gear I used had a manual that made it > impossible to learn how to use it. All you could do was look up the > procedure for performing particular tests - nothing about operating > principles or anything to permit the novice user to learn about the > instrument and how to use it. From my point of view, that is what I wanted. I knew the opererating principles and the manual is there to look up a section that is unclear. Well, I saw the logic analyser manual, I only read parts of the oscilloscope manual as I was bored at lunch one day (actually i was bored at lunch many days). > So there was no way I could trust any of the data it gave me - a very > expensive and scientifically totally useless bit of test gear. These were worth every penny, and a lot of pennies were involved too! SignatureWoody www.alienrat.com > > > The laserjet 5 still works, or did when I put it on a few years ago, but > > > it uses too much power to leave on, and I need colour for most prints [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Thats why I was looking at a samsung! <grin> Yeah, okay - why not? Andy H. mentioned Kyocera as a possibility, too. >I have no idea what they are like. > There are lexmark too, although I had a cheap one of those that came > free with a dell that was very expensive to run. I don't know if that is > indicative of lexmarks, I think it is a trait of all cheap printers, but > it put me off. Cheap printers are usually pricey to run - that's the point of 'em. > But when it comes down to it, computers are very cheap now compared to > how they were, They're only cheap compared to what they were in the mid 1980s when the absurdly expensive IBM PC and even more absurdly expensive Macintosh prices had come to be accepted as `normal'. > and not all of that comes from improvements. I don't see that the original IBM PC - which was hugely expensive compared to the competition - had /any/ technical merits over its competitors. It was last decade's hardware run by last decade's software and implemented in a very expensive and very clunky fashion - but it took over the world. >In a fiercly > competitve world, if you can save $1 on the cost of a motherboard by > using cheaper capacitors, you have to do it. You can say `We make reliable kit, but it costs a bit more' and get sales that way because it is in fact more reliable. It's only the US consumer who's stupid enough to insist on the cheapest thing all the time. It's why so much in the way of US consumer goods are such poor quality. > I had an old Sun sparc that I eventually threw out (well over 15 years > old). It was so well built. Every componant was thought out and well [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But on the downside, they cost a stupid amount of money when they were > made. Not stupid, since they were used to make money and they needed to be solid and reliable. > My powerbook 160/40 cost £1600 in 1992. How much does that compare with > my macbook pro at £1100 in 2007? <shrug> Both are stupidly expensive compared to the £50 my dad paid for the ZX81 in my cupboard back in 1981. Both are stupidly expensive compared to the £235 he paid for the BBC Micro about a year later. Both are stupidly expensive compared to the £400-odd that you'd spend on an Arc or an Amiga from the 1980s. > > > > Considering something `solid as a rock' just because it's succeeded in > > > > demonstrating that it's not a rip-off pile of shoddy unreliable junk [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Same here. It is the most reliable printer I have ever had, so it is > better than I expect. What I expect is the reliability I got from my HP DW 520 - it just worked until retirement, aside from needing to have its rollers sanded once (I got the HP kit to do the job). The HP DJ 970cxi colour inkjet I replaced it with had a poorer, slower hardware interface, poorer driver software that lost abilities as MacOS X developed, and the printer itself gradually broke in stages, losing abilities beyond those lost by the shoddy driver software until it finally packed up completely. > > If I get `baseline reliability', that's not `solid as a > > rock', that's just `okay'. `Solid as a rock' means better than > > baseline. > > For me it is. <shrug> When I think `solid as a rock', I think `solid as a rock', not `merely more solid than the marshmallows I'm used to'. Sorry for taking you at your word, I suppose I should say. > > > > > I am almost decided on getting a laser. I looked at the HPs, but the > > > > > thing that puts me off is the reports of them telling you they are out [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I neither trust or distrust it. Currently there are people that say it > happens and people that say it doesn't. It is enough to create doubt. Why not pay attention to the details of what really happens? Never mind the opinions - get away from the opinions, and find out what goes on. I've told you something about the way it really works, about what's going on. Has anyone else done that? I doubt it - I expect you've just had unspecific complaints. [snip] > > Tektronics, surely? Anyway, Tektronics 'scopes are always the really > > impressive ones. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Actually i was never a huge fan of Tektronics scopes. Their normal > analogue ones left me fairly cold. Their digital ones were far better. <snort> You've never met the good kit, then. I've got a Tektronics storage 'scope that's as old as I am. 150MHz, dual beam, purely analogue (heh - a '67 'scope in a '67 house owned by a '67 bloke (no, really). I suppose I should get myself a '67 bike in the garage, too.) It's lovely - and no-one's come up with a better analogue 'scope control arrangement that Tektronics. (admittedly, this particular 'scope is unrepairable and has a few things that don't work quite right on both channels but sod it, it's history. Unrepairable? Yeah - no-one makes the parts any more. It's got nuvistors *AND* Tektronics custom semiconductors) > I had a philips dual channel 100MHz which was brilliant and prefered it > to every tektronics I tried. Then the HP rep came round and I got a HP > quad channel 200MHz pure digital scope. it was pretty good, but the > display on the next generation of tektronics digitals was better. I dislike the controls on HP digital 'scopes that I've met. > Technically the HP was better but the tektronics was much faster to use > and had better triggering. <puzzled> Surely that means the Tektronics was technically better? > Tektronics excelled at vectorscopes, but luckily I didn't have to do > much of that. HP did make very good logic analysers, although a bit > expensive. I never liked the HP logic analyser I met, because the manual was shite. > That was a different time, different place though. I now don't do > electronics but did buy a handheld 20MHz digital scope that runs on > batteries. Technology has got so trivial now. How do you mean? > > The last bit of HP electronic test gear I used had a manual that made it > > impossible to learn how to use it. All you could do was look up the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > From my point of view, that is what