And healthcare traditionally lags other industries in picking up new trends. The trend across all industries is increasing adoption of open source software. What does that tell you about healthcare?
Bull. Shit.
Healthcare is ahead of most industries, in many regards, due to regulatory pressures.
For instance, virtualization is huge in hospitals and healthcare systems - if not for the primary services, then auxilary XenServer/VMWare based systems for clinical applications (to easily cluster + back them on real/fast storage instead of ganged local disks).
Sure, the infrastructure is running linux and other OSS; those applications, which people use for 90%+ of the day, are not OSS, however - and there are no viable alternatives.
There are very few people in a hospital who do any traditional 'desktop' tasks.
In short: go away, zealot. You're pulling nonsense out of your ass.
The thread is about people who must have proprietary software to do their work. You and other others are merely harping on about people who are using proprietary software now, regardless of any real need.
Seriously, are you actually making this argument? Here are a half dozen legal reasons why many industries can't do Open Source. For starters, nobody is willing to pay to get open source software ISC, FDA, etc. certified/approved. Good luck with that: shell out tens of thousands+ and then have someone repackage your stuff for sale, undercutting you.
Visio -> dia SharePoint -> no solution MS Office -> open office Photoshop -> gimp anything AutoDesk -> Maya? any and all proprietary CRM/ERM/etc -> Salesforce Any and all medical systems, equipment, etc. -> nobody is getting near me with a medical machine running Windows that can kill me
And yet, none of these are a solution.
AutoDesk users use Maya? Do you even know what AutoDesk is? Go be a good schoolboy and look it up. Dia does not: do gantt charts, project timelines, resource tracking, or anything like that (all very, very useful if you're trying to manage multiple projects with multiple resources.) Hell, it barely generates UML. Apparently you've never used Visio, though? How can you viably make a recommendation, then? Tool. Salesforce is not a do-all CRM. It does not cover them all. Sorry. Too much regulatory bullshit impedes it, for starters; the fact that it simply can't do (without hiring a dozen programmers) what many places need is another. (IF it were that awesome, you'd not have highly specialized industry CRM, would you? You'd just have people implementing salesforce.) Did you even read what I wrote when I said "OO does not supplant Open Office due to other programs interfacing with Office, which many people need"? No; no you did not.
Speaking of special little snowflakes, you've got a nice bubble going on there as well. Have you even tried googeling for rendering on linux?
I have. Most smaller shops don't run render farms exclusively, though - even medium size shops. It doesn't make financial sense, because most of it can be done distributed across the existing workstations (overnight, for instance). Those workstations are needed for the animators anyway.
Find me a drafting program for Linux that'll work on par with, oh, AutoCAD 2000 LE. I doubt you'll find one that's in the general price range of Windows based CAD.
You are forgetting about institutional momentum and knowledge. You can't just jump ship like that without a significant dent in the bottom line while everyone re-trains.
Frankly, your argument is silly: why don't all Windows development shops jump ship to writing software on Linux for GNOME or KDE? The argument is similar. Sure, the end result looks more or less the same, but what it took to get there is drastically, often painfully, different.
I'd argue that's the exception not the rule. I'm sure that most places (based on 1st and 2nd hand experience) use Windows machines for these things, because it's what people know. Think: anywhere with CAD software for engineering purposes, or small shops with under (oh) 10 or so 'CAD/animation' employees.
I'm sure it's used on the backend more often than the frontend, but the fact that you cater to what your animators, draftsmen, engineers, and the like know instead of telling them what to use (those programs are quite complex, and picking them up overnight to the point of proficiency is impossible) is realistic.
So no, this software is not simply/easily replaceable.
I personally use Open Source exclusively. My motivation should be obvious: the fact that everyone can't use open source software should be obvious by the fact that there are no basic replacements for widely used tools which are compatible or even comparable:
* Visio * SharePoint * MS Office * Photoshop * anything AutoDesk * any and all proprietary CRM/ERM/etc. system which is currently in use * Any and all medical systems, equipment, etc.
