Posted: 7/15/2011 9:18:43 AM EDT
|
As I try to clean up my place, I can see a computer switch box down by my feet, perhaps the third generation of ones I used, but it has long been bypassed (PS/2) and the computers it serviced are more likely to have their drives pulled than to be used.
At the time, I was using it to be able to use one mouse, one keyboard, one monitor for 3 computers, but the DIN one never held on after the switch box changed over to another computer so it was never entirely successful. Having two working towers enabled me to have backup capability. When one computer suddenly firewalled the modem, I was able to use the other for the Net. When that one started having lock up problems, the previous one was there for Word. But in having multiple systems, is there a lazy approach of just accepting problems and not working to solve them? Had I had a single computer, would I have sought replacement earlier instead of using a 2001 computer well into 2006? Or is it just a way of life? Waste not, Want not. The multiple computers come from a time when I got into building my own and recycling parts from unit to unit. And then there is now. I am about to go out to get a switch for multiple DVR/VCR to feed into one TV. It is an older color TV, with no AV hook up, but coxial, so I have to get a converter for that as well. Three, maybe 4 units into one TV......and the more modern TV's in the other rooms are similar. I look at equipment that I have bypassed its need, but I am still using its philosophy in other walks of life. ___________________________________________________________________ ("Fluidics? You're using fluidics in the Falcon? Why are you using something so primitive, Han my boy?"––friend, (w,stte), Book: Han Solo's Revenge by Brian Daley) |