I wanted. But unless you have instruction on the operating principles, you cannot rely on any measurement you make with the instrument. > I knew the opererating > principles How can that be, if the manual does not explain the operation of the instrument? > and the manual is there to look up a section that is unclear. > Well, I saw the logic analyser manual, I only read parts of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > These were worth every penny, and a lot of pennies were involved too! Test gear's worthless unless it can give you verifiable valid data, and you can't get that unless you have a thorough understanding of the operating principles and you cannot get that without a manual to explain it all or doing it the hard way by reverse engineering. But I suppose that's the difference between someone with a scientific background and someone with more of a technician's attitude - I understand the above point thoroughly, whereas you seem to disregard it entirely, taking the line that if the instrument says something, it must be true. I know that's nonsense. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@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 > > > > The laserjet 5 still works, or did when I put it on a few years ago, but > > > > it uses too much power to leave on, and I need colour for most prints [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > <grin> Yeah, okay - why not? Andy H. mentioned Kyocera as a > possibility, too. Yes, might as well give them the chance too. > >I have no idea what they are like. > > There are lexmark too, although I had a cheap one of those that came [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > absurdly expensive IBM PC and even more absurdly expensive Macintosh > prices had come to be accepted as `normal'. anything in a case was expensive by todays standards. ie, anything not in an easily destructable plastic case. > > and not all of that comes from improvements. > > I don't see that the original IBM PC - which was hugely expensive > compared to the competition - had /any/ technical merits over its > competitors. It didn't. But it did have an IBM logo on it and a nice metal box. > It was last decade's hardware run by last decade's > software and implemented in a very expensive and very clunky fashion - > but it took over the world. Because people then and now are more driven by name than ability. > >In a fiercly > > competitve world, if you can save $1 on the cost of a motherboard by > > using cheaper capacitors, you have to do it. > > You can say `We make reliable kit, but it costs a bit more' and get > sales that way because it is in fact more reliable. Can you? Maybe a few sales, but when it comes to computer sales, the key factor is price for most people. > It's only the US consumer who's stupid enough to insist on the cheapest > thing all the time. It's why so much in the way of US consumer goods > are such poor quality. I don't see the US consumer as any different than the UK consumer, the purchasing habits are almost identical. > > I had an old Sun sparc that I eventually threw out (well over 15 years > > old). It was so well built. Every componant was thought out and well [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the ZX81 in my cupboard back in 1981. Both are stupidly expensive > compared to the £235 he paid for the BBC Micro about a year later. Obviously a model A I am guessing. I bought a model B and it was £399. Allowing for inflation in the time, £399 is way more than I am buying now. I wasn't counting the ZXs as they didn't even have a proper keyboard and they weren't reliable enough to use for most tasks. > Both are stupidly expensive compared to the £400-odd that you'd spend on > an Arc or an Amiga from the 1980s. I don't know. How much was an amiga or archemedies with a hard disk back then? What does that work out as now. I know that in 1984 I went to buy a house that cost £25,000 and a couple of years ago bought one that cost £150,000. at the same rate that would make my powerbook the equivilent of £166 now. > > > > > Considering something `solid as a rock' just because it's succeeded in > > > > > demonstrating that it's not a rip-off pile of shoddy unreliable junk [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > abilities beyond those lost by the shoddy driver software until it > finally packed up completely. Thats certainly less than ideal. > > > If I get `baseline reliability', that's not `solid as a > > > rock', that's just `okay'. `Solid as a rock' means better than [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > <shrug> When I think `solid as a rock', I think `solid as a rock', not > `merely more solid than the marshmallows I'm used to'. Fair enough. As I have said, I have never used a printer more reliable (and I have used a lot of printers) than the Laserjet 5mp so I don't see how something could be more solid. > Sorry for taking you at your word, I suppose I should say. Fair enough. > > > > > > I am almost decided on getting a laser. I looked at the HPs, but > > > > > > the thing that puts me off is the reports of them telling you [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Why not pay attention to the details of what really happens? I did, but what happens to you may not be what happens to everyone. > Never mind the opinions - get away from the opinions, and find out what > goes on. I've told you something about the way it really works, about > what's going on. > > Has anyone else done that? I have read views from other people who have said what went on as well. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > <snort> You've never met the good kit, then. I have met the really really good kit. I did that for a living for many years. > I've got a Tektronics > storage 'scope that's as old as I am. 150MHz, dual beam, purely [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's lovely - and no-one's come up with a better analogue 'scope control > arrangement that Tektronics. That is a bit historic for me. I was refering to new equipment used day to day as the principle piece of equipment. I didn't get on with the tektronix, I was more a philips guy, > (admittedly, this particular 'scope is unrepairable and has a few things > that don't work quite right on both channels but sod it, it's history. Yes, history. There are some interesting historic things, but not much use on a day to day basis. > > I had a philips dual channel 100MHz which was brilliant and prefered it > > to every tektronics I tried. Then the HP rep came round and I got a HP > > quad channel 200MHz pure digital scope. it was pretty good, but the > > display on the next generation of tektronics digitals was better. > > I dislike the controls on HP digital 'scopes that I've met. They were not as good as the philips, but the triggering was very good. > > Technically the HP was better but the tektronics was much faster to use > > and had better triggering. > > <puzzled> Surely that means the Tektronics was technically better? The HP had more channels and was a faster (stored a faster waveform) scope. I needed the extra channels and the speed, as I was doing digital stuff rather