new to dcc whats best controller ?

[faulcon1]

On 27/08/2022 at 19:51, RobinofLoxley said:

I took one look at the handset, when I was evaluating DCC products for myself. I recall seeing and using items based on the same platform in the 1980's, so that was a thumbs down from me

There's an old saying "if it ain't broke then don't fix it" If many people around the world are quite happy with the product as it is (except for certain people on RM web) then why do substantial changes to it.

[MikeB]

2 hours ago, faulcon1 said:

There's an old saying "if it ain't broke then don't fix it" If many people around the world are quite happy with the product as it is (except for certain people on RM web) then why do substantial changes to it.

Agree, I hate the IT practice of continual upgrades that take something familiar and functional and wreck it.  Conversely, some change is desirable.  Would anybody today want to use a 1990's PC using Windows 95? 

 

One reason I like ESU is that they actually say "update your ECoS firmware only if you want to upgrade relevant errors or new functions that you absolutely need, Never change the configuration of a system that is stable  and works without problem".

[Andymsa]

2 minutes ago, MikeB said:

Agree, I hate the IT practice of continual upgrades that take something familiar and functional and wreck it.  Conversely, some change is desirable.  Would anybody today want to use a 1990's PC using Windows 95? 

 

One reason I like ESU is that they actually say "update your ECoS firmware only if you want to upgrade relevant errors or new functions that you absolutely need, Never change the configuration of a system that is stable  and works without problem".

would I use a win95 pc certainly yes, no in forced upgrades, the constant need to upgrade hardware because software runs slowly, or even have to upgrade older  hardware because win 11 requires it  

[WIMorrison]

1 minute ago, Andymsa said:

would I use a win95 pc certainly yes, no in forced upgrades, the constant need to upgrade hardware because software runs slowly, or even have to upgrade older  hardware because win 11 requires it  

 

Never had you down as a Luddite Andy, but then again you do use Digitrax!  🤣

[Andymsa]

3 hours ago, WIMorrison said:

 

Never had you down as a Luddite Andy, but then again you do use Digitrax!  🤣

nothing wrong with there 1970s throttle handsets 😛

[RobinofLoxley]

Its certainly true in the world of consumer products that newer doesnt always equate to better. Something that requires a bit of 'touch' to operate may be hard to replace (in the mind of the user)

[Pete the Elaner]

10 hours ago, MikeB said:

Agree, I hate the IT practice of continual upgrades that take something familiar and functional and wreck it.  Conversely, some change is desirable.  Would anybody today want to use a 1990's PC using Windows 95? 

 

One reason I like ESU is that they actually say "update your ECoS firmware only if you want to upgrade relevant errors or new functions that you absolutely need, Never change the configuration of a system that is stable  and works without problem".

The IT practice of forcing upgrades on users was born through necessity:

 

The system coders found weaknesses & issued updates to patch these. User A applies the patch quickly. User B refuses to, because he doesn't like things forced on him. There were many more user B's than user A's.

Malicious coders examined the patches then reverse engineered them to create viruses & pushed these out. User A was safe from this because the latest patch protected his machine. User B's machine is vulnerable so it gets infected with the new virus.

The flip side is that once in a while, the new update contains a flaw which prevents a program from running.

Software vendors got criticised for their software being vulnerable, even though they had already made available the updates which provided the protection. What more could they do? The answer is to ensure the system they provided was kept up to date.

[WIMorrison]

I agree with what @Pete the Elanersays and add a reminder that you never own the software you use - ownership remains with the people you have ‘bought’ it from. What you buy is a right to use their software and buried in the Ts&Cs is the right to withdraw that licence, or change and amend that software. 
 

if you want to avoid updating software then there are two routes open to you. Firstly you could write your own operating system and software or secondly you can disconnect permanently and completely from any inter-connectivity, such as the internet - but then you won’t be able to get the software 😀

 

The world has changed, and is constantly evolving and the Darwinian theory applies just as much in the IT and electronic industries as it does in life and companies need to adapt and evolve to survive. History is littered with IT companies that failed to adapt, that failed to take security seriously, or that failed to serve the needs of customers - and believe it, or not, the very large majority of users are very happy (and grateful) for the constant updating of software and systems that happens.

