15 ms·

God, why!?

brnt 4y ago
I worked on an old but perfectly functioning device that scanned medical samples. The only way to get its data out was by way of floppy. Upgrading the device would cost far more than the time savings of cutting out the floppy transfer.
- bitwize 4y ago
  My ophthalmologist had a peripheral vision testing machine that recorded data on floppies -- 5 1/4" floppies -- as of the mid-2010s.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  Do you not worry that it's obviously going to stop working at some point, and it'd be better to get onto a newer system while you have the time now and you aren't doing it when it's actually broken?
  - bombcar 4y ago
    You’re often better running the old one into the ground - the new one will be just as expensive when it comes time but you’ll be getting the current model at the time.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    A wise sage once said: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  - sbaiddn 4y ago
    In grad school (07-13) at a top 10 engineering school world wide some of the fanciest equipment in the department (microscopes?) ran connected to windows 3.1 machine. The facilities manager kept spare parts in the closet. The manufacturer had long abandoned the equipment and no alternative software was available. The equipment would cost millions to replace and what they had apparently worked great. So the 386 chugged along.
    - MontyCarloHall 4y ago
      >The equipment would cost millions to replace I don’t buy this. Worst case scenario, the microscope talks to the PC using a proprietary hardware interface (say, an ISA card). It would cost far less than millions to hire a competent electronics engineer to reverse engineer the ISA card and the driver that talks to the ISA card, and fabricate a modern interface. Best case scenario, the microscope talks to the PC via a standard interface, and would be even cheaper to reverse, since you’d just need to worry about the software layer. On the other hand, it would truly cost millions when the aforementioned ancient interface inevitably breaks and becomes impossible to reverse engineer, necessitating purchase of a brand new microscope. >what they had apparently worked great This is the real reason: because the scope works fine right now, nobody thought it prudent to invest the tens of thousands it would take to future-proof it. Exactly like companies that prioritize short-term profits over long-term success.
      - sbaiddn 4y ago
        Lets say it costs 100k to reverse engineer a card, drivers, and software (I doubt it will stay on budget, I see how the software industry operates. The Uni will probably get hooked on SaS contract) So now the department is down 100k for a hack. Does the hack even work? Probably not. The "engineer" probable over sold himself and got hired anyway because of the talent shortage. So the uni is down $100k, the system chugs along with Win3.1 just fine, and every research group understand that when it finally breaks they'll all have to pitch in for a new one. Btw, as to your comment on this department's myopia, the university is top 10. The department is top 5 world wide.
        MontyCarloHall 4y ago
        >So now the department is down 100k for a hack. Does the hack even work? Probably not. The "engineer" probable over sold himself and got hired anyway because of the talent shortage. It seems disingenuous to assume the absolute worst case scenario is what will inevitably happen. The best case scenario is equally likely IMO: a reverse engineering genius undergrad will create a robust modern interface as part of a summer research project in the lab. >Btw, as to your comment on this department's myopia, the university is top 10. The department is top 5 world wide. That’s an appeal to authority fallacy. Just because you’re top 10 or top 5 or number one doesn’t make you immune to mistakes. Meta and Google are both at the top of their respective industries but make boneheaded decisions all the time.
grapescheesee 4y ago
Well in short, if it works don't change it. But, it's the story of industrial, and difficult to replace (technically) components.
- tinus_hn 4y ago
  It’s also the story of why I don’t care anymore if some ‘engineer’ comes crying his XT that he needs 10 minutes ago doesn’t boot anymore when ‘it was working perfectly fine yesterday’. Yes it costs money to stay up-to-date and if you don’t want to pay and it breaks, you get to keep the pieces.
  - sbaiddn 4y ago
    How about the OEM who abandoned their million dollar equipment so you cant replace the XT even if you wanted?
    - tinus_hn 4y ago
      Should have specified that in the contract when you bought the device.
    - IYasha 4y ago
      You've just described life of a typical apple user :)
      - grapescheesee 4y ago
        And the cycle of companies who only do R&D for project based work. This is the real issue. I would say it's a problem with middle and high level management, but I am still not sure if that is fair.
- oneplane 4y ago
  That's a little short-sighted isn't it? If you define "works" as "worked the last time we tried it", that's not really something you'd want to have to depend on for anything reasonably important. I'd say if if you cannot replicate the system it's already time for some investment. But even before that people should have the foresight to keep systems up-to-date or at least bridged to contemporary systems.
tinus_hn 4y ago
You could use a serial connection to transfer data to a modern computer.
- ale42 4y ago
  Or an Ethernet card... there is software supporting Ethernet on DOS. Even almost-contemporary Intel card still have DOS drivers...
  - teddyh 4y ago
    Yup: http://crynwr.com/drivers/00index.html http://crynwr.com/drivers/00index.html
  - ok123456 4y ago
    Then you have to make sure that there are no IRQ, DMA, or IO Port conflicts on what is probably an industrial control device device with data collection boards boards using all kinds of non-standard resource addresses. And then, god knows if the device driver for the Ethernet card can coexist with all the other drivers and TSRs, or even if it's running a mainstream version of DOS. Maybe it has a DOS Extender that makes something fail in a non-obvious way. Adding hardware to Old PCs isn't what you're accustomed to.
    - Moru 4y ago
      They often have a serial or parallel port, especially the industrial ones. Was the only way of communicating with them. That port might be used for the actual job the computer does though.
      - ok123456 4y ago
        Depending on whether or not you have ECP/EPP parallel ports on your machine, LapLink might be the best solution.
    - grapescheesee 4y ago
      Yes, exactly. On these old systems you often run into issues with IRQ conflicts for PCI cards. It is common to disable USB and use a PS/2 port for a mouse and keybord.