than video. The tectronix exceled at the video stuff. > > Tektronics excelled at vectorscopes, but luckily I didn't have to do > > much of that. HP did make very good logic analysers, although a bit > > expensive. > > I never liked the HP logic analyser I met, because the manual was shite. The manual did the job for me. > > That was a different time, different place though. I now don't do > > electronics but did buy a handheld 20MHz digital scope that runs on > > batteries. Technology has got so trivial now. > > How do you mean? When I was an electronic engineer, a handheld LCD digital storage scope that ran on batteries was the stuff of dreams. Or at least one that I could afford was. Now they are cheap. Not just that, lots of electronic things. > > > The last bit of HP electronic test gear I used had a manual that made it > > > impossible to learn how to use it. All you could do was look up the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But unless you have instruction on the operating principles, you cannot > rely on any measurement you make with the instrument. Of course you can. It is a logic analyser, all the measurements are relative to the other measurements. > > I knew the opererating > > principles > > How can that be, if the manual does not explain the operation of the > instrument? Because I already knew how to use an HP logic analyser. They are reasonable simple bits of equipment. > > and the manual is there to look up a section that is unclear. > > Well, I saw the logic analyser manual, I only read parts of the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > operating principles and you cannot get that without a manual to explain > it all or doing it the hard way by reverse engineering. Of course you can. I was using the logic analyser and the oscilliscope to repair equipment, not to write some thesis. And I did it day in, day out, as many engineers across the world do. These are really, really simple pieces of equipment and apart from marginal differences between them they are remarkably similar and very simple to use. I know you can't understand anything without a manual, but I can, we have had this conversation many times before. What on earth would you expect to gain from the manual of an oscilliscope? > But I suppose that's the difference between someone with a scientific > background and someone with more of a technician's attitude True, I was doing a job. > understand the above point thoroughly, whereas you seem to disregard it > entirely, taking the line that if the instrument says something, it must > be true. No, the instrument may or may not be saying the right thing (or there may be something else involved). However, it gives you an indication of an area to look. A scientist is looking for something completely different to an engineer. A scientist is trying to prove a point or obtain some evidence, and largely speaking has a lot of time to do it in. An engineer is trying to get something working and generally has a time and financial constraint. SignatureWoody www.alienrat.com [snip] > > > But when it comes down to it, computers are very cheap now compared to > > > how they were, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > anything in a case was expensive by todays standards. ie, anything not > in an easily destructable plastic case. Ah! Of course - you put the hidden qualifiers on now, turning your original bullshit claim into one that is true, but pointless and silly. > > > and not all of that comes from improvements. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It didn't. But it did have an IBM logo on it and a nice metal box. And a lovely keyboard. > > It was last decade's hardware run by last decade's > > software and implemented in a very expensive and very clunky fashion - > > but it took over the world. > > Because people then and now are more driven by name than ability. They're driven by fashion, by a desire to do what everyone else is doing, by a desire to force everyone else to follow suit to validate their own personal choice, and so on. In short, people then as now are totally fuckwitted in general about making decisions - nothing remotely resembling sense occurs in the heads of most people when they make up their minds on anything. > > >In a fiercly > > > competitve world, if you can save $1 on the cost of a motherboard by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Can you? Yep. > Maybe a few sales, but when it comes to computer sales, the key > factor is price for most people. <weary sigh> Yes, that is the point - and it's why we have such shittily unreliable kit these days. > > It's only the US consumer who's stupid enough to insist on the cheapest > > thing all the time. It's why so much in the way of US consumer goods > > are such poor quality. > > I don't see the US consumer as any different than the UK consumer, the > purchasing habits are almost identical. Not at all - it's why British bacon is generally excellent and why US bacon is not. It's why British meat in general is a lot more expensive than meat in the USA - UK meat production is more expensive than US meat production because it's higher quality with much higher standards of animal welfare because that's what the consumer wants in many cases. The UK consumer is willing to pay more in many cases - for all that *some* people will always buy the cheapest on offer. Not all of us are that stupid, having found out that `cheapest' usually means `very poor quality' - in many cases `such poor quality that it's fit for nothing but the bin'. (although I do have some toolbox sockets that cost me peanuts back in the early 1990s. Made in Poland, they were - I had no idea if they were any good or not, but I've been using them since and I seem to have got one of those `fall of communism' bargains in this case) [snip] > > > My powerbook 160/40 cost £1600 in 1992. How much does that compare with > > > my macbook pro at £1100 in 2007? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Obviously a model A I am guessing. Yep. > I bought a model B and it was £399. Model Bs started out at £335. Demand put the price up. > Allowing for inflation in the time, £399 is way more than I am buying > now. `Way more'? How much is £399 (1983, say) in modern money? Bear in mind that the BBC Micro Model B was the fully souped up version, with all the bells and whistles that anyone could want including a set of interfaces that makes pretty much all modern PCs look sick - not to mention being the most computationally powerful 8 bit home micro ever. If you're looking at the price of a BBC Model B, you want to compare it to (say) a top of the line Mac Pro. How does it compare to that? If you want to compare a cheap modern PC to a 1980s PC, you need to compare like with like; put it up against Sinclair pricing. If you want to compare a modern PC to (say) an Amiga, you need to compare a fully souped up high end modern PC with a top line graphics card suitable for pro work. Compare like with like - it's important. > I wasn't counting the ZXs as they didn't even have a proper keyboard and > they weren't reliable enough to use for most tasks. Which is just total bullshit. > > Both