In message of 24 Mar, John Addis-Smith <genl@addisgen.com> wrote: > I do not have the time to waste replying in too much detail to Tim > P-L's long winded reply, with most of which I totally disagree! The object of this mailing list is to discuss things. So I continue. > Visions of putting up straw men come to mind . . . You suggested a particular piece of kit. I looked it up on the internet. I don't think that was a straw man. > > I shall make the following points: > > 1. Tim assumes that the new scanner plus PC and printer would be used > as a replacement for one or more photocopiers ("could go where the > photocopiers now are"). I deliberately made no such assumption. Apart > from the fact that this is only an A4 scanner and the photocopiers > take up to A3 size originals, the concept of the PC illiterate (as > many library users still are) let loose on such a setup as he suggests > would be a recipe for disaster!. No, a more realistic use of such a > scanner would be for staff and volunteer use, perhaps scanning books > for CD-ROM or online access. My best case scenario could then apply. I thought the object of the kit was to reduce damage to books. the existing photocopiers obviously damage the books by the need to press gently (or firmly) on the spines to get a usable photocopy. So I assumed the photocopiers should be thrown out. If they are not thrown out, I cannot see many people bothering with a perhaps more cumbersome piece of kit. So the cost would be wasted. Mind you I am not sure, even, that the use of these scanners would be practical. It would require some trials on site by ordinary members to see what the response would be. There's a thought: could not a trial be sponsored as I'm sure some money would be needed to do this. > 2. Despite having been on the Society's Executive Committee, and so > presumably aware of the limited financial resources under which the > Society currently operates, Tim suggests a Rolls Royce solution . . . > - 3 year PC replacement cycles are both unrealistic and unnecessary > for the simple uses to which most of the computers are used at the > Society. The age profile of the PCs in use will bear this out > - of course staff and volunteer time is taken in trying to monitor use > of networked laser printers, but that is what already happens to 3 > such printers in the lower library (for Internet, CD-ROMs and film > scanner). Coin slot operated printers are simply far too expensive a > proposition at present But we have coin operated photocopiers? The above scenario is replacing the photocopiers - to reduce damage to our precious asset, the books - and not requiring more volunteer time as volunteers are in short supply. > - it would really put off sponsors if it was suggested that they > should also provide for the eventual replacement costs of everything > they sponsor. Why no go the whole hog and suggest that they should pay > for the running costs too? No, the current practice is that the users pay for running costs. While I feel that the present charge is a bit high, I also think that principle should remain. The other point is that we are unlikely to even see such scanners without some donation. > 3. With over 25 years IT experience and the person who was responsible > for the selection and installation of all the Society's PCs and > printers between about 1995 and 2003, my hardware suggestions were for > reliable, quality kit at the best possible price > - Dell's advertising policy is to headline low PC prices but charge > high prices for additional or replacement components such as more > memory. This works to the Society's advantage when only a basic model > is required. The model chosen (E-value Code NPIUK4-D03241) comes from > Dell's March Business booklet - and it was not even one of the reduced > price sale items You have the advantage over me here as I do not have this booklet so was unaware of such an offer. Though I am astonished that they should be selling off this model at a third of the otherwise advertised price. (But see below on proliferation of models for support.) > - Dell sell mainly rebadged Lexmark printers. Published printer > comparisons usually place Lexmark print output quality below HP, > Epson, and Brother. I have bought Brother printers for the Society > and use them at home without problems. > - A printer is a peripheral not a component and if there is a problem > use the printer with another PC to determine where the problem lies. > So there is absolutely no reason to buy the same make of printer as > the PC unless you belong to a large organisation which has a binding > cost saving contract with Dell to do so. I have worked for such an > organisation . . . So have I. > - the Dell PC specified included a 1 year return to base repair > service. On site maintenance contracts are the ideal but when money is > tight and there are volunteers who can carry out basic IT repairs, the > risk of doing without is probably worth it I explored the Dell option as this was what was proposed. My own view is that all kit in the society should be from the same maker so that the knowledge need to deal with them is least and so that best price can be obtained when updating. Further I do not think it a good idea to have loads of old kit around. It is unreliable, it takes up valuable time keeping it going and gives a poor image. We should have up-to-date kit that takes minimum maintenance and does not tie up the time of skilled volunteers. I was delighted to see the smart row of new machines sponsored by the Hasted (sp?) project. And of course, you must be aware of the problem of having different makes of printers, with all the inks or toners that have to be kept as spares. The overriding problem is that like all organisations, the use of computers by the Society is increasing. As their numbers increase so the problems of support increases. As the numbers increase the cost increases. So rationalisation is needed to produce a manageable installation. > This is longer than I intended and I could go on . . . > > I shall not reply to any further messages on this subject. But there is still the intriguing suggestion that someone should sponsor this scanner. Does anyone else think it is worthwhile sponsoring? If so, speak up as otherwise the whole thing might vanish into thin air! -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org

Hi Tim, John, Is this a private battle between two mature (?) men or can any one join in? If the Powers That Be in the Society would approve it, could not several of us put in our money to sponsor this? [ I'd love to be a fly on the wall in a meeting in which JAS participates as it would be worth the membership fee to be there judging by John's outbursts on List ] I had hoped that when I joined the Society several years' ago, that it would be run democratically for the benefit of ALL members. Sadly, it seems o be run by several members who seem to be out for the Publicity, and then throw their toys out of the proverbial pram when they do not get their own way. That is a great pity. I know that TPL and MH are no longer on the Executive, but TPL must know something about how it is run. I for one would be most willing to put £50.00 towards this scanner if otheras would join me. Regrettably I am in a Catch 22 situation as far as volunteering is concerned. My offer to help when I could (at home() has been rejected because I cannot be trusted so to do This despite having signed the Official Secrets Act some 5 times and being my local FHSs Computer Librarian and having the keys to a Heritage Centre,. [ IF I am able to get to the next AGM i intend to raise this as a Major Issue ] Equally, when the Genealogical Officer bemoaned the fact that she was overloaded, in an email to her I made a constructive suggestion, sadly I received no reply to it. What more has one to do to be helpful, I wonder? Phil. Disappointed of Orpington, Kent . . At 22:11 24/03/2005, Tim Powys-Lybbe wrote: >But there is still the intriguing suggestion that someone should sponsor >this scanner. Does anyone else think it is worthwhile sponsoring? If >so, speak up as otherwise the whole thing might vanish into thin air!

> From: Phil Warn <philwarn@ntlworld.com> > Reply-To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com > Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 22:33:15 +0000 > > Hi Tim, John, > > Is this a private battle between two mature (?) men or can any one join in? Yes, very private and no one is allowed to join in or it will go one and on and on and on and . . . . . I have now forgotten what it was that we were talking about in the first place. Ah! Now I remember, someone wanted to scan an old book, and a number of perfectly sensible answers were provided. So why are we still discussing it? Subject line should now be changed to 'Grumpy Old Men'. Peter Amsden Argyll, Scotland