Home > Archive > Cobol > March 2008 > OT: What do you do with your old computers?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
OT: What do you do with your old computers?
|
|
| Pete Dashwood 2008-03-04, 9:56 pm |
| I'm feeling pretty chirpy because the sun is shining again (dying summer
wags its tail) and the recent rain allowed me to stay indoors and work on
a project that has been problematic for some time, my Home Wireless LAN
network.
This is now complete and just waiting for me to finish writing the IVR
software for the service that will answer my phone.
A couple of things came out of this which are apropos some things discussed
here recently.
We talked about the lack of low level training in young people and whether
they actually need it. I was of the opinion that they don't, but I think I
need to modify that a little bit, after a long and fruitless discussion with
a Seagate Helpdesk somewhere on the sub-continent yesterday. I'll come to
that in a minute...
Some time ago I installed a wireless router and was delighted that I could
now use my notebook freely in the house or garden. (This Core 2 Duo machine
is called "Bigblack" and runs winXP SP2). Pretty soon, and really just for
fun, I took my previous notebook (which did not have a wireless card) and
connected that to the WLAN as well, using a small USB wireless link. Now I
could work on either machine and share whatever files I liked between them.
(This Pentium 4 machine is called petesp4 - it runs WinXP SP2 also). I still
needed to physically connect a printer to either machine if I needed
printout. Then I got to thinking... It would be pretty  to be able to
print from these machines to a printer on the WLAN. Apart from anything
else, it would enable me to move my printer into a back room with the
router, rather than have it occupying space in the lounge... Finally,
enlightenment dawned and I realised that the WLAN could actually be quite
powerful and useful, (rather than just a fun thing that let me use notebooks
from anywhere), if I organised it right. The first step was to decide what
services I needed from the WLAN. I needed printing. But I also needed to
have something answer my landline phone (sure, I could buy the service from
my provider, or buy a device to do it, but where's the fun in that? :-) So
much better if the WLAN could do it.
And what about backups for petesp4 and Bigblack? I do development (COBOL) on
petesp4, and development (Web and C#) on Bigblack. Backups are to DVD and
only of current development work. If the WLAN had a high capacity storage
device that was shared, and could be used for backups in the background, it
would be sweet...
So, having decided where I'm going, I need a machine to drive this "node" of
the WLAN and provide all this stuff. But I don't want to lash out and buy a
new notebook. (Besides, it would come with Vista and I'd have to remove it
and install XP, so it would mean money and hassle. Furthermore, I don't buy
equipment unless I know it will pay for itself and I'm due for it. I'm not
due for a new notebook for a couple of years yet and will await Windows 7 so
I can leapfrog Vista.)
But hang on a minute... I have a couple of Notebooks that have been boxed up
for years and are no longer used. One (a 386 machine) runs Win 3.2 and DOS,
the other (a Pentium 3) runs Win 98 SE. Why not leverage some of this
computer power that is sitting dormant and get some use out of it?
So I broke out the Pentium 3 that runs Win 98 SE...(hereinafter referred to
as "petesp3")
I lashed out on a new wireless adapter for it ($NZ65) and a new Seagate
FreeAgent 300GB disk ($NZ250), this was within the budget I was prepared to
spend to get the functionality described.
It took some coaxing and several BSODs (I'd forgotten what they look like
:-)) but I finally got it to accept the wireless adapter and join the WLAN.
If any of you decide to do what I'm describing, and utilise some of your old
computers, don't hesitate to contact me if you need help. I know my way
round configuring networks for Win 98 pretty well now... :-)
This brings me to the point about low level knowledge. We expect Wizards to
do stuff for us and most of the time they do, but there are times when it is
necessary to revert to an earlier world, where things were done manually.
For example, I found that every time I tried to ping Bigblack or petesp4
from petesp3, it would pop up a Dial up networking box, which had to be
cancelled before the ping would run. It took me an hour before I remembered
what to do about it...:-)
Once it was talking to the network, I decided to install the printer and the
Seagate drive on it, so I could share them. The Seagate drive came with a
pamphlet which said: "This won't take long." Just connect the power and plug
it in to a USB port... under two minutes.
Yeah, right... :-) Plug n Play on petesp3 recognised the device but required
a driver for it. (Seems reasonable to me...). There wasn't one, so I went to
their web site and spent a couple of hours going through futile flowcharts
that did not represent my situation, and came out no further ahead. I
decided to install it on Bigblack and see if it worked. It did exactly the
same as it did on Win 98. Was recognised, searched for and failed to find a
driver, and was marked as an unknown device.
I phoned the Seagate help desk and explained that the device was looking for
a driver but their web site said it didn't need one and there were no
downloads available. It was really tiresome and although the young lady
spoke very good English and tried to be helpful, she simply didn't
understand what was going on. She put me on hold and consulted her
supervisor, who said that the driver was a part of the OS and did not need
to be installed. I asked if they could tell me the name of the driver so I
could search my system and make sure it was available. No. Nobody knew,
neither could they find out.
Then they said: "It won't work with Win 98." OK, but no-one told me when I
bought it that that was the case, and nowhere on the box or in the
literature does it say that. It works on a USB port, version 1 or 2.
Besides, I WANT it to work with Win 98 and I am a computer programmer...:-)
I tried again on Bigblack, and this time I opted to tell it where the driver
was. I pointed it manually at the driver install packages and it found what
it needed and installed OK. (Obviously, the Plug nPlay search was not
complete enough...) This meant I now knew which USB driver was required, so
I installed that driver to petesp3, did the same manual process I had done
on Bigblack with the USB install, and, of course, it worked perfectly.
However, because Win 98 was using FAT 32 and the drive was preformatted for
NTFS, I had to reformat it. It is very fast, and I can access it from
anywhere.
So I now have an old win98 machine in a second lease of life, driving
services on my Wireless LAN. It seems quite happy sitting in a back room
with the router and the printer, out of sight. The phone line coming into
the router can be split so it is in easy reach for the answerphone function,
which I shall write in C# using MicroSoft's TAPI, and which which will plug
into the internal modem port on the P3 machine. It is really and I'm
very happy with it.
SUMMARISING:
1. Your "old" equipment can be very useful, as long as you don't buy into
the "It only works with the latest and greatest..." philosophy which kids in
computer shops are trained to ascribe to.
2. Although Wizards and high level approaches are very good and save time,
most of the time, there is still no substitute for knowledge and attitude
when it comes to problem solution. I don't think that people in the future
will need to have the low level of knowledge that we did, but an agressive
and tenacious attitude to solving problems, I don't think, will ever be out
of style. To be fair, if I didn't have the background that I do, I COULD
have solved my problem by buying a new machine... and that is what so many
people are forced to do. (It's like re-installing the OS instead of locating
and fixing the problem; sometimes it is easier to do that, but many times it
is done simply because the necessary knowledge isn't there.)
FINALLY:
As noted above, if you decide to leverage some of your "old" equipment and
hit problems, I'm really happy to help. This has been a really fun
project... :-)
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
|
| In article <6369k6F259eh4U1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
[snip]
>We talked about the lack of low level training in young people and whether
>they actually need it. I was of the opinion that they don't, but I think I
>need to modify that a little bit, after a long and fruitless discussion with
>a Seagate Helpdesk somewhere on the sub-continent yesterday.
[snip]
>Pretty soon, and really just for
>fun, I took my previous notebook (which did not have a wireless card) and
>connected that to the WLAN as well, using a small USB wireless link.
[snip]
>Then I got to thinking... It would be pretty to be able to
>print from these machines to a printer on the WLAN. Apart from anything
>else, it would enable me to move my printer into a back room with the
>router, rather than have it occupying space in the lounge...
[snip]
>If the WLAN had a high capacity storage
>device that was shared, and could be used for backups in the background, it
>would be sweet...
[snip]
>But I don't want to lash out and buy a
>new notebook.
[snip]
>This brings me to the point about low level knowledge. We expect Wizards to
>do stuff for us and most of the time they do, but there are times when it is
>necessary to revert to an earlier world, where things were done manually.
A while back, Mr Dashwood, I was listening to a radio-program(me) and a
fellow called in and described the Anciente and Honorede Traditione of
'tinkering' ('tinker' in the sense of 'to repair, adjust or experiment
with'). The fellow had been raised on a farm and mentioned how if one
could *not* tinker successfully it could endanger one's ability to get the
crops in and otherwise Do One's Job as a Farmer.
(He also described going to the Air and Space Museum and looking at the
cut-away views on some of the early American spacecraft... he said it was
obvious that these things were the first of their kind, they were designed
and built by folks who had never seen a person-carrying spacecraft before
and, as a result, showed signs of... tinkering. There was stuff in there
that wasn't spacecraft-stuff, it was... like... farm-implements or
kitchen-appliances and the like.)
The circumstances your skills met, by your own description, were nothing
necessary or mission-critical... unless phrases like 'really just for
fun' or '(i)t would be pretty ' or '(i)t would be sweet' have become
ways to describe necessary, mission-critical functions.
It was enjoyable, of course, and it allowed you resurrect hardware,
software and brain-ware you'd relegated to archive-status... but was there
'an actual need' (the phrase initially used to describe low-level
training) for it? Just for laffs - another way to describe necessary,
mission-critical critieria, of course - I will disagree on the basis of
the Franklin Equivalence.
Had you gone out and purchased modern equipment you would have spent
money, true... but you would have saved time. Given the aforementioned
Equivalence of 'Time is Money' and your bill-rate... dealing with Tech
Support for a few hours costs a fair amount. Given the state of Modern
Technology... you go online, click a few links, do something else for a
day or three... and at your door are the packages that you open, assemble,
configure and run in less time than you spent on the telephone.
E'en (e'en?) moreso in a Corporate Environment, where a Team is being held
back from Doing Its Job or a Decision Involving Money is delayed because
rather than pay for someone who knows what they're doing and the equipment
they need to do it with... a false economy of 'it'll just take a bit...
no, wait, we need a left-handed thread there... whoops, I didn't know
these devices were *that* incompatible... it's gotta be out on the web
*somewhere*, just give me a moment to find it'' starts to cost Real Money.
Come to think of it... we've addressed this before, just recently...
well... maybe 'mainframe recently', almost exactly two years back. From
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp...91?dmode=source>
--begin quoted text:
>The one I'm proudest of is a system I built for a disabled lady who wanted
>to do a remote study writing course. She has a fully functioning XP system
>with XP Office (all legal) that connects over broadband, and the whole
>system cost $NZ104. So far it has performed flawlessly for about 3 months; I
>have my fingers crossed... :-) All of the hardware was begged borrowed or
>recycled from other old systems that were non-functional. It took me 30
>hours to get the bits and build it. :-)
This reminds me of a put-it-together-yourself file cabinet I helped a
physician I know assemble back in the early 1990s. This stuff has
improved since then and now it's more difficult to attach part B to part D
instead of hooking it to part C, where it belongs... and we'd knock a few
pieces together, realise we'd done the wrong ones, take it apart, set it
aright...
.... all in all it took us about three hours. Sipping our Pilsner Urquels
and gazing upon the finished product the doctor mused 'You know... between
the cost of your time and mine that is, per cubic inch, probably the most
expensive piece of furniture in this house.'
--end quoted text
DD
| |
|
|
| Pete Dashwood 2008-03-05, 6:56 pm |
|
<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:fqmbk9$arb$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <6369k6F259eh4U1@mid.individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> A while back, Mr Dashwood, I was listening to a radio-program(me) and a
> fellow called in and described the Anciente and Honorede Traditione of
> 'tinkering' ('tinker' in the sense of 'to repair, adjust or experiment
> with'). The fellow had been raised on a farm and mentioned how if one
> could *not* tinker successfully it could endanger one's ability to get the
> crops in and otherwise Do One's Job as a Farmer.