are stupidly expensive compared to the £400-odd that you'd spend on > > an Arc or an Amiga from the 1980s. > > I don't know. How much was an amiga or archemedies with a hard disk back > then? <sigh> Why not just compare unlike things? Hard disc drives were almost unheard of back then. Compare like with like, that's what you should be doing. > What does that work out as now. > I know that in 1984 I went to buy a house that cost £25,000 and a couple > of years ago bought one that cost £150,000. at the same rate that would > make my powerbook the equivilent of £166 now. Yeah, but house price changes have nothing to do with the matter at all. [snip] > > > > > > > I am almost decided on getting a laser. I looked at the HPs, but > > > > > > > the thing that puts me off is the reports of them telling you [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I did, but what happens to you may not be what happens to everyone. Of course not! But what I see might well be what happens to /most/ people - you don't seem to want to consider that possibility. I don't see any reason, based on my understanding of people, technology, and how people interact with technology, that what I see is any different to what people see when they complain about the `low toner' warning turning up too soon. Now I'm thinking about it, I've met people whinging about a `low toner' warning before now. There's a certain kind of person who thinks that the warning is wrong if it turns up *before* print quality has begun to deterioriate - whereas, of course, the reason for the warning is so you can get a new cartridge in stock so that when you need it, it's ready. > > Never mind the opinions - get away from the opinions, and find out what > > goes on. I've told you something about the way it really works, about [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I have read views from other people who have said what went on as well. What went on, exactly? FWIW, I got another 5000-odd pages (IIRC) out of my nominally 6000 page cartridge before print quality became iffy enough to worry about. And I don't think the `low toner' warning turned up too soon. > > [snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I have met the really really good kit. I did that for a living for many > years. Okay, so you've got no soul. > > I've got a Tektronics > > storage 'scope that's as old as I am. 150MHz, dual beam, purely [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That is a bit historic for me. I was refering to new equipment used day > to day as the principle piece of equipment. I met Tektronics 'scopes in the 1970s. > I didn't get on with the tektronix, I was more a philips guy, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yes, history. There are some interesting historic things, but not much > use on a day to day basis. If the knobs all worked, it'd be super for daily use. [snip] > > > Technically the HP was better but the tektronics was much faster to use > > > and had better triggering. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > scope. I needed the extra channels and the speed, as I was doing digital > stuff rather than video. The tectronix exceled at the video stuff. Righto. Somehow, that doesn't surprise me - the Tektronics 'scope was better as a scope, but the HP 'scope had the extra channels and fancier looking spec. > > > Tektronics excelled at vectorscopes, but luckily I didn't have to do > > > much of that. HP did make very good logic analysers, although a bit [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The manual did the job for me. It failed to provide information on operational principles, so it meant I could not use the device at all. > > > That was a different time, different place though. I now don't do > > > electronics but did buy a handheld 20MHz digital scope that runs on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > could afford was. > Now they are cheap. Not just that, lots of electronic things. Ah - so you're not talking about technology in general, just some aspects of it. I think you're referring to the unremarkable effect that's been continuing for thousands of years: what used to be rare and expensive high-tech becomes trivial and commonplace with the passage of time. Once upon a time, a steel knife was a pinnacle of high technological achievement that hardly anyone had access to. Now, we've all got a big stash of 'em in the kitchen. It's no surprise that the same thing is happening to electronics kit. If you had any historical perspective, it'd be unremarkable to you too - but I know that you treasure your wilful refusal to learn about the world around you and bury your head in the sand and ignore the past. > > > > The last bit of HP electronic test gear I used had a manual that > > > > made it impossible to learn how to use it. All you could do was [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Of course you can. It is a logic analyser, all the measurements are > relative to the other measurements. You obviously don't understand what I'm on about at all. > > > I knew the opererating > > > principles [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Because I already knew how to use an HP logic analyser. They are > reasonable simple bits of equipment. <pained> No, I'm talking about the internal operation of the device - about how it goes about doing its measurements. > > > and the manual is there to look up a section that is unclear. > > > Well, I saw the logic analyser manual, I only read parts of the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Of course you can. How? Mind reading? >I was using the logic analyser and the oscilliscope > to repair equipment, not to write some thesis. So what? I've only ever used electronic measuring equipment to get data. I want verifiable data no matter what. It's impossible to get that without a good understanding of the operating principles of the instrumentation you're using - and you can't get that without a manual or reverse engineering (or equivalent). > And I did it day in, day out, as many engineers across the world do. Yes, using data that you cannot rely on. For sure it'll get you where you want to go most of the time - but unless you understand the operating principles, it will trip you up and mislead you at other times. > These are really, really simple pieces of equipment Or quite astonishingly intricate, sensitive, flexible, and subtle from other points of view. Dismissing an oscilloscape as a really, really simple piece of equipment is - well, so wrong it's insanity. > and apart from > marginal differences between them they are remarkably similar and very > simple to use. Yes, that's the sort of reasoning that I've met which has caused people to approach me and say `What the hell's it doing this for, eh?' And it's taken me, me who got pilloried for *reading the manual and finding out how it worked* to explain to these cowboys (of the same sort as you) what they'd got wrong - and it's always basically assuming the sort of stuff you assume. > I know you can't understand anything without a manual, And I know that no matter how often I try to explain the *real* situation, there's no way of getting any understanding into your tiny brain encased in its thick skull. >but I can, we > have had this conversation many times before. Yes, and it seems you've never understood my point of view at all. > What on earth would you expect to gain from the manual of an > oscilliscope? A full understanding of the operating principles, of the patholologies and limitations of the device, and so on. It's especially important with digital 'scopes. > > But I suppose that's the difference between someone with a scientific > > background and someone with more of a technician's attitude > > True, I was doing a job. Engineers need to take the same line that I took - technicians don't. > > understand the above point thoroughly, whereas you seem to disregard it > > entirely, taking the line that if the instrument says something, it must [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > may be something else involved). However, it gives you an indication of > an area to look. *IF* you interpret the data correctly - which you can't do without a proper understanding of the equipment. > A scientist is looking for something completely different to an > engineer. Bollocks. > A scientist is trying to prove a point or obtain some > evidence, and largely speaking has a lot of time to do it in. This is just so totally wrong I don't know what to say. An *experimental* scientist is trying to *test* a point, find out if it's true or false. That's exactly the same as what engineers do when they make measurements - `does reality match my model' is the basic question in both cases. Engineers - if they're competent to build a bridge, say - pay as much attention to getting verified answers as scientists, it's just that engineers are more like experimental scientists than theoretical scientists in that they're happy to accept solutions without firm mathematical proof. Theoretical scientists are only interested in experiments after the results are in - and they just want to know what the results are. Ignore 'em - they can barely make tea without practical assistance. > An > engineer is trying to get something working and generally has a time and > financial constraint. You have a problem in that you don't understand the practice of either science or engineering as far as I can tell. Scientists always have tight time and financial constraints on them - /much/ tighter financial constraints than engineers and the time constraints are often insane; the only reason they can be met at times is that academics can re-arrange their work schedules with great flexibility. I should know; I'm married to an academic scientist. Scientists are trying to get something working too - and just like engineering, it's got to work properly. Just like engineers, scientists need the real data. Unlike an engineer, if a scientist gets it wrong, the bridge doesn't collapse killing hundreds: it's a lot more important for an engineer to be certain his data is fully reliable and verified. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@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 > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Ah! Of course - you put the hidden qualifiers on now, turning your > original bullshit claim into one that is true, but pointless and silly. <sigh> there you go again. > > > > and not all of that comes from improvements. > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And a lovely keyboard. It was fairly good. Not as good as later. > > > It was last decade's hardware run by last decade's > > > software and implemented in a very expensive and very clunky fashion - [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > doing, by a desire to force everyone else to follow suit to validate > their own personal choice, and so on. Yes, as I said, driven by name. > In short, people then as now are totally fuckwitted in general about > making decisions - nothing remotely resembling sense occurs in the heads > of most people when they make up their minds on anything. in many cases. > > > >In a fiercly > > > > competitve world, if you can save $1 on the cost of a motherboard by [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yep. Take your word for it, I don't see signs of that. > > Maybe a few sales, but when it comes to computer sales, the key > > factor is price for most people. > > <weary sigh> Yes, that is the point - and it's why we have such > shittily unreliable kit these days. which is what I said. > > > It's only the US consumer who's stupid enough to insist on the cheapest > > > thing all the time. It's why so much in the way of US consumer goods [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > production because it's higher quality with much higher standards of > animal welfare because that's what the consumer wants in many cases. That is because we probably have more laws about it. If the american meat was available in the UK, most people would buy that. As I said, there is no difference between the UK and US consumer, that is a difference in laws. > The UK consumer is willing to pay more in many cases - for all that > *some* people will always buy the cheapest on offer. They really aren't. Just that they have no choice. > Not all of us are > that stupid, having found out that `cheapest' usually means `very poor > quality' - in many cases `such poor quality that it's fit for nothing > but the bin'. I know you think little of americans, thinking people in the UK are so different and enlightened, but we are identical, we really are. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > `Way more'? How much is £399 (1983, say) in modern money? Has to be a lot more than a thousand pound. Certainly in my world it is worth a lot more. > Bear in mind that the BBC Micro Model B was the fully souped up version, > with all the bells and whistles that anyone could want including a set > of interfaces that makes pretty much all modern PCs look sick - not to > mention being the most computationally powerful 8 bit home micro ever. It was far from the most computational powerful 8 bit home micro, unless you have a new definition for that. It was a nice machine though. > If you're looking at the price of a BBC Model B, you want to compare it > to (say) a top of the line Mac Pro. How does it compare to that? I don't know. But I wouldn't compare it to a top of the line mac pro - it is an entirely different machine. > If you want to compare a cheap modern PC to a 1980s PC, you need to > compare like with like; put it up against Sinclair pricing. I can't see any comparison with a sinclair. > If you want to compare a modern PC to (say) an Amiga, you need to > compare a fully souped up high end modern PC with a top line graphics > card suitable for pro work. That is probably true. And the amiga would be a lot more expensive. And yes, the reliability of the Amiga sucked too. The custom chips often went, especially the sound chip. I replaced loads of those (and they were hard to get). If you really want to mention the sinclairs, I made a good sideline repairing spectrums which were very unreliable. Pull that ram pack off when it was running (or sometimes the joystick interface) and bang go your power supply transistors. > Compare like with like - it's important. I will > > I wasn't counting the ZXs as they didn't even have a proper keyboard and > > they weren't reliable enough to use for most tasks. > > Which is just total bullshit. I had several, and it isn't. Did you do any word processing on your ZX? > > > Both are stupidly expensive compared to the £400-odd that you'd spend on > > > an Arc or an Amiga from the 1980s. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Yeah, but house price changes have nothing to do with the matter at all. Certainly a damn site more relevant than US bacon! > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Of course not! But what I see might well be what happens to /most/ > people - you don't seem to want to consider that possibility. Of course I considered that. I have no way of knowing though, so I can't just take your experience as the only one that matters. > I don't see any reason, based on my understanding of people, technology, > and how people interact with technology, that what I see is any > different to what people see when they complain about the `low toner' > warning turning up too soon. I don't have any experience of the thing myself, just third party reports, and yours is just another one in the pile. > Now I'm thinking about it, I've met people whinging about a `low toner' > warning before now. There's a certain kind of person who thinks that > the warning is wrong if it turns up *before* print quality has begun to > deterioriate - whereas, of course, the reason for the warning is so you > can get a new cartridge in stock so that when you need it, it's ready. That is not what I have heard is the case from other people. > > > Never mind the opinions - get away from the opinions, and find out what > > > goes on. I've told you something about the way it really works, about [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What went on, exactly? That a certain group of HP printers went past low toner to 'no toner' and didn't work anymore, when there was clearly toner. > FWIW, I got another 5000-odd pages (IIRC) out of my nominally 6000 page > cartridge before print quality became iffy enough to worry about. > > And I don't think the `low toner' warning turned up too soon. As I said, another data point. > > > [snip] > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Okay, so you've got no soul. Not a question of soul, a question of doing a job, not running a museum! > > > I've got a Tektronics > > > storage 'scope that's as old as I am. 150MHz, dual beam, purely [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I met Tektronics 'scopes in the 1970s. I was in school in the 70s, so it wouldn't have had an impact on me. > > I didn't get on with the tektronix, I was more a philips guy, > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If the knobs all worked, it'd be super for daily use. Tiny round screens? Not for me. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > better as a scope, but the HP 'scope had the extra channels and fancier > looking spec. umm, no, the Tektronics scope was quicker to use, but the HP had the specifications I needed to do the job. I am obviously not as swayed by fashion as you. I had a job to do rather than just using my favourite brand. > > > > Tektronics excelled at vectorscopes, but luckily I didn't have to do > > > > much of that. HP did make very good logic analysers, although a bit [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > It failed to provide information on operational principles, so it meant > I could not use the device at all. <shrug> fair enough. > > > > That was a different time, different place though. I now don't do > > > > electronics but did buy a handheld 20MHz digital scope that runs on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Ah - so you're not talking about technology in general, just some > aspects of it. Yes, as a sideline. > I think you're referring to the unremarkable effect that's been > continuing for thousands of years: what used to be rare and expensive [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > but I know that you treasure your wilful refusal to learn about the > world around you and bury your head in the sand and ignore the past. I was jsut refering to it. You really are a twat sometimes. > > > > > The last bit of HP electronic test gear I used had a manual that > > > > > made it impossible to learn how to use it. All you could do was [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > You obviously don't understand what I'm on about at all. Of course I can. You are a bit slow at learning. > > > > I knew the opererating > > > > principles [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > <pained> No, I'm talking about the internal operation of the device - > about how it goes about doing its measurements. That doesn't matter. You would never get that in a manual. > > > > and the manual is there to look up a section that is unclear. > > > > Well, I saw the logic analyser manual, I only read parts of the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > instrumentation you're using - and you can't get that without a manual > or reverse engineering (or equivalent). What a bizarre attitude, (and in your terms, complete bullshit) > > And I did it day in, day out, as many engineers across the world do. > > Yes, using data that you cannot rely on. For sure it'll get you where > you want to go most of the time - but unless you understand the > operating principles, it will trip you up and mislead you at other > times. Colleges are for learning operating principles, not equipment manuals. > > These are really, really simple pieces of equipment > > Or quite astonishingly intricate, sensitive, flexible, and subtle from > other points of view. But basically simple. > Dismissing an oscilloscape as a really, really simple piece of equipment > is - well, so wrong it's insanity. It is a machine for measuring voltage over time. How more simple can you get? > > and apart from > > marginal differences between them they are remarkably similar and very > > simple to use. > > Yes, that's the sort of reasoning that I've met which has caused people > to approach me and say `What the hell's it doing this for, eh?' I am impressed anyone ever asks you that. > And it's taken me, me who got pilloried for *reading the manual and > finding out how it worked* to explain to these cowboys (of the same sort > as you) what they'd got wrong - and it's always basically assuming the > sort of stuff you assume. I have never had to ask someone that at all. If I dont' understand something, I will look in the manual. But i have never had that problem with a scope > > I know you can't understand anything without a manual, > > And I know that no matter how often I try to explain the *real* > situation, there's no way of getting any understanding into your tiny > brain encased in its thick skull. [and this is where rowland goes into his usual ' I am not winning, I will get abusive snip] SignatureWoody www.alienrat.com >> And I know that no matter how often I try to explain the *real* >> situation, there's no way of getting any