On Wed, 2003-01-29 at 01:44, Steven C. Darnold wrote: > Bob George wrote: > [...] > Not "newer". The post advocated replacing survPC stuff > with brand new.
New, newer, brand-new, most-newest? The post advocated CONSIDERING such replacement, yes. Is that threatening? > IMHO it is offensive for someone to suggest > (on a survPC list) that we should discard our survPCs and > buy brand new. And that's YOUR opinion. Many on this list have views that vary, strange as that may seem. Sadly, there may come a time when the INDIVIDUAL has to decide when outright replacement outweighs the benefit and/or sentimental value of upgrading a beloved old system. I've gone through this myself several times (alas, trading away my beloved Olivetti M24 -- my 1st DOS machine out of necessity). The list is also about LOW RESOURCE computing. With efforts such as LTSP/K12LTSP (I think non-BL Linux discussion is still allowed, no?), it's clear that upgrading/replacing a SINGLE machine may help keep multiple other low-resource systems afloat. I still have some low-resource systems -- particularly in context of the "flexible" definition of "SurvPC". I don't feel a traitor to the cause (whatever that is) for using newer (too new?) hardware in addition though. There's no list requirement that users use SurvPCs EXCLUSIVELY, just as there's no requirement to use a specific distribution of a specific OS on specific hardware. > [....] > Why should I pay three-hours salary to upgrade a survPC from > 8mb RAM to 16mb when (apparently) complete systems with 128mb > RAM can be found in dumpsters? You shouldn't. Others on the list shouldn't. That's why I posted a link to upgrade an old system to 16MB RAM for $16US + S&H. Are we supposed to validate every item in terms of YOUR specific geographic location and/or salary? If you don't find it cheap (did you bother to find out?) then by all means, use another source. But do remember this is a list subscribed to by users world-wide, some of whom may find that source convenient and/or reasonably cost-effective given the (lack of) local alternatives. > Many of us are involved with survPCs because we don't want > to pay high prices for new hardware. You shouldn't be > surprised that we reject the suggestion that we should pay > high prices for old hardware. I'm hardly surprised. But you're setting quite a demanding list of requirements for posting info on "your" list: Mustn't be "too (brand) new", mustn't be "too expensive". So what is the right answer? $5, free postage and in your immediate neighborhood? Sheesh. As to the prices charged for postage and hardware, bitch at the vendors. They'll probably point out that 1.) you can buy "brand new" stuff inexpensively (or dumpster dive) if cost is REALLY the problem and 2.) the prices they're charging for "old stuff" is a fraction of what it would have cost at the time of manufacture, especially if you consider inflation. Although I'd rather have stuff given and delivered to me for free, I hardly feel this is some sort of entitlement. I'm prepared to spend a reasonable amount on occasion for something specific if it provides me benefit in the long run. If you can find that same RAM for a fraction of the price, BY ALL MEANS, post the info here! In the meantime, please consider that some on the list might find the price quite reasonable or practical, even if you don't. OK, I officially forward the motion to rename the list to "CrotchetyOldPC". - Bob To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