>
> (He also described going to the Air and Space Museum and looking at the
> cut-away views on some of the early American spacecraft... he said it was
> obvious that these things were the first of their kind, they were designed
> and built by folks who had never seen a person-carrying spacecraft before
> and, as a result, showed signs of... tinkering. There was stuff in there
> that wasn't spacecraft-stuff, it was... like... farm-implements or
> kitchen-appliances and the like.)
>
> The circumstances your skills met, by your own description, were nothing
> necessary or mission-critical... unless phrases like 'really just for
> fun' or '(i)t would be pretty ' or '(i)t would be sweet' have become
> ways to describe necessary, mission-critical functions.
>
> It was enjoyable, of course, and it allowed you resurrect hardware,
> software and brain-ware you'd relegated to archive-status... but was there
> 'an actual need' (the phrase initially used to describe low-level
> training) for it? Just for laffs - another way to describe necessary,
> mission-critical critieria, of course - I will disagree on the basis of
> the Franklin Equivalence.
>
> Had you gone out and purchased modern equipment you would have spent
> money, true... but you would have saved time. Given the aforementioned
> Equivalence of 'Time is Money' and your bill-rate... dealing with Tech
> Support for a few hours costs a fair amount. Given the state of Modern
> Technology... you go online, click a few links, do something else for a
> day or three... and at your door are the packages that you open, assemble,
> configure and run in less time than you spent on the telephone.
>
> E'en (e'en?) moreso in a Corporate Environment, where a Team is being held
> back from Doing Its Job or a Decision Involving Money is delayed because
> rather than pay for someone who knows what they're doing and the equipment
> they need to do it with... a false economy of 'it'll just take a bit...
> no, wait, we need a left-handed thread there... whoops, I didn't know
> these devices were *that* incompatible... it's gotta be out on the web
> *somewhere*, just give me a moment to find it'' starts to cost Real Money.
>
> Come to think of it... we've addressed this before, just recently...
> well... maybe 'mainframe recently', almost exactly two years back. From
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp...91?dmode=source>
>
> --begin quoted text:
>
>
> This reminds me of a put-it-together-yourself file cabinet I helped a
> physician I know assemble back in the early 1990s. This stuff has
> improved since then and now it's more difficult to attach part B to part D
> instead of hooking it to part C, where it belongs... and we'd knock a few
> pieces together, realise we'd done the wrong ones, take it apart, set it
> aright...
>
> ... all in all it took us about three hours. Sipping our Pilsner Urquels
> and gazing upon the finished product the doctor mused 'You know... between
> the cost of your time and mine that is, per cubic inch, probably the most
> expensive piece of furniture in this house.'
>
> --end quoted text
>
> DD
>
I take your point, Doc. Certainly, "tinkering" has to come under the heading
of "recreational" activity, rather than "mission critical", as you (and
HeyBub) pointed out.
However, there are a couple of points about this which should be noted:
1. "Tinkering" builds knowledge, which builds confidence and capability,
which is of value when approaching problems with "mission critical" systems.
2. "Tinkering" is fun. That alone makes it a useful activity.
There are also a couple of traps which the tinkerer has to keep in mind:
1. When tinkering, your time has no value; it is written off against the
"cost of having fun".
2. The workplace is no place to tinker. Mission critical systems (or,
indeed, ANY commercial system that is costing money and intended to generate
revenue), cannot be "messed around with" in an indeterminate way.
Provided all of that is kept in mind, I see no reason why people shouldn't
leverage use out of their "useless" equipment.
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2008-03-05, 6:56 pm |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:5bdts3leebm7d1945jb80tr2cfbrnpjj7k@
4ax.com...
> One tool that Windows users might not be aware of when setting up
> their home LAN is Bonjour for Windows.
>
> http://www.apple.com/support/downlo...forwindows.html
I hadn't heard about it, but read what's on the site you linked.