These things cover the bulk of common 'clerical' operations. Usually, they're used (in the case of Office) in conjunction with a specialized and proprietary CRM (such as in the legal field) for documentation/case/etc. management. There is no separation of the two.
Simply put, I base my assessments on experience. There are no viable/suitable alternatives in most cases, never mind a clear and easy one. I've BTDT, and tried to move to "all open source" for customers (largely on personal time, looking for alternatives).
At best, an 80% solution is possible, in conjunction with virtualization and centralization of certain applications - and then it's just an increase in IT management overhead due to the complexity of it all. Arguably, getting people off the "WINTEL" platform is harder now than it would've been 10 years ago due to how mature and specialized software has gotten.
A pretty damn high percentage of the 'total workforce', I'm sure. HR? Yeah, it's not like every company doesn't have an army of these workers. Healthcare? It's one of the biggest industries in the US (and growing). (Almost) everyone has a lawyer, and every county has a courthouse (complete with its own paid lawyers, judges, etc.) which need to track cases.
Retail (surely you've heard the term, 'service industry'?) is the gross bulk of the US economy at this point. Maybe some chains use "open source" as part of the systems, but the end result surely isn't shared wholesale with their competitors. (Please realize this includes food service.)
I wager I accounted for at least 50-60% of the total workforce. I'm sure
Take a look at BLS data and find me an economic segment that might actually be able to use "all open source". That's right, just the "Computer and Mathematical Science Occupations" professions, which is a relatively trivial percentage, and maybe general clerical (sometimes). Why is that, do you think? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that most Open Source software is written for those who write software - people like themselves. Those who write software are most likely to be in the sciences, not (say) transportation or business management.
What's salesforce.com have to do with anything? Why should I care, specifically, about yet another 'cloud' service?
When it comes down to it, it's cheaper for us to buy more RAM and replace parts as needed on our existing workstations than purchase the needed infrastructure and thin clients to even begin replacing our workstations.
And how long will that last? I assume by that statement (because I've seen similar environments) that you're running XP on these workstations. Sooner or later you'll have to bite the bullet and get something modern; 5-year-old+ hardware just won't cut it forever.
Then you're looking at significant costs in hardware and even more significant costs in rolling the new systems out. Who here remembers (in the 2000-2005 timeframe) all the temporary job postings for 'migrations' from pre-XP to XP? There were a LOT of them, and they were surely costly to those who ran them. VDI, on the other hand, could tenably be rolled out with the same, existing staff (assuming they're competent).
Guess what? You aren't everyone. If everyone had the same needs you do, software companies - catering to the domain needs of people, companies, conglomerates, municipalities, and governments - wouldn't exist.
Just a couple things which open source won't (doesn't) do (well/sufficiently):
* CRM, particularly for specific domains * Human accounting * healthcare * Legal/trial workings * Drafting, rendering, and animation (still one of the only domains exclusively populated by 'real' desktops running Windows) * Pretty much any and all retail establishments which want to track merchandise
As a result, we've got software which runs only on Windows. Isn't it interesting how supply and demand works?
The best way to do it, I think, would be with transparent VDI and 'true' thinclients with ROM images, or even something like LTSP on 'real' desktop hardware (and ro flash storage of some sort). User clicks an icon on their desktop and a server 5 miles away initiates a login session for the user and launches their application. You retain much of the 'real desktop' functionality while benefiting from the central server paradigm at the same time.
* Physical desktop infrastructure is short-sighted. * VDI is long-sighted.
Yes, the costs may be higher in some regards, but it shifts your focuses significantly.
Instead of having four to eight "desktop jockey administrators", you've got maybe three 'server administrators'. You've got fewer physical assets to manage, which means:
* user-experienced stability problems become apparent almost immediately * you have fewer physical assets to manage * hardware failures are treated as 'maintenance window' scenarios, or a quick plop onto someone's desk. * Software infrastructure upgrades are fast: instead of 100, 500, etc. targets to upgrade, you've got 10, 50. * Users do not experience nearly as much downtime related to upgrades, and most of the work can be done transparently during working hours.
Depending on the environment, a LOT can be said for a tightly run ship with fewer skilled administrators instead of a hodgepodge of workstations and an army of technicians. You can effectively run a tight ship with diverse application requirements this way, vs. the 'old way' where someone has a Windows XP machine on their desktop for legacy crap and a new W7 machine for their other work. You are no longer bound so much to the 'hardware upgrade cycle'.
I've noticed that California is bleeding classic "gas guzzlers" left and right right now. Buddy just picked up a '91 1 ton Suburban for $1200, not a scratch on the body and the odometer at 58k.
Where I'm at (Black Hills, SD), "outdoor/offroading" is fairly popular. Most of the Rangers I see, and half the Jeeps/80s Broncos/80s Blazers are lifted with mudders. A day with decent weather during the early spring and it's like an off-road parade through town.
The used vehicle market is pretty aggressive out here because of the economy (nobody's buying new stuff), so things are a bit picked over. Seeing poorly maintained minivans for sale with 200k+ miles @ $2k isn't uncommon, and the local dealerships gouge people similarly - so people tend to go elsewhere to pick up used stuff. (5 to 4 hours to Denver or Sioux Falls saves you 30-50%).
I feel the same way about the 3rd generation full-size vans and trucks from Ford and Chevy: they were made from '81-93' (Ford) and '73-'91 (Chevy) without any significant revisions. Body panels, suspension, engine, windows, seats, etc.: they're all (mostly) interchangeable across the model line. You can take engine parts from an F150 and put them in an E150, or G vans into C trucks (for the front end suspension and engine, at least).
Yeah, they crushed a lot of the parts to get the metal a couple years ago, but the yards are full of parts again (Cash for Mostly-Good-And-Working-Cars-But-Detroit-Needs-A-Handout).
Personally, I just picked up an '84 G30 6.2l MI diesel. I love it, and it shows no signs of quiting (or significant body rust, thank goodness). I'd been looking for a Ranger in decent condition, but I really wanted a diesel (and full-size vans aren't nearly as expensive used as a Ranger is: used light trucks have a pretty high premium on them, for some reason.:P)
I'm still keeping my eyes peeled for a Ranger. With the Vulcan engine, they're a good buy, assuming the rest is in servicable condition. It wouldn't hurt Ford to 'upgrade' the design somewhat and add a couple things to it to improve its performance. The fact that Toyota is beating Ford on price and fuel economy (while having a larger engine in their Tacoma) hurts Ford significantly, and I suspect it's not something that couldn't be remedied.
Actually, there is another company that makes something similar to a Ranger, still - Toyota Tacoma. Supposedly the Tacoma is the reason why the Ranger is falling behind; I don't know.
I'm sure it's not a bad truck, but I'd not trust it, given what I've seen from Toyotas in my short few years.
It's quite possible Ford just didn't charge enough for the Rangers, or made them too well: people don't buy them anymore because they already have one, or they're readily available on the road, still.:)
I really wish Ford had gone ahead and kept working on that inline 4 diesel they were talking about for, I think it was, the 2008 model. It was slated to go in the Ranger and the similarly bodied SUV at the time, I recall. I'd have bought one of those in a hot minute (and I don't "do" new vehicles).
That would have been a really, really sweet ride.
In its class, the only thing similar to a Ranger are those bodykit or imported (from Egypt) Jeep Trucks. Failing that you're looking at a used S10 or Ranger.
And yes, Ford trucks are just damn well made. They're durable and feel sturdy compared to the 'same weight rating' model from Chevy; their engines are historically better than Dodges.
Uh have you looked at the newer Mustangs? With a 5 liter v8, they get 25+mpg highway. That's pretty acceptable, particularly what the vehicle outputs and the handling. This is not a 1980s Mustang.
