![](/i/fill.gif) |
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Thu, 15 May 2008 12:54:16 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> 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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
| ![](/i/fill.gif) |
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |