At 19:36 28/03/2002, you wrote:
> > >Why is size/weight important for a machine that's not designed as a
> portable?
> >
> > Smaller is Better? Wasn't that always Sinclair's design philosophy?
>
>I was looking for a real reason....
To Sinclair, that probably *was* a real reason. Don't forget, he's a huge
(pardon the pun) fan of miniaturisation.
> In my view larger is better, since
>it's a lot easier to work on when it needs repair...
Mostly agreed. Things can get *too* big (ain't no way I'm going to fit a
VAX8800 in my "machine room" (aka the spare bedroom)). OTOH, bigger tends
to mean more modular, which tends to make repairs easier as well.
> > So true. OTOH, the QL was mostly reliable. Certainly more reliable than
> any
>
>I know people who had a lot of trouble with them...
Like I said, it was mostly reliable. If you got a duff one, you were in for
a world of pain. But that's true of everything.
> > single one of my PCs here (all of which have, at some time or another, had
> > something fail in them). What makes the PC forgivable is that it's
> > generally a plug-in plug-out component, rather than some integral part of
> > the only circuit board in the thing. Although, come to think of it, I have
>
>What's that got to do with it?
Taking a soldering iron to your only computer, when unable to afford a
replacement, is *not* clever.
>Anyway, I repair my PCs to component level as well.. Doesn't everybody???
No.
--
Cheers, Ade.
Be where it's at, B-Racing!
http://b-racing.com
Received on Thu Mar 28 2002 - 20:04:03 GMT