understanding into your tiny >> brain encased in its thick skull. > > [and this is where rowland goes into his usual ' I am not winning, I will get > abusive snip] in a minute he will claim that it is part of his sense of humour, and it's our fault we don't get it. go to sleep rowland... > Woody: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > [and this is where rowland goes into his usual ' I am not winning, I > > will get abusive snip] No, that's where Rowland went into his usual `Oh for god's sake why do you have to totally ignore the point I've just made and go off on something irrelevant', and generally just getting mildly shirty in response to Woody's boneheadedness, which for some reason Woody always likes to get even shirtier about even though he's just as abusive in his own way to me. What I wrote above is what I'd call `mild exasperation at Woody's persistently annoying boneheadedness' rather than `deeply offensive abuse'. I think the problem is that Woody's just very thin-skinned and excessively touchy - as well as severely bone-headed at times. Anyone who wasn't excessively thin-skinned would have taken my remarks as they were meant - an indication of mild irritation, put in to indicate that Woody's behaviour had dropped away from what I consider acceptable and decent. That's all. > in a minute he will claim that it is part of his sense of humour, and it's > our fault we don't get it. > > go to sleep rowland... Simon, go shove your head up your arse. You might find something to read there that you can understand. Please do not try commenting on this post: you don't have the wit. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@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 > > Woody: > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > likes to get even shirtier about even though he's just as abusive in his > own way to me. I am happily abusive to you when you get into abusive mode, yes. > What I wrote above is what I'd call `mild exasperation at Woody's > persistently annoying boneheadedness' rather than `deeply offensive > abuse'. No, it is deeply offensive abuse. OK, I am not offended, as that would require suprise, and it is hardly suprising you being offensive, you always are when you don't get your way, with anyone. Thats why I decided to leave these things, you don't understand people, and you really don't understand the concept of people saying you are wrong, which you are so often, it must be hard. SignatureWoody www.alienrat.com > > > Woody: > > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I am happily abusive to you when you get into abusive mode, yes. You get abusive towards me long before I lay into you, sonny Jim. Why do you think I get so irritated with you? It's your insulting manner, your snide insults, and all that sh.t that you so enjoy hurling at me. But of course Woody says that he doesn't do it so Woody must be right and of course Rowland must be wrong, mustn't he? If Rowland feels deeply insulted by someone, of course it's wrong for him to mention his or criticise anyone, of course it is. You're a disgusting hypocrite. > > What I wrote above is what I'd call `mild exasperation at Woody's > > persistently annoying boneheadedness' rather than `deeply offensive > > abuse'. > > No, it is deeply offensive abuse. Not in my book, it's not. I think that you are behaving in an inexplicably rude and dishonest fashion, claiming that my remarks indicating mild exasperation are deeply offensive abuse when it's perfectly clear to any normal person that I'm just indicated mild exasperation. So: why are you so thin-skinnned? > OK, I am not offended, as that would > require suprise, and it is hardly suprising you being offensive, you > always are when you don't get your way, with anyone. That is what *I* call deeply offensive abuse - from you, directed at me. You're quite a hypocrite when you get going, aren't you? You get all hoity-toity at the slightest personal criticism, and use it as an excuse to get really nasty. Why? > Thats why I decided to leave these things, you don't understand people, > and you really don't understand the concept of people saying you are > wrong, which you are so often, it must be hard. In real life, I never get the sort of sh.t I get on-line, except from abusive medical professionals, of course. Never! - so clearly, I *DO* understand people in general, quite well, despite your snide insults on the subject. [Of course, you will bristle at my use of the phrase `snide insult', taking it as `grossly offensive personal abuse' when in fact it's nothing more than a perfectly reasonable response to your grossly offensive personal abuse.] I think one problem here is your arrogant assumption that you're right, and that you do understand people. You don't. I understand people in ways that you do not. What I don't understand is the abuse and sh.t I get /on-line/ from certain people. What I mean by that is that I don't understand how *some* people interact in written forums. I get really bizarre and inexplicable behaviour in written forums, behaviour that I do not get in real life. No-one (except for medical professionals) has ever treated me as badly in real life as I get here. The variable is purely that we're working in writing - that seems to change things. As is the fact that people don't seem to read what I write. It's normal for me to be accused of holding opinions that I do not in some newsgroups. It seems that there is a certain kind of Usenet denizen these days who doesn't bother trying to understand what he's reading, and just comes out with an emotional response to what his prejudices tell him he wanted to have seen written. It's what you do quite a lot - it's insanity. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@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 > Simon, go shove your head up your arse. You might find something to read > there that you can understand. > > Please do not try commenting on this post: you don't have the wit. Rowland- you are such a twat. That simply says it all. You are just one great big twat. > > Not all of us are that stupid, having found out that `cheapest' usually > > means `very poor quality' - in many cases `such poor quality that it's > > fit for nothing but the bin'. > > I know you think little of americans, thinking people in the UK are so > different and enlightened, but we are identical, we really are. That's not true, surely. I mean, if that were true Tesco would be selling loads of broken-legged, half-blind, factory bred chickens for a pound each... oh, wait. > > Model Bs started out at £335. Demand put the price up. > > > > > Allowing for inflation in the time, £399 is way more than I am buying > > > now. > > > > `Way more'? How much is £399 (1983, say) in modern money? Depends how you calculate it. In 2007, £399.00 from 1983 was worth: £970 using the retail price index £1,428 using average earnings £1,680 using per capita GDP £1,819 using the share of GDP So you could buy a MacBook or an iMac, both with screens built-in, for what you paid for a BBC Micro in 1983 based on the cost of things. Based on what people earnt, you could get a MacBook Pro. Based on