Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#361
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Networking WAS: What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote
John Williamson wrote:
Les Cargill wrote: Please stare at the swirling disk... 7 IS AWESOME.... 7 IS AWESOME... 7 IS AWESOME.... (It's pretty good... Really ) It's much better than Vista, certainly. Which, if I'm being honest, isn't diffficult. Unfortunately, Microsoft have changed so much in the interface and in the internal workings since XP that it's convinced me that I might as well work out how to get Linux doing what I want to do before the end of XP support, especially with the advance reviews I'm reading abut Windows 8. (MS even version number warning.....) note: with servicepacks the even numbered ones are the good ones, they are the fix for the new bug introduced in the odd numbered ones. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#362
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
On 8/11/2011 10:37 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/11/2011 12:01 PM, Paul wrote: Maybe buy a spare motherboard while you can, if you really like the Mackie. That would probably be a smart move, but the price one pays for a motherboard that remains in production for more than 12 years is about $450. People are selling the Mackie recorders for near that now, and I already have two. Obsolescence affects everyone really. Supposedly, even NASA has had to buy ancient gear just to keep the shuttles flying: http://articles.sfgate.com/2002-05-1...ooster-rockets The moral of this thread: keep your old equipment as long as you can, you never know when you'll need it. I certainly ain't selling my VS-840, or any of my older computers.... |
#363
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
On 8/12/2011 5:01 AM, Paul wrote:
Obsolescence affects everyone really. Supposedly, even NASA has had to buy ancient gear just to keep the shuttles flying: When I worked for the Naval Oceanographic Office in the mid 1960s, we had a satellite navigation system that used an early DEC PDP-8. Although DEC kept the PDP-8 line for a long time, cards for this model became extinct pretty early. It was, of course, pre-eBay, but techs were finding cards and whole machines of the correct generation at hamfests and buying them for The Navy to get spare parts. There was some creative bookkeeping required to buy "capital equipment" with imprest funds (the fancy name for petty cash) that were supposed to be used for things like pencils and camera film. The moral of this thread: keep your old equipment as long as you can, you never know when you'll need it. That's the moral of not only this thread, but of life in general. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#364
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Networking WAS: What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Frank Stearns" wrote in message tion... "Arny Krueger" writes: snips Since I've built over a thousand (probably over two thousand by now) PCs and also repair them for a business, I see more different PC's with their cases open than just about anybody you know. ;-) Hey Arny - I assume you've built boxes with win7. What's the **^%$$'ing deal with the networking? Good question. Why did they change so much? A lot of folks seem to get no connectivity and the dreaded "IP address is incorrect" or some such generic message, with as many fixes and failures for a completely wide-open and diverse list of reasons. (And is traditional for MS, the network troubleshooter is of zero help, and even says as much about itself.) Have you seen this with Win7? Run into any underlying common causes/things to fix or review? I've been able to avoid both Vista and 7 to a great extent. Both Vista and Win7 are as functional as XP ever was (so, now you know what I think of XP...), but they are technologically dissimilar to any earlier Windows version (Win7 is functionally Vista v2). I've not had unresolvable networking problems with any of these OSs, but I have seen some machines that were not ready for Vista have basic system problems. -- Neil |
#365
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Networking WAS: What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote
"Neil Gould" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Frank Stearns" wrote in message tion... "Arny Krueger" writes: snips Since I've built over a thousand (probably over two thousand by now) PCs and also repair them for a business, I see more different PC's with their cases open than just about anybody you know. ;-) Hey Arny - I assume you've built boxes with win7. What's the **^%$$'ing deal with the networking? Good question. Why did they change so much? A lot of folks seem to get no connectivity and the dreaded "IP address is incorrect" or some such generic message, with as many fixes and failures for a completely wide-open and diverse list of reasons. (And is traditional for MS, the network troubleshooter is of zero help, and even says as much about itself.) Have you seen this with Win7? Run into any underlying common causes/things to fix or review? I've been able to avoid both Vista and 7 to a great extent. Neverthless I've installed numerous Vista and Win 7 systems on networks and just slogged through the problems using the same basic networking knowlege that got me through the last 25 or so years of building, installing and troubleshooting PCs. Both Vista and Win7 are as functional as XP ever was (so, now you know what I think of XP...), but they are technologically dissimilar to any earlier Windows version (Win7 is functionally Vista v2). That's my experience. The primary advantage of Win7 is that it runs well on even fairly small hardware (e.g. 1 GB Celeron laptop) whereas Vista was good at making big hardware run slow. I've not had unresolvable networking problems with any of these OSs, but I have seen some machines that were not ready for Vista have basic system problems. I admit it, I've been fairly conservative about what I install Win 7 on. Other than having preserved most of the PITA changes that came in with Vista, it has been a solid performer for me. The 1 GB Dell Celeron laptop was about as far as I wanted to go in terms of installing it on IMO marginal hardware. If memory serves I had to use a generic video driver as an updated driver for it has never existed. It still worked well enough to be commercial. I regressed the machine to XP after working with it for a few weeks as it broke some subtle features of legacy software such as the CD ripping and burning features of CEP 2.1. |
#366
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/12/2011 5:01 AM, Paul wrote: Obsolescence affects everyone really. Supposedly, even NASA has had to buy ancient gear just to keep the shuttles flying: When I worked for the Naval Oceanographic Office in the mid 1960s, we had a satellite navigation system that used an early DEC PDP-8. Although DEC kept the PDP-8 line for a long time, cards for this model became extinct pretty early. It was, of course, pre-eBay, but techs were finding cards and whole machines of the correct generation at hamfests and buying them for The Navy to get spare parts. There was some creative bookkeeping required to buy "capital equipment" with imprest funds (the fancy name for petty cash) that were supposed to be used for things like pencils and camera film. I had a PDP-8e running until this past fall, as a motor controller for a large production system. I finally replaced it with an Allen-Bradley PLC but when it was decommissioned it was just fine. It's a whole lot easier to find 2N3904 transistors and TTL logic than it is to find parts for a five-year-old computer. The moral of this thread: keep your old equipment as long as you can, you never know when you'll need it. That's the moral of not only this thread, but of life in general. I think my car is older than some of the people in this thread.... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#367
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Networking WAS: What's the Verdict on Using Laptops forRemote
On 8/11/2011 5:23 PM, Arny Krueger wrote:
I've been able to avoid both Vista and 7 to a great extent. Windows 7 has worked surprisingly well for me for the past few months that I've tried it. In fact, I just bought a Macbook Air with Lion. After all, they're supposed to be the greatest thing since sex. While the hardware is neat (except for the lack of an Ethernet port, only two USB ports, no Thunderbolt-to-Ethernet adapter, and Lion bugs), I really don't see any advantages yet over Windows 7. Certainly with time I will see the error of my ways. |
#368
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
Trevor wrote:
"John Williamson" wrote in message ... There is a major difference. I could set up a business in a 500 square foot workshop tomorrow to make every component of a turntable, apart from the cartridge and stylus, but that would fit in the unit next door. The design issues have all been solved, and precision bearings and such have been available for decades off the shelf. Motors can also be bought in at a very good price, but even making my own motors would only take up a couple of hundred square feet. Total setup cost could be measured in tens of thousands. Try manufacturing your own phono cartridge for that startup cost! Of course you could use a steel needle and acoustic horn I suppose :-) HiFi be damned right! :-) I'm working on that right now, actually using an RF condenser circuit in place of the magnetics. None of the stuff is really all that difficult, it's only a problem because it's just all so damn tiny. Look for a conference presentation next spring. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#369
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Networking WAS: What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message Both Vista and Win7 are as functional as XP ever was (so, now you know what I think of XP...), but they are technologically dissimilar to any earlier Windows version (Win7 is functionally Vista v2). That's my experience. The primary advantage of Win7 is that it runs well on even fairly small hardware (e.g. 1 GB Celeron laptop) whereas Vista was good at making big hardware run slow. Win7 optimized Vista's code base, removed some features that have been available since Win9x, and generally dumbed down the interface, seemingly in response to the Apple ads about Vista vs. Mac. Both OSs are too bloated for my tastes. I regressed the machine to XP after working with it for a few weeks as it broke some subtle features of legacy software such as the CD ripping and burning features of CEP 2.1. That's the outcome of being technologically divergent from all Windows OS before Vista. CEP 2.1 was developed for Win2k (where it still runs on my DAW), and presumes things that aren't true for Vista/Win7. OTOH, problems like stack overflows are less likely under these OSs than any previous versions of Windows. -- Neil |
#370
