[game_preservation] Hardware preservation

[Andrew Armstrong]

  Neat response from whoever said that since the OP is desperately wrong 
- if anyone is interested, this is exactly what we do at the National 
Museum of Computing (running the very first computers - actively).

One issue is always that even the best storage conditions for a machine 
doesn't take into account that it'll still wear down parts not in use, 
and man, did they ever hit the nail on the head about documenting them 
while they still work, we've got several machines that are like that! 
Some bespoke machines would be far too complicated to fix and replace if 
they were never turned on.

I need to get on more mailing lists and forums to keep my ear out about 
this kind of thing :) I'll join that one when I can find time to sort it 
and filters out and write some introduction for myself :)

Andrew

On 03/08/2010 20:55, Martin Goldberg wrote:

> Thought this might be of interest to some of the list members like

> myself that actively preserve hardware as well as software.  There was

> an interesting response/post over at the classic computing mailing

> list on the subject of sealing up vs. usage of hardware on

> preservation:

>

>

> [Why not run a rare classic computer]

>

>> simply put, I'd like to have the machines available for those who might

>> want to examine them in 50

>> years or so, and the parts are really really not available to address

>> repair, and having them blown up

>> now isn't such a good idea.

> There is one problem with this argument. That is that some parts will

> fail with age whether you run the machine or not. It's not that you have

> X thousand hours of running time which you can use up now, or keep for

> 100 years time.

>

> The decay of plastic parts, rollers, etc is well-known. So is bit-rot in

> EPROMs I(and some otehr programmed devices). And ICs will fail with time

> even if they are not powered on (althogh I will grant that they will last

> a lot longer if not powered on -- mostly...)

>

> The time to document machines, and work out repair methods is when they

> are working, not after htey have failed. A trivial example of this is a

> CRT-based monitor. When it is working, IMHO, you should record the CRT

> electrode votlages and any other voltages that are meaningful (e.g.

> supply lines derrived fro mteh flyback transformer). The point being,

> when it fails, you can re-take those votlages and see how they compare.

>

> And of course the time to make copies of EPROMs, etc, is when the machine

> sitll works. If it has fialed, you have no idea whether the data in said

> chips is still good.

>

>

>> Anything one owns, you can run, back over with a truck, whatever, but

>> eventually it will fail and

>> be useless.  One of a kind items without hope of finding parts run now

>> will have zero hope of

> Actually, for a lot of the rare machines I've come across (and worked

> on), most of the parts are still obtainable, some of them very easily

> obtainable.

>

>> ever being carefully restored and run at any point in the future if you

>> run it now and burn it up.

>>

>> And no matter how wonderful these things are we have to collect, if you

>> have one or two of the

>> more common items that function, do you really have to have 50 or 100

>> that function and are at

> Well, if you have 100 fo the same machine, I would agree you don't have

> to run them all, But if you have 100 of the same machine, it can hardly

> be classed as 'rare'...

>

> If you have 100  different machines, I could see good reasons for wanting

> to run a particualr machine. An Apple 1 is very different to a PERQ2T4,

> after all...

>

>

>

> Marty

> _______________________________________________

> game_preservation mailing list

> game_preservation at igda.org

> http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/game_preservation