God, why!?

brnt 4y ago

I worked on an old but perfectly functioning device that scanned medical samples. The only way to get its data out was by way of floppy. Upgrading the device would cost far more than the time savings of cutting out the floppy transfer.

bitwize 4y ago
My ophthalmologist had a peripheral vision testing machine that recorded data on floppies -- 5 1/4" floppies -- as of the mid-2010s.
chrisseaton 4y ago
Do you not worry that it's obviously going to stop working at some point, and it'd be better to get onto a newer system while you have the time now and you aren't doing it when it's actually broken?
- bombcar 4y ago
  You’re often better running the old one into the ground - the new one will be just as expensive when it comes time but you’ll be getting the current model at the time.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  A wise sage once said: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
- sbaiddn 4y ago
  In grad school (07-13) at a top 10 engineering school world wide some of the fanciest equipment in the department (microscopes?) ran connected to windows 3.1 machine. The facilities manager kept spare parts in the closet. The manufacturer had long abandoned the equipment and no alternative software was available. The equipment would cost millions to replace and what they had apparently worked great. So the 386 chugged along.
  - MontyCarloHall 4y ago
    >The equipment would cost millions to replace I don’t buy this. Worst case scenario, the microscope talks to the PC using a proprietary hardware interface (say, an ISA card). It would cost far less than millions to hire a competent electronics engineer to reverse engineer the ISA card and the driver that talks to the ISA card, and fabricate a modern interface. Best case scenario, the microscope talks to the PC via a standard interface, and would be even cheaper to reverse, since you’d just need to worry about the software layer. On the other hand, it would truly cost millions when the aforementioned ancient interface inevitably breaks and becomes impossible to reverse engineer, necessitating purchase of a brand new microscope. >what they had apparently worked great This is the real reason: because the scope works fine right now, nobody thought it prudent to invest the tens of thousands it would take to future-proof it. Exactly like companies that prioritize short-term profits over long-term success.
    - sbaiddn 4y ago
      Lets say it costs 100k to reverse engineer a card, drivers, and software (I doubt it will stay on budget, I see how the software industry operates. The Uni will probably get hooked on SaS contract) So now the department is down 100k for a hack. Does the hack even work? Probably not. The "engineer" probable over sold himself and got hired anyway because of the talent shortage. So the uni is down $100k, the system chugs along with Win3.1 just fine, and every research group understand that when it finally breaks they'll all have to pitch in for a new one. Btw, as to your comment on this department's myopia, the university is top 10. The department is top 5 world wide.
      - MontyCarloHall 4y ago
        >So now the department is down 100k for a hack. Does the hack even work? Probably not. The "engineer" probable over sold himself and got hired anyway because of the talent shortage. It seems disingenuous to assume the absolute worst case scenario is what will inevitably happen. The best case scenario is equally likely IMO: a reverse engineering genius undergrad will create a robust modern interface as part of a summer research project in the lab. >Btw, as to your comment on this department's myopia, the university is top 10. The department is top 5 world wide. That’s an appeal to authority fallacy. Just because you’re top 10 or top 5 or number one doesn’t make you immune to mistakes. Meta and Google are both at the top of their respective industries but make boneheaded decisions all the time.

grapescheesee 4y ago

Well in short, if it works don't change it. But, it's the story of industrial, and difficult to replace (technically) components.

tinus_hn 4y ago
It’s also the story of why I don’t care anymore if some ‘engineer’ comes crying his XT that he needs 10 minutes ago doesn’t boot anymore when ‘it was working perfectly fine yesterday’. Yes it costs money to stay up-to-date and if you don’t want to pay and it breaks, you get to keep the pieces.
- sbaiddn 4y ago
  How about the OEM who abandoned their million dollar equipment so you cant replace the XT even if you wanted?
  - tinus_hn 4y ago
    Should have specified that in the contract when you bought the device.
  - IYasha 4y ago
    You've just described life of a typical apple user :)
    - grapescheesee 4y ago
      And the cycle of companies who only do R&D for project based work. This is the real issue. I would say it's a problem with middle and high level management, but I am still not sure if that is fair.
oneplane 4y ago
That's a little short-sighted isn't it? If you define "works" as "worked the last time we tried it", that's not really something you'd want to have to depend on for anything reasonably important. I'd say if if you cannot replicate the system it's already time for some investment. But even before that people should have the foresight to keep systems up-to-date or at least bridged to contemporary systems.

tinus_hn 4y ago

You could use a serial connection to transfer data to a modern computer.

ale42 4y ago
Or an Ethernet card... there is software supporting Ethernet on DOS. Even almost-contemporary Intel card still have DOS drivers...
- teddyh 4y ago
  Yup: http://crynwr.com/drivers/00index.html http://crynwr.com/drivers/00index.html
- ok123456 4y ago
  Then you have to make sure that there are no IRQ, DMA, or IO Port conflicts on what is probably an industrial control device device with data collection boards boards using all kinds of non-standard resource addresses. And then, god knows if the device driver for the Ethernet card can coexist with all the other drivers and TSRs, or even if it's running a mainstream version of DOS. Maybe it has a DOS Extender that makes something fail in a non-obvious way. Adding hardware to Old PCs isn't what you're accustomed to.
  - Moru 4y ago
    They often have a serial or parallel port, especially the industrial ones. Was the only way of communicating with them. That port might be used for the actual job the computer does though.
    - ok123456 4y ago
      Depending on whether or not you have ECP/EPP parallel ports on your machine, LapLink might be the best solution.
  - grapescheesee 4y ago
    Yes, exactly. On these old systems you often run into issues with IRQ conflicts for PCI cards. It is common to disable USB and use a PS/2 port for a mouse and keybord.