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ... I'm working on that right now, actually using an RF condenser circuit in place of the magnetics. None of the stuff is really all that difficult, it's only a problem because it's just all so damn tiny. Look for a conference presentation next spring. Weathers had a cartridge that did that in the early 60s, right? http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=64389 and: http://www.lencoheaven.net/forum/index.php?topic=2601.0 " Weathers had marketed two distinctly different systems. The first (mono) worked on the FM principle that Gene described here. Weathers brought out a few different versions of this including a flip-over double cartridge for record changers. The magic box was called a "modulator," and I've no doubt that it was. The best ones were systems that included his classic viscous-damped wood tone arm. I believe that I saw this in 1955 and was, frankly, blown away. I'd been to The Mountain. The first publisher of Stereophile once said in recent years that this was the best phono cartridge ever made. However, in truth, he'd worked at one time for Weathers himself. The FM concept was impossible to adapt for stereo. Thus, Weathers turned to what he called a varable capacitor design. Its electronics package was now called a "polarizer." He onece referred to it as a "strain gauge." The diagram contained two "black boxes," which to my eye, looked like Wheatstone bridges. I was involved with the final owner/manufacturer of the Weathers line and its patents. You should have seen my surprise when I discovered that I could interchange his "variable condenser" and his piezo cartridges quite nicely! I believe that he'd used the same essential generators in two ways, depending on what they were connected to. Whatever, it's obvious to me that the higher-priced implementation was certainly more refined. The final implementation of the Weathers stereo cartridge that I came across (have, and will sell) is the top model of his turntable (called "Professional"). In this case, the electronics box has the word "preamp" printed on it. The outputs, as were standard on all his boxes, was selectable: either equalized flat line-level, or magnetic equivalent, to plug into a preamp. I'm not crazy about that method; I mean, you're preamplifying the signal, then attenutaing it, then preamping it again. I have a hunch that the Weathers FM concept actually dated from before World War II. Consumer implementations existed well before stereo. Regarding his stereo cartridges, Weathers introduced one ceramic model quite early, then replaced it with versions similar to the variable condenser cartridge. These cartridges had aluminum bodies with a fine, elegant plug-in design. I beleive that the mass of the entire cartridge was 2 grams! " |
#371
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:18:00 -0700, Marc Wielage wrote
(in article ): On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:07:06 -0700, Paul wrote (in article ): Lordy, I'd never spend that much on a drive. You must be one of those people who thinks they need cutting edge tech. ------------------------------snip------------------------------ Uh... $2000 was what a 2TB drive cost new in 1994. Trust me. And that was as cheap as it got back then. ------------------------------snip------------------------------ Whoops -- make that 2GB! Very different. hanging head in shame This is what I get for typing messages when I've been up 22 hours straight... --MFW |
#372
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Networking WAS: What's the Verdict on Using Laptops forRemote
On 8/12/2011 8:10 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
Neverthless I've installed numerous Vista and Win 7 systems on networks and just slogged through the problems using the same basic networking knowlege that got me through the last 25 or so years of building, installing and troubleshooting PCs. Another data point supporting my contention that computers as they're configured by the manufacturer are perfectly functional for exactly what they're configured for. Going very far off that path is a job for experts, not people who just buy computers and expect them to work. I don't expect them to work. I'm amazed when they do. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#373
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
On 8/12/2011 10:21 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Try manufacturing your own phono cartridge for that startup cost! I'm working on that right now, actually using an RF condenser circuit in place of the magnetics. I had a Weathers that worked like that, about 1959 I think. It was pretty hot stuff for the day. I'm sure I don't have the cartridge any more but I might have the RF box. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#374
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Networking WAS: What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message ... On 8/12/2011 8:10 AM, Arny Krueger wrote: Neverthless I've installed numerous Vista and Win 7 systems on networks and just slogged through the problems using the same basic networking knowlege that got me through the last 25 or so years of building, installing and troubleshooting PCs. Another data point supporting my contention that computers as they're configured by the manufacturer are perfectly functional for exactly what they're configured for. I don't know about the perfectly part. But, I keep on making people happy by making them work well enough. Going very far off that path is a job for experts, not people who just buy computers and expect them to work. You know, I've been watching people struggle for decades, just trying to buy a network in a box. I don't expect them to work. I'm amazed when they do. Computers are actually prosthetics for the human brain. Not a simple challenge. |
#375
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Networking WAS: What's the Verdict on Using Laptops forRemote
On 8/13/2011 4:19 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
You know, I've been watching people struggle for decades, just trying to buy a network in a box. I'm not surprised. Computer networking is pretty complex no matter how much you try to simplify it for the users. When I first networked computers at home, I had no idea of what I was doing, I just followed the prompts and some computers could see some other computers. more than ten years later I still have a couple that occasionally won't see others on the network (and at other times, do), or that give me error messages about not having permission to access a certain directory that I've accessed before. It's just magic. Fortunately, I never have to walk more than about 100 feet to get from one computer to another, so if after a couple of tries that don't work, I'll just walk over to the computer that's being dumb, copy the file to a USB thumb drive, and carry it back to where I want to use it. Analog always works. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#376
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Networking WAS: What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote
Mike Rivers writes:
On 8/13/2011 4:19 AM, Arny Krueger wrote: You know, I've been watching people struggle for decades, just trying to buy a network in a box. I'm not surprised. Computer networking is pretty complex no matter how much you try to simplify it for the users. When I Behind the dialtone or behind the keypad the telephone system is incredibly complex as well, but for the most part it always works (particularly the landline side of things). And just about anyone can make a phone call -- never realizing for a second the dense layers of technology behind every aspect of that call. And yet, what could be simpler then making a phone call? I contend this is because those original Bell Labs guys (and those who stand on their shoulders years later) knew way more about what they were doing than the MS networking people who once again, attempted to re-invent the wheel (for networking) and again in MS tradition, made that wheel square, even triangular. Rather a bumpy ride. Computer networking has been around in some form since the 1950s, perhaps even earlier, depending on how you want to define "computers" and "networking". By the 1970s most aspects of networking were generally smooth and well-established among all the major players. (We can also thank Bell Labs for big pieces of that as well.) But would MS learn from any of this? Nope. Reinvent. Break. Be stupid, be silly. BTW, many thanks to those who suggested turning off some or all of those MS network reinventions in my win7 install -- shouldda thought of that myself! Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#377
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote Multitrack Record
Arny Krueger wrote:
Weathers had a cartridge that did that in the early 60s, right? http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=64389 Yes. It's a pretty simple concept. I first started trying to make an electret device but wound up using similar mechanisms with electronics copied from the Sennheiser MKH104. http://www.lencoheaven.net/forum/index.php?topic=2601.0 " The FM concept was impossible to adapt for stereo. Thus, Weathers turned to what he called a varable capacitor design. Its electronics package was now called a "polarizer." He onece referred to it as a "strain gauge." The diagram contained two "black boxes," which to my eye, looked like Wheatstone bridges. I was involved with the final owner/manufacturer of the Weathers line and its patents. You should have seen my surprise when I discovered that I could interchange his "variable condenser" and his piezo cartridges quite nicely! I believe that he'd used the same essential generators in two ways, depending on what they were connected to. Whatever, it's obvious to me that the higher-priced implementation was certainly more refined. This isn't really correct. The variable capacitor design was the FM design... basically a filter network that phase-modulates a signal based on the value of a capacitor which changes with stylus position. The strain gauge design really was a genuine strain gauge... deposited carbon on a sheet whose resistance changed with deflection. This is a very very noisy way of doing things (in spite of better materials than Weathers had access to). I have a hunch that the Weathers FM concept actually dated from before World War II. Consumer implementations existed well before stereo. Regarding his stereo cartridges, Weathers introduced one ceramic model quite early, then replaced it with versions similar to the variable condenser cartridge. These cartridges had aluminum bodies with a fine, elegant plug-in design. I beleive that the mass of the entire cartridge was 2 grams! " I am not sure. The first I know of this basic principle, it was used in Stevens Tri-Sonic microphone back around 1950. Of course it's still used today in the Sennheiser MKH-series microphones. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#378
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Networking WAS: What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Remote
Mike Rivers writes:
snips But would MS learn from any of this? Nope. Reinvent. Break. Be stupid, be silly. But they think they're doing us a favor, I guess. I've never worked with Win7 so I don't know what the problems or options are, but apparently there are more choices that the average user doesn't know how to make, and which don't have defaults that just work. I think one poster hit it on the head (Les, maybe?): MS really wants you to update all the machines to win7. I don't mind that; they want to sell their stuff. But I'd like them to be honest about it, and let their wares stand on value. I'll then decide to buy or not. But don't try to trip me. And you're right, Mike, about the original Bell System being largely closed. Much of that made good sense, as it does here with the really deep parts of networking, such as dealing with the seven transport layers. Messy stuff; way over my head. (I've got a 300 page overview book on the subject. "Amusing" reading. I don't pretend to understand most of it, but it makes one appreciate the complexities.) But in a way, I'd look at being able to adjust three or four "top level" network parameters as akin to being able to go to the local variety-hardware store and buy RJ11 crimp connectors, a crimp tool, and some 4-conductor flat phone wire. With those few simple and inexpensive things, I can make my own custom-length cords and plug in my own phones. What a phone company brewhaha that was when by court-order customers were allowed to *gasp!* finally have the ability to move/plug in/own their phones. Remember the old days when you *were not* allowed to touch phone connections in your own house? Phones were hard-wired. You had to call a Bell System linemen to come to your house to add a longer cord, move a phone, whatever. MS gives me the RJ11 parts, but then fails to mention that instead of the inner/outer pair arrangement that was tolerant of mis-wiring, MS chose some other scheme that would blow up if not done to their unpublished or poorly documented wiring standard. And to make it worse, their slick and seemingly useful "troubleshooter" apps could not (or intentionally would not) detect the miswiring. I'm not arguing your points; they're all good, I'm just yet again irritated by MS. MS is Lucy holding the football, and I'm Charlie Brown, trusting as usual, about to land on my rear end. (When will I learn?) Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#379
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Networking WAS: What's the Verdict on Using Laptops forRemote
Frank Stearns wrote:
Mike writes: On 8/13/2011 4:19 AM, Arny Krueger wrote: You know, I've been watching people struggle for decades, just trying to buy a network in a box. I'm not surprised. Computer networking is pretty complex no matter how much you try to simplify it for the users. When I Behind the dialtone or behind the keypad the telephone system is incredibly complex as well, but for the most part it always works (particularly the landline side of things). And just about anyone can make a phone call -- never realizing for a second the dense layers of technology behind every aspect of that call. And yet, what could be simpler then making a phone call? Lots of things are simpler than making a phone call. The technology isn't *really* that impressive. For one, telephony systems try to publish clocks over long distances. For another, it's not that hard to confuse the system. You've just learned not to do it all your life. There's ten-digit dialing here, and you have to guess if you need a 1 prefix or not. Maybe if you memorized all the exchange and area code permutations, you wouldn't have to, but I am not about to do that. The cell phone network handles this just fine. I contend this is because those original Bell Labs guys (and those who stand on their shoulders years later) knew way more about what they were doing than the MS networking people who once again, attempted to re-invent the wheel (for networking) and again in MS tradition, made that wheel square, even triangular. Rather a bumpy ride. With respect to IP networking, it's not that significantly different from Unix ( in terms of use cases for setup ). The stacks and such always had compliance issues, but them's breaks. Unless you subscribed to certain newsgroups, that was largely unknown anyway. For the other, Novell-equivalent "printer and disk sharing" stuff, MS was a lot *easier*. I can't place hands on the provenance, but I believe that wasn't Microsoft created intellectual property - they bought some company outta ... Tucson?. Name escapes me, but some guys I'd worked with knew people in that company. And prior to M$, networking was *much more expensive*. Computer networking has been around in some form since the 1950s, Sorta. perhaps even earlier, depending on how you want to define "computers" and "networking". The telegraph network was a network. By the 1970s most aspects of networking were generally smooth and well-established among all the major players. (We can also thank Bell Labs for big pieces of that as well.) Say what you will of the various telecom deregulation efforts, stuff got cheaper. Bell Labs wasn't going to survive that. But would MS learn from any of this? Nope. Reinvent. Break. Be stupid, be silly. BTW, many thanks to those who suggested turning off some or all of those MS network reinventions in my win7 install -- shouldda thought of that myself! Frank Mobile Audio -- Les Cargill |
#380
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Networking WAS: What's the Verdict on Using Laptops for Re
On Sat 2011-Aug-13 10:07, Frank Stearns writes:
Behind the dialtone or behind the keypad the telephone system is incredibly complex as well, but for the most part it always works (particularly the landline side of things). And just about anyone can make a phone call -- never realizing for a second the dense layers of technology behind every aspect of that call. Indeed this is true, and why I won't give up my hardwired landline. EVen with all the uhf cordless phones we have around here for my lady's convenience since she has mobility problems there's a hardwired straight pushbutton phone which required no other power than that provided by the telephone network to operate. I contend this is because those original Bell Labs guys (and those who stand on their shoulders years later) knew way more about what they were doing than the MS networking people who once again, attempted to re-invent the wheel (for networking) and again in MS tradition, made that wheel square, even triangular. Rather a bumpy ride. Right, but those telco guys understood that what the user wants is connectivity, when he doesn't work he contacts the experts. MS otoh wanted to build a do everything for the user simple to use operating system. REmember back in the old days receiving a file attach meant running an external program over the tet, after you removed the email headers and the like, and coming up then with either an archive file, or an executable, a spreadsheet, etc. But it was complex, and grandma couldn't figure out all the steps necessary. In making it simple enough for the uninitiated to use to do anything he/she might wish to do without the intervention of technical folks they indeed made the wheels triangular. Which is how we got from Paul's question re laptops and field recording to a humgous side discussion on backup and archival plus longterm storage. AS I"ve always said, build a system simple enough for a fool to use, and only a fool will use it. Regards, Richard .... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com -- | Remove .my.foot for email | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own. |
#381
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Networking WAS: What's the Verdict on Using Laptops forRemote
On 8/13/2011 2:35 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
Remember the old days when you *were not* allowed to touch phone connections in your own house? Phones were hard-wired. You had to call a Bell System linemen to come to your house to add a longer cord, move a phone, whatever. Yes, I remember, but they used to do that for free and usually came out the next day. Last time I had trouble with my DSL, I was sure (and correct) that the problem was outside my house, but Verizon insisted on sending someone here first to check it out, and the earliest appointment they could give me (and then missed) was about 10 days later. Surely Microsoft wants everyone to upgrade to their latest product so they won't have to support their previous product. They can forget about the bugs and incompatibilities with new hardware. That's always a good thing, but: (a) The upgrades aren't free - they need the money and (b) They don't, and realistically can't, test the new versions on every system configuration, so some will surely not work, nor can they really ever be troubeleshot even if help was available. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#382
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Win 7 Networking WAS: What's the Verdict on Using Laptops forRemote
On 8/13/2011 3:05 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
There's ten-digit dialing here, and you have to guess if you need a 1 prefix or not. Maybe if you memorized all the exchange and area code permutations, you wouldn't have to, but I am not about to do that. The cell phone network handles this just fine. That's a billing issue resulting from "the breakup." When I first got a cell phone, there was a difference between "local" and "long distance" calls, though they were delineated differently. If I was calling home from around the block, I didn't have to dial 1 first, but if I was calling home from another state I did, Now they charge enough for all the calling plans that it's no longer important to use every excuse to charge extra for a call. Now, if I dial a call from home and don't dial 1 first when necessary one of two things happen and I don't know which one until I get my phone bill. Either it's really a local call and it's charged as such or it's an in-state call and there's a toll charge at some rate that I don't know. But if it's out of state, I'll get an intercept telling me that I must dial 1 before the number and I know clearly how much per minute I'll be paying for the call which, at 3 cents per minute, I don't really care. I'd use my cell phone for all my long distance calls, but it doesn't work worth doodlysquat in my house. With respect to IP networking, it's not that significantly different from Unix ( in terms of use cases for setup ). Maybe so, but there are fewer real people who know about Unix than know about Microsoft networking. What I know about MS networking is just what I've learned from intuition (tried what I thought would work and it did) or just fumbling around. stacks and such always had compliance issues, but them's breaks. Unless you subscribed to certain newsgroups, that was largely unknown anyway. Fortunately, most people who set up home networks don't know that this is what might be broken. Imagine if they had to fix it. g -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
RAM and multitrack recording | Pro Audio | |||
Multitrack Recording for Mac? | Pro Audio | |||
Any experience with Rain Recording laptops? | Pro Audio | |||
Hd and multitrack recording | Pro Audio | |||
PC Recording vs Standalone multitrack recording | Pro Audio |