the country's wealth, you could get a Mac Pro. I think we're doing pretty well out of the computer industry. SignaturePd > > > Not all of us are that stupid, having found out that `cheapest' usually > > > means `very poor quality' - in many cases `such poor quality that it's [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > £1,680 using per capita GDP > £1,819 using the share of GDP So where is the 'whats it worth now' calculator then? > So you could buy a MacBook or an iMac, both with screens built-in, for > what you paid for a BBC Micro in 1983 based on the cost of things. > Based on what people earnt, you could get a MacBook Pro. > Based on the country's wealth, you could get a Mac Pro. > > I think we're doing pretty well out of the computer industry. I think so. SignatureWoody www.alienrat.com > > In 2007, £399.00 from 1983 was worth: > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So where is the 'whats it worth now' calculator then? There isn't one. I just scoured my personal library of back copies of Accounting Today, Economics Made Interesting, Wonderful World of Worth, Blue Peter Guide to Money, and L.S.D. aka Pounds Shillings and Pence. Oh, all right, it's <http://www.measuringworth.com/> SignaturePd > > > In 2007, £399.00 from 1983 was worth: > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Oh, all right, it's <http://www.measuringworth.com/> Thanks. That is good. SignatureWoody www.alienrat.com > Oh, all right, it's <http://www.measuringworth.com/> Ooooo. Thank you. SignaturePeter > > Oh, all right, it's <http://www.measuringworth.com/> > > Ooooo. Thank you. Ain't the web a wunnerful place? SignaturePd > > > > Not all of us are that stupid, having found out that `cheapest' usually > > > > means `very poor quality' - in many cases `such poor quality that it's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > selling loads of broken-legged, half-blind, factory bred chickens for a > > pound each... oh, wait. ... the Farmers' markets round here are doing great business flogging organic Welsh beef (for example) because of the drugged up sick mutant animals that are slaughtered to fill the shelves of the supermarkets. > > > > Model Bs started out at £335. Demand put the price up. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > So where is the 'whats it worth now' calculator then? BBC Micros came out in late 1981. Due to having a contact at the Beeb, we got one of the first model As (made by Cleartone in Gwent). > > So you could buy a MacBook or an iMac, both with screens built-in, for > > what you paid for a BBC Micro in 1983 based on the cost of things. > > Based on what people earnt, you could get a MacBook Pro. Uhuh - a not hugely powerful portable. Not remotely in the same league as a Beeb model B when considered against the contemporary PC marketplace. Compare it to, say, a model A - about 2/3-3/4 the price of a B. > > Based on the country's wealth, you could get a Mac Pro. Umm. A BBC Micro Model B was the top of the range, fastest and best - of all 8 bit PCs, ever. You have to compare like with like. You can't buy a /top of the range/ Mac Pro with the fastest graphics card for £970 or even £1,819. And don't forget that the `true' price for the Beeb Model B was £335 - the price was inflated by demand. What exactly is GDP, btw? Is it a valid measure in this case? > > I think we're doing pretty well out of the computer industry. > > I think so. I think we're doing very badly - just look at how appalling the software is these days, just look at how few people can actually use PCs properly. It was much better in the 1980s - everyone could learn how to use the software, and both the software and hardware were a lot cheaper in real terms, like for like. Rowland. SignatureRemove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@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 > > > > > > Allowing for inflation in the time, £399 is way more than > > > > > > I am buying now. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > BBC Micros came out in late 1981. Maybe, but you said 1983, so that's the year I used. > > > So you could buy a MacBook or an iMac, both with screens built-in, for > > > what you paid for a BBC Micro in 1983 based on the cost of things. > > > Based on what people earnt, you could get a MacBook Pro. > > Uhuh - a not hugely powerful portable. Not hugely powerful? On what criteria? Perhaps compared to an eight core 3.2GHz Xeon Mac Pro, not hugely powerful. Compared to any other laptop on the market, perfectly powerful enough. Certainly powerful enough to do realtime HD video editing, which is what the state of the art allows. > Not remotely in the same league as a Beeb model B when > considered against the contemporary PC marketplace. So the Beeb, running a 6502 at 1.8MHz is "hugely powerful" compared to: Apple ///: 2MHz 6502 (1980) TRS-80/4: 4MHz Z80 (1983) or the Lisa: 5 MHz 68000 (1983) the Apricot 4.77 MHz 8086 (1983) Even the unassuming Commodore 64 wasn't massively outclassed by the Beeb, despite only running a 6510 at 1 MHz. Of course in the handwaving stakes, 1=2 MHz, so they're the same really. The Beeb was a pretty impressive machine for its time and especially its price, but trying to make out that it was in a league of its own against a background of mediocre slugs is just silly, as is suggesting that a MacBook Pro is not comparably powerful in the current laptop market. > Compare it to, say, a model A - about 2/3-3/4 the price of > a B. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Umm. A BBC Micro Model B was the top of the range, fastest and best - > of all 8 bit PCs, ever. A bold claim, remarkably lacking in truth so I guess you're being tongue in cheek. > You have to compare like with like. > > You can't buy a /top of the range/ Mac Pro with the fastest graphics > card for £970 or even £1,819. And don't forget that the `true' price > for the Beeb Model B was £335 - the price was inflated by demand. Perhaps the "true" price of a MacBook Pro is only £500, but Apple can get away with charging three times that because the demand is there. > What exactly is GDP, btw? Is it a valid measure in this case? Gross Domestic Product - essentially a measure of the production of an economy. So it's a bit like saying "what is the value of this computer compared to the total value of the economy". It's a valid measure over time, because you're looking at the variation of proportion in the same economy - the UK - over the time period under consideration. > > > I think we're doing pretty well out of the computer industry. > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > software, and both the software and hardware were a lot cheaper in real > terms, like for like. Everyone??? In real terms? Like for like? It's hard to know where to start sometimes, against such patent tosh. SignaturePd > I am getting close to getting the samsung 2160N as it seems to tick all > of my boxes, and has a cheap running costs. It is apparently not that > fast but I am not in that much of a hurry, and it is not great at > photos I looked at this one (monochrome): <http://ww |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message