It could be useful. I have two reservations:
1. It is an Apple product.
2. I NEED to let my router assign reserved IP addresses to specific MAC
addresses, so that only "approved devices" can connect to my WLAN. If
something comes along and does this configuration for me, I can't do that.
The idea of sending UDP packets over a specific port to identify attached
hardware is risky, in my opinion. Many network hacks work in this way and
that is why firewalls are designed to prevent it. I have had bad experience
in the past with UDP packets and now I have zero tolerance for them, with
the only exception being the "stay alive" packets that my ISP sends to keep
me connected.
Nevertheless, I haven't used Bonjour so I can't make judgements about it;
many people may find it useful.
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-03-05, 6:56 pm |
|
>2. I NEED to let my router assign reserved IP addresses to specific MAC
>addresses, so that only "approved devices" can connect to my WLAN. If
>something comes along and does this configuration for me, I can't do that.
>
>The idea of sending UDP packets over a specific port to identify attached
>hardware is risky, in my opinion. Many network hacks work in this way and
>that is why firewalls are designed to prevent it. I have had bad experience
>in the past with UDP packets and now I have zero tolerance for them, with
>the only exception being the "stay alive" packets that my ISP sends to keep
>me connected.
>
>Nevertheless, I haven't used Bonjour so I can't make judgements about it;
>many people may find it useful.
>
>Pete.
I'll pass on this concern to some Mac people and see if they have some
input.
| |
| HeyBub 2008-03-05, 6:56 pm |
| docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>
> This reminds me of a put-it-together-yourself file cabinet I helped a
> physician I know assemble back in the early 1990s. This stuff has
> improved since then and now it's more difficult to attach part B to
> part D instead of hooking it to part C, where it belongs... and we'd
> knock a few pieces together, realise we'd done the wrong ones, take
> it apart, set it aright...
>
> ... all in all it took us about three hours. Sipping our Pilsner
> Urquels and gazing upon the finished product the doctor mused 'You
> know... between the cost of your time and mine that is, per cubic
> inch, probably the most expensive piece of furniture in this house.'
>
Know what you mean. I once worked in a pathology lab. The doc was a genius
but scientific publications would accept his papers (because he was just an
ordinary trash M.D., not a pathologist). He hired me to do the routine lab
tests so he could run a big, four-color, printing press to publish his own
damn journal!
For example, he developed a little kit with about three reagents for EMTs
that could discriminate between some 300 common poisons using a few drops of
bodily fluid (plasma, saliva, etc.). Oh, it would only give gross
approximations (heavy metal, opiate, etc.), but more than enough for first
aid. Nobody would buy the thing until it was written up in a "Journal."
| |
|
| In article <638gukF26dil1U1@mid.individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote:
[snip]
>I take your point, Doc. Certainly, "tinkering" has to come under the heading
>of "recreational" activity, rather than "mission critical", as you (and
>HeyBub) pointed out.
>
>However, there are a couple of points about this which should be noted:
>
>1. "Tinkering" builds knowledge, which builds confidence and capability,
>which is of value when approaching problems with "mission critical" systems.
I'd almost agree, Mr Dashwood... if I knew what this 'knowledge' stuff
was, that is. Were I to learn such a thing I might choose to concentrate
on gaining it... instead of just learning... stuff.
>
>2. "Tinkering" is fun. That alone makes it a useful activity.
I'd almost agree again, Mr Dashwood... as I have been on job-sites where
having fun helps get things done... but I've also been in situations where
having fun got in the way of getting things done. All things in
moderation, moderation included.
DD
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-03-06, 6:55 pm |
|
>
>I hadn't heard about it, but read what's on the site you linked.
>
>It could be useful. I have two reservations:
>
>1. It is an Apple product.
I'm curious. Is this like people not using .net because it is a
Microsoft product? What difference does it make who makes a
utility?
>2. I NEED to let my router assign reserved IP addresses to specific MAC
>addresses, so that only "approved devices" can connect to my WLAN. If
>something comes along and does this configuration for me, I can't do that.
