[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

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

[Paul[_13_]]

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....

[Mike Rivers]

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

[Neil Gould]

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

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[mcp6453[_2_]]

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.

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Neil Gould]

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

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"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!
"

[Marc Wielage[_2_]]

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

[Mike Rivers]

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

[Mike Rivers]

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

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"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.

[Mike Rivers]

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

[Frank Stearns]

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

--

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Frank Stearns]

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
--

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

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

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

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.

[Mike Rivers]

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

[Mike Rivers]

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