russ@pyr.gatech.EDU (RUSSELL SHACKELFORD) (05/19/89)
I am curious about all the postings asking for info about upgrading old machines with new motherboards. Specifically, I wonder if I'm missing something... In moving from an XT to AT, and from AT to 386, it has been my experience that it's a good deal cheaper to shop for the best clone deal, buy a new next-level-up machine that is packaged with monitor, etc., then sell the old machine with the new cheap monitor that came with the new one. I recently upgraded to a 20mhz 386 for a net cost of $400 this way. Is it POSSIBLE to upgrade via a new motherboard for so little. Am I missing some- thing? -- Russell Shackelford School of Information and Computer Science Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332 russ@pyr.gatech.edu
keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (05/22/89)
In article <8270@pyr.gatech.EDU> russ@pyr.gatech.EDU (RUSSELL SHACKELFORD) writes: > >I am curious about all the postings asking for info about upgrading >old machines with new motherboards. Specifically, I wonder if I'm >missing something... > When you get out of engineering or CS school and start running into these people called "accountants" you'll find out that, because of reasons as obscure to us engineer/cs types as bits, bytes and TECO macros are to a business major, it is often allowable to upgrade existing equipment while wholesale (or even retail :-) ) replacement is prohibitive. Usually not in $$$ paid for the improvement, but in time spent in paperwork, justification of replacement, disposition of the original asset, etc, etc, etc. I think the US Tax laws have something to do with it, too, but therein lie the secrets of an accountant's livlihood, rarely disclosed to those not included in the sanctum sanctorum. kEITHe
madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (05/25/89)
In article <5202@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) writes: |When you get out of engineering or CS school and start running into these |people called "accountants" [...] |I think |the US Tax laws have something to do with it, too, but therein lie the |secrets of an accountant's livlihood, rarely disclosed to those not included |in the sanctum sanctorum. "You can't go around shooting people just because they deserve to die. Otherwise there wouldn't be any accountants." jim frost madd@bu-it.bu.edu
kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA (Kevin Crocker) (05/25/89)
In article <5202@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM>, keithe@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) writes: > In article <8270@pyr.gatech.EDU> russ@pyr.gatech.EDU (RUSSELL SHACKELFORD) writes: > > > >I am curious about all the postings asking for info about upgrading > >old machines with new motherboards. Specifically, I wonder if I'm > >missing something... > > > > When you get out of engineering or CS school and start running into these > people called "accountants" you'll find out that, because of reasons as > obscure to us engineer/cs types as bits, bytes and TECO macros are to a > business major, it is often allowable to upgrade existing equipment while > wholesale (or even retail :-) ) replacement is prohibitive. Usually not in > $$$ paid for the improvement, but in time spent in paperwork, justification > of replacement, disposition of the original asset, etc, etc, etc. I think > the US Tax laws have something to do with it, too, but therein lie the > secrets of an accountant's livlihood, rarely disclosed to those not included > in the sanctum sanctorum. > > kEITHe Keith sort of has it right. Often the actual dollar cost of buying a new system seems lower to just get a whole new system wholesale the added costs associated with overhead, allocated costs, and especially depreciation make this hot new deal not really worth the nominal dollar savings. To do a proper analysis, from an accounting (actually more properly from a financial perspective) requires a break even analysis that incorporates the expected life of the old machine and the replacement costs of the new machine. This is a typical exercise in capital budgeting. It is rarely worth the effort to do this kind of analysis on less than an entire complement of machines (i.e. at least $100,00 min) because of the factored overhead of using the financial and computational resources to do this analysis. Just like in the world of computing where systems analysis and design is one method of determining the resources required to perform a programming schedule, capital budgeting requires a rather sophisticated decision analysis and b-tree like extrapolation of costs and probabilities. Now once all this information is collected then a computer program can chunk it out in a rather short period of time. AS a person who sits right smack in the middle of all three camps (computing, accounting, and finance) I have found that computing services, in general, does not even grasp the financial perspective -- but then of course I feel that most accountants don't either but that's another story. :-) Kevin -- Kevin "auric" Crocker Athabasca University UUCP: ...!{alberta,ncc,attvcr}!atha!kevinc Inet: kevinc@cs.AthabascaU.CA
chris@utgard.UUCP (Chris Anderson) (05/26/89)
In article <31744@bu-cs.BU.EDU> madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost) writes: >"You can't go around shooting people just because they deserve to die. >Otherwise there wouldn't be any accountants." Or any lawyers... Or any insurers... Or any politicians... :-) :-) :-) -- | Chris Anderson, | | QMA, Inc. email : {csusac,sactoh0}!utgard!chris | |----------------------------------------------------------------------| | Of *course* I speak for my employer, would he have it any other way? |