>
>The idea of sending UDP packets over a specific port to identify attached
>hardware is risky, in my opinion. Many network hacks work in this way and
>that is why firewalls are designed to prevent it. I have had bad experience
>in the past with UDP packets and now I have zero tolerance for them, with
>the only exception being the "stay alive" packets that my ISP sends to keep
>me connected.
>
>Nevertheless, I haven't used Bonjour so I can't make judgements about it;
>many people may find it useful.
>
>Pete.
The only reply I got so far is:
NEED? Why? Spoofing the MAC address is trivial, so it can't be for
security....
Still Bonjour doesn't create the LAN, it discovers it.
=========================
That seems to be a reasonable statement - if a product such as Bonjour
looks around and sets up your connection, then that connection is
available to be made. If having that connection available is a
concern to you, you can sleep better by not learning about it. But
it will still be there (without Bonjour).
I believe Bonjour technology is in iTunes - when someone marks his
iTunes library as shareable, other iTunes users on the LAN can play
his songs. But I've also seen a different music player's songs
shared and sharing, so it isn't unique.
| |
|
| On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:17:07 +1300, Pete Dashwood wrote:
> <docdwa
> 2. The workplace is no place to tinker. Mission critical systems (or,
> indeed, ANY commercial system that is costing money and intended to generate
> revenue), cannot be "messed around with" in an indeterminate way.
>
For an organisation to learn it needs to do something akin to tinkering.
The main thing is to know that is what you are doing and to pull the plug
at the right time.
Look at the money IBM and MSFT put into R&D. In extreme programming they
call it a "Spike" - trying something out to see if it works.
Tim
| |
| Howard Brazee 2008-03-06, 6:55 pm |
| On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 18:20:55 -0000, tim <TimJ@internet.com> wrote:
>For an organisation to learn it needs to do something akin to tinkering.
>The main thing is to know that is what you are doing and to pull the plug
>at the right time.
Lots of innovations were created by tinkerers who were trying to get
tools for their jobs that were outside of the Corporate bounds.
Corporate did not know what was being done and was not in time to pull
the plug.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2008-03-07, 3:55 am |
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:jl00t3lv2pi14u8nfmm44hkslca7jo9r0a@
4ax.com...
>
>
> I'm curious. Is this like people not using .net because it is a
> Microsoft product? What difference does it make who makes a
> utility?
It depends on their track record...
I have no experience with Apple products and I run a Microsoft shop. I
honestly don't know whether this prodct is good or not; but if it was MS,
and didn't functuion properly, I would have some recourse. I shouldn't
imagine Apple would be helpful if I am not a user of their products.
I'm not prejudging it; my comment was simply that, for me, that is a
reservation.
>
>
> The only reply I got so far is:
> NEED? Why? Spoofing the MAC address is trivial, so it can't be for
> security....
To spoof the MAC address you would need to know WHAT MAC address to spoof. I
have reserved certain IP addresses for certain MAC addresses. These are the
ONLY address pairs that my network will recognize. (And I have certain other
checks that I don't propose to reveal here...)
>
> Still Bonjour doesn't create the LAN, it discovers it.
Not on my network it doesn't. UDP packets are generally blocked blocked,
along with a number of other protocols and ports.
>
> =========================
>
> That seems to be a reasonable statement - if a product such as Bonjour
> looks around and sets up your connection, then that connection is
> available to be made. If having that connection available is a
> concern to you, you can sleep better by not learning about it. But
> it will still be there (without Bonjour).
>
> I believe Bonjour technology is in iTunes - when someone marks his
> iTunes library as shareable, other iTunes users on the LAN can play
> his songs. But I've also seen a different music player's songs
> shared and sharing, so it isn't unique.
>
P2P sharing is quite common for music files and was pioneered by KAZAA and
Morpheus, gradually replaced by the more recent (and much better) Lime Wire.
I don't really want to get into a debate on a product I haven't used and
probably won't use (only because I have no need of it). As I said earlier,
some people may find Bonjour useful.
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
|
|
|
|
|