On Dec 28, 6:19 am, Bill Christensen <billc_li...@greenbuilder.com> wrote: > ... > I never said anything about defective hardware. I said I ran "one > of the diagnostic/repair tools on it, fix a bunch of stuff". By that > I was referring to SOFTWARE diagnostics and SOFTWARE fixes - Disk > First Aid, Disk Warrior, Norton, whatever the heck we were using most > at the time. Nothing changed in the hardware set up at all. > > And I don't give a rat's patoot as to why the power company delivered > crappy power. I've seen the lights dim or momentarily go out often > enough to know that it does. > ...
You are correct. You did not say anything about defective hardware in a computer that may have symptoms of existing defective hardware. For example, if that computer has a defective power supply ($60 replacement cost), you somehow knew hardware damage was being averted by installing a $500+ UPS. That is what you claimed. You claimed UPSes provide hardware protection because an $1800 UPS masked an already existing defect. That does not prove hardware protection. That demonstrates that throwing $1800 at a $60 problem can mask symptoms. A hardware defect still exists with or without that UPS. Your example also demonstrates why GM is losing so much money by making the same mistakes that even Ross Perot defined 20 years earlier. They too throw massive money to cure symptoms rather than find, then fix, trivial problems. Bottom line - your example does not prove a UPS protects hardware. It only proves symptoms can be cured and that multiple problems may still exist. More facts based only on assumptions. You have assumed the utility is delivering crappy power. More often, those symptoms are traceable to a major safety defect; maybe inside that house. IOW both computers may have been a 'canary in a coalmine'. Instead you would mock investigating before fixing something? Your speculations still do not prove a UPS provides hardware protection. And that is the point. UPSes do not provide hardware protection despite so many assumptions that say otherwise. A new fact. Another computer was doing the same thing, but only in that house. You assumed crappy utility power. The second computer only works in their house? More reasons to ask if a serious human safety threat might exist in their house. A problem easily located with some basic knowledge, inspection, or by hiring an electrician. A problem that still exists even with an $1800 UPS. Get the household electric inspected. The observation - computers only crash in their house - is only sufficient to make an assumption and to later develop a hypothesis. Not sufficient to know anything except that a problem (potentially serous) clearly does still exist. UPS does not provide hardware protection. It simply protects a computer from power off. In this case, a UPS might have been used to ignore a potential human safety problem. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed Low End Mac's G3-5 List, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to g3-5-list-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list?hl=en Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
