> > The sort of anecdotal evidence that I can put forward is that the VAXes I
> > currently look after are more reliable than the 11/780s I looked after ten
> > or so years ago which in turn were significantly more reliable that the
> > DECsystem-10 I used to use. However, this is just my experience so it's
> > hardly hard scientific proof.
>
> For hard evidence of that look at the maintence contract costs for a
> minimum system 10, 780 and uVAX. IT's all there in black and white
> (and dollars/pounds/Marks). Thre is no question that is true.
>
>
>
Actually, to follow up on Allison's point, you`ve got to look at
the service cost when the machine was newly released, when it was in
mainline use and about 5-10 years after release to get a real feel for it.
Sometimes machine's are pushed up in maintenance cost because of
parts availability, lack of trained personnel as well as difficulty
of repair and reliability.
Sometimes there aren't enough spares.
Sometimes they want to market the new replacement machine aggressively
and push for trade in's. (DEC did this when they had a massive need for
Refurb 11/70's for AT&T).
Sometimes the machine is too difficult for the current level of tech
to repair -- say PDP 11/70's now...8-(
Bill
---
bpechter_at_shell.monmouth.com|pechter_at_pechter.dyndns.org
Three things never anger: First, the one who runs your DEC,
The one who does Field Service and the one who signs your check.
Received on Thu Apr 08 1999 - 08:47:37 BST