Honestly, if you think the Focus and the Mustang are crap, i'm wondering what you're looking for, exactly. A Rabbit or Geo type thing with a 3-gear slushbox? Good for you, I suppose.
Personally, I like my boat, and I'm suitably happy with the golf cart Focus.
I can't speak for the later year model Focus, but the 2000 has a fairly responsive wheel, and I'd not say the suspension is "soft". It's not a sport's car, but it's not a Cadillac, either. It's a reasonably comfortable car for tootling around town, if you're small enough.
Actually, I was thinking of Japanese made cars in the 5-15 year-old range (Toyota, Subaru).
My '84 Chevy truck with 180k is going strong, as is our 2000 Ford Focus, with 142k on the meter. The key thing here is maintenance: most people don't do it, or if they do it, do it wrong or too infrequently for it to help.
* the engine and/or transmission leaks oil badly * a cylinder loses compression and it'd cost more to rebuild the engine
Those are 'engine only' but you can bet that frequent start/stops will wear these components out more quickly, as well as the electrical system (plugs, distributor, solenoid, etc.) and fuel injection system (injectors, due to have fuel sitting 'in' them more frequently, fuel pump, etc.). For most people, these are expensive problems, but as a general rule it's a pain in the ass to replace any of them. By the time a vehicle reaches 5-7 years old, it's something worth selling the vehicle for and 'upgrading' instead of dealing with, for many/most people (who aren't mechanically inclined).
Look at used, for-sale-by-owner vehicles. Many are in that 4-8 year range, first or second owner, with the original battery and engine problems under 120k.
I inferred from his statement that standard car batteries wouldn't recharge quickly enough to provide capacity for frequent restarts. That would make sense; designing that much capacity into standard batteries would be a waste.
I drive a diesel with two 1200mah batteries. I've got a voltmeter on the dash. On a cold start (glow plugs switched on for 12-13 seconds) I lose about 1-2 volts of potential energy/significant mAh. Doing that, repeatedly, in cold weather, sounds horrendous. Those batteries would die from over-cycling quite quickly.
If you could mitigate the cold weather effect, lithium based batteries might do it. But, just the same, I'd personally not risk it.
Shutting off the engine for a moment will not send the system back to the less efficient open loop.
Where do you live? It gets down to -20F where I am during the winter - frequently.
This system sounds like hell if it's cold, and/or if your battery is low. Get a jump, start the car... and it turns itself off again. Soo, you've got to drive around to keep it going to make the engine actually run. All the while, the cold weather wear and tear on an engine that hasn't warmed up takes its toll - particularly at highway speeds.
Also, cold engine performance (in terms of power output and fuel economy) is significantly worse. Unless they put temperature regulators in there to make it not shut off if it's under a certain temperature (a sensible decision), you're going to see people a) not buying the vehicle, or b) buying it and disabling the 'feature'.
I would think they'd have to invent/discover better cold-weather fluids for something like this to work effectively. However, that's likely to decrease the life of the vehicle in warm weather driving...
Ford has greatly improved their vehicles since, oh, 2002 or so. They were known for some shoddy workmanship for roughly a decade (starting around 1993), but their QC has improved significantly, as has their quality engineering.
GM, on the other hand, still sucks.
(PS. I own a 26-year-old Chevy van and a 2000 Ford Focus. I like my Chevy better, but that's largely personal preference. The Focus, with 160k on it, has had regular maintenance (fluids + filters), brakes done - and a pair of shocks (on the front). Still getting about 26mpg, with no fluid leaks or other issues (aside from the body damage resulting from 4 not-at-fault collisions - which is good, because the insurance on that is killing me.)
You know, the same company which basically started the whole "unlocking hardware" phenomenon in the commodity hardware realm? IIRC this started with the Thoroughbred Athlons - quite accidentally. Now it's usually possible to 'unlock' them in the BIOS, if that's your cup of tea.
