Darren New wrote:

> My opinion is that if it only works on Win 3, it's because it's 
> accessing the serial hardware directly, so it's already a kludge even 
> before the little black box. :-)

Oh no, it *looks* like something from Win 3. It actually *works* on NT4 
[and possibly newer, I haven't tried]. ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 14 May 2008 19:56:55 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> Is this a valid solution to a design problem?
>> 
>> Yes.  I see this occasionally with KVM switches (Avocent does this, for
>> example) as a way of "extending" a connection.
> 
> Heh. A KVM switch would be a *horrible* solution for this particular
> problem. I mean, tunneling arbitrary serial data over IP isn't great.
> But then, I guess serial is pretty speed limited anyway, so it shouldn't
> use too much network bandwidth...

Well, I wasn't saying a KVM would be a solution (I don't even know the 
circumstances really), just that I've seen Avocent/Cybex switches that 
use serial-to-ethernet adapters in order to extend the range.  Range 
extenders have been around for quite a while, though - both for serial 
and parallel devices (can't remember the name of the company that did the 
parallel extenders I used years ago).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Just get a temperature logger with a USB interface and a decent API, connect 
it to a cheap old PC, which is running some software *you* wrote to read out 
the data and send it over LAN to some server in some useful format.

That's what I do here :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> Just get a temperature logger with a USB interface and a decent API, 
> connect it to a cheap old PC, which is running some software *you* wrote 
> to read out the data and send it over LAN to some server in some useful 
> format.
> 
> That's what I do here :-)

Well, this is for mission-critical stuff, so we have a service contract 
and all that kind of thing, so we basically get the hardware and 
software they provide. But yeah, if support wasn't an issue, that's 
probably what I'd do...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> Well, this is for mission-critical stuff, so we have a service contract 
> and all that kind of thing, so we basically get the hardware and software 
> they provide. But yeah, if support wasn't an issue, that's probably what 
> I'd do...

Yeh, guess you don't want to be held responsible when it breaks for 
something mission critical, better to be able to pass the responsibility on 
(even if they haven't updated their software since Win3.1!).

Still, you could encourage them to make some updates (like using USB instead 
of serial, and writing software for XP/Vista rather than Win3.1), or buy the 
system from a more up to date supplier that is less hacky.

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:

> Yeh, guess you don't want to be held responsible when it breaks for 
> something mission critical, better to be able to pass the responsibility 
> on (even if they haven't updated their software since Win3.1!).
> 
> Still, you could encourage them to make some updates (like using USB 
> instead of serial, and writing software for XP/Vista rather than 
> Win3.1), or buy the system from a more up to date supplier that is less 
> hacky.

Well now, if you want a couple of thermometers and a data logger, 


it's mission critical. What are you gonna do? You simply *have* to have 
this thing, so basically you have to pay whatever they charge you. Which 
is probably _why_ they charge you so much. ;-)

I wasn't in any way involved in the purchase process, but I gather that 
we were quoted tens of thousands of pounds by various parties, and we 
eventually went with the lowest bidder. As far as I know...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> Now if you write the words "mission critical" on it, suddenly the same 


Not really, I assume the hardware is of a much higher specification than 
some *really* cheap consumer version you could get for 20 quid.

> But hey, it's mission critical. What are you gonna do? You simply *have* 
> to have this thing, so basically you have to pay whatever they charge you. 
> Which is probably _why_ they charge you so much. ;-)

Usually you have the option of other suppliers, so the price should be 
pretty competitive for what you're getting. Otherwise they would go out of 
business if everyone else could sell the same product for half the price.

> I wasn't in any way involved in the purchase process, but I gather that we 
> were quoted tens of thousands of pounds by various parties, and we 
> eventually went with the lowest bidder.

If you were about to spend 10k on something, would you blindly take the 
cheapest one without even bothering to see exactly what you were getting? 
Sadly a lot of companies do exactly this, often with much larger sums of 
money...

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Now if you write the words "mission critical" on it, suddenly the same 

> 
> Not really, I assume the hardware is of a much higher specification than 
> some *really* cheap consumer version you could get for 20 quid.


every 15 minutes. If they go outside a preset range, an alarm goes off. 
How much would *you* suggest such a system costs?

>> But hey, it's mission critical. What are you gonna do? You simply 
>> *have* to have this thing, so basically you have to pay whatever they 
>> charge you. Which is probably _why_ they charge you so much. ;-)
> 
> Usually you have the option of other suppliers, so the price should be 
> pretty competitive for what you're getting. Otherwise they would go out 
> of business if everyone else could sell the same product for half the 
> price.

Apparently all the suppliers we could find were charging 5 figures for 
something that will do what we want. Seems absurd to me, but... mission 
critical, gotta have one, gotta be up and running before date X...

> If you were about to spend 10k on something, would you blindly take the 
> cheapest one without even bothering to see exactly what you were 
> getting? Sadly a lot of companies do exactly this, often with much 
> larger sums of money...

Well, you'd hope so... but as I say, I wasn't really involved in the 
process. I believe the hardware was all much the same, so they went with 
the cheapest option from a supplier who could actually supply on time.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

> every 15 minutes. If they go outside a preset range, an alarm goes off. 
> How much would *you* suggest such a system costs?

Depends on far more than just the raw technical performance.

If I'm going to use it check the temperature in my greenhouse, I would 
imagine a 50 quid jobby from Maplins would do with some cheap hacked 
together Win3.1 program.  However, if I'm putting it in a manned spacecraft 
that is orbiting the moon, I would expect way higher performance, and an 
equally higher price.

BTW, the stuff we make here, we always have to put on the 1st page of the 
specification that it is not to be used in anything critical, like plane 
instruments, hospital equipment, traffic signals etc, simply because we 
don't design or test to high enough standards.  If we did, the cost would be 
astronomical, for stuff like PC monitors you don't need that level of 
reliability so you get them very cheap.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:54:16 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>
>Apparently all the suppliers we could find were charging 5 figures for 
>something that will do what we want. Seems absurd to me, but... mission 
>critical, gotta have one, gotta be up and running before date X...

Is the equipment and software certified? Because that adds to the
cost. 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message