[Pete the Elaner]

10 hours ago, Andymsa said:

would I use a win95 pc certainly yes, no in forced upgrades, the constant need to upgrade hardware because software runs slowly, or even have to upgrade older  hardware because win 11 requires it  

 

You would be surprised at how many things you couldn't do..

 

USB was only made available with Windows 95 OSR2, which was only supplied with new PCs & even then, many devices required drivers to be supplied. The same is true for FAT32: Only supported with OSR2, so you would be limited to 2GB partitions. Even if you managed to track down an OSR2 copy, FAT32 support would be limited to partitions very small by today's standards. RAM support was also limited to something like 512MB.

It would not support a solid state hard drive. It may not support any modern hard drive & certainly would not be able to make use of the size available.

Newer browsers would not install & most modern web pages would not work with the browsers which will run on it.

 

While I would be happy using its interface, the back end of Windows 95 makes it unsuitable for most of today's tasks.

[Crosland]

2 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

The IT practice of forcing upgrades on users was born through necessity:

It was born thorough poor design and testing, usually a race to be first to market and let the customer be the test program.

[WIMorrison]

1 hour ago, Crosland said:

It was born thorough poor design and testing, usually a race to be first to market and let the customer be the test program.

 

That is a common fallacy.

[KingEdwardII]

3 hours ago, WIMorrison said:

you never own the software you use

Unless you use open source, like JMRI.

 

But they too have upgrades - they don't force them on you, but you have to beware of other changes like operating system updates that might mean an old version of the open source no longer works properly if at all.

 

Yours, Mike.

[KingEdwardII]

1 hour ago, Crosland said:

born thorough poor design and testing

While not denying that poor design and lack of testing does occur, the need for upgrades has little to do with that.

 

Even carefully designed and well tested code will have bugs and there are always requests for extra functionality. There is also the need to fit in with hardware changes and changes in other software that your code depends on or connects to.

 

Yours, Mike.

[WIMorrison]

1 minute ago, KingEdwardII said:

Unless you use open source, like JMRI.

 

But they too have upgrades - they don't force them on you, but you have to beware of other changes like operating system updates that might mean an old version of the open source no longer works properly if at all.

 

Yours, Mike.

 

Actually Open Source is owned by the creator who grants licences to others to use and amend, as long as the amendments and changes are also made open source.

 

There have been court cases brought where open source has been used in commercial software that has not been declared or used as the basis for other software that was not issued as open source.

[KingEdwardII]

6 minutes ago, WIMorrison said:

as long as the amendments and changes are also made open source

That actually depends on the license concerned. The Apache 2.0 license isn't like that and permits commercial products (closed source) to be based on the open source code. The MIT license is similar in nature.

 

The bigger point relating to your previous post is that under open source licenses they can't unlicense the software or force a change on you. Unlike commercial software. 

 

Yours, Mike.

[WIMorrison]

1 minute ago, KingEdwardII said:

That actually depends on the license concerned. The Apache 2.0 license isn't like that and permits commercial products (closed source) to be based on the open source code. The MIT license is similar in nature.

 

Provided this use of the open source is declared and attributed 

[Oldddudders]

1 hour ago, Crosland said:

It was born thorough poor design and testing, usually a race to be first to market and let the customer be the test program.

Even in-house suppliers fail to test adequately. I am absolutely not an IT person - hey, I use Apple!, and always download updates asap - but 30 years ago was "managing" an IT project with a million lines of code - so I was told, I didn't count them - and the supplier allowed his UAT team a whole afternoon to test a release. Even in that time they managed to get it to fall over, but the evaluation session of a later release at the IBM Usability Lab was even more revealing...

 

I am amused to note that while some have been at pains not to name the system they are knocking, Digitrax still gets it in the neck by name. The Digitrax DCS100 command station I bought in 1998 is still going strong, and I believe that the moderator of the Digitrax online user-group - unconnected with the manufacturer - also uses this long-superseded model. I have upgraded the throttles as new and better models came along. And, yes, I do model UK prototypes in OO - among others.