Video cards have been 'upgradable' by changing the clock speed, in the past - the 'defaults' were just lower for the cheap card. This is really nothing much new.
Though, considering that higher end cards/chips are the bread/butter of companies like this, you may be right.
Multifuel vehicles run on gasoline, ethanol, methanol, and other fuels. Brazil has them. They don't cost much more than our vehicles (I think the difference is about $35).
The problem here is that by going 'multifuel' you lose a significant amount of efficiency on any one of the fuels. There may be a way around it, but I don't think it would be 'automatic'. You'd have to twist a knob or switch a lever to say "I've got dead hippies in my tank" or "I've got carrot oil in my tank".
Slashdot Mirror
And healthcare traditionally lags other industries in picking up new trends. The trend across all industries is increasing adoption of open source software. What does that tell you about healthcare?
Bull. Shit.
Healthcare is ahead of most industries, in many regards, due to regulatory pressures.
For instance, virtualization is huge in hospitals and healthcare systems - if not for the primary services, then auxilary XenServer/VMWare based systems for clinical applications (to easily cluster + back them on real/fast storage instead of ganged local disks).
Sure, the infrastructure is running linux and other OSS; those applications, which people use for 90%+ of the day, are not OSS, however - and there are no viable alternatives.
There are very few people in a hospital who do any traditional 'desktop' tasks.
In short: go away, zealot. You're pulling nonsense out of your ass.
The thread is about people who must have proprietary software to do their work. You and other others are merely harping on about people who are using proprietary software now, regardless of any real need.
Seriously, are you actually making this argument? Here are a half dozen legal reasons why many industries can't do Open Source. For starters, nobody is willing to pay to get open source software ISC, FDA, etc. certified/approved. Good luck with that: shell out tens of thousands+ and then have someone repackage your stuff for sale, undercutting you.
Visio -> dia
SharePoint -> no solution
MS Office -> open office
Photoshop -> gimp
anything AutoDesk -> Maya?
any and all proprietary CRM/ERM/etc -> Salesforce
Any and all medical systems, equipment, etc. -> nobody is getting near me with a medical machine running Windows that can kill me
And yet, none of these are a solution.
AutoDesk users use Maya? Do you even know what AutoDesk is? Go be a good schoolboy and look it up.
Dia does not: do gantt charts, project timelines, resource tracking, or anything like that (all very, very useful if you're trying to manage multiple projects with multiple resources.) Hell, it barely generates UML. Apparently you've never used Visio, though? How can you viably make a recommendation, then? Tool.
Salesforce is not a do-all CRM. It does not cover them all. Sorry. Too much regulatory bullshit impedes it, for starters; the fact that it simply can't do (without hiring a dozen programmers) what many places need is another. (IF it were that awesome, you'd not have highly specialized industry CRM, would you? You'd just have people implementing salesforce.)
Did you even read what I wrote when I said "OO does not supplant Open Office due to other programs interfacing with Office, which many people need"? No; no you did not.
You're an idiot.
Blender is an AutoDesk Land Surveyor 3D drop-in substitute? Or Maya? Or...
Speaking of special little snowflakes, you've got a nice bubble going on there as well. Have you even tried googeling for rendering on linux?
I have. Most smaller shops don't run render farms exclusively, though - even medium size shops. It doesn't make financial sense, because most of it can be done distributed across the existing workstations (overnight, for instance). Those workstations are needed for the animators anyway.
Find me a drafting program for Linux that'll work on par with, oh, AutoCAD 2000 LE. I doubt you'll find one that's in the general price range of Windows based CAD.
You are forgetting about institutional momentum and knowledge. You can't just jump ship like that without a significant dent in the bottom line while everyone re-trains.
Frankly, your argument is silly: why don't all Windows development shops jump ship to writing software on Linux for GNOME or KDE? The argument is similar. Sure, the end result looks more or less the same, but what it took to get there is drastically, often painfully, different.
I'd argue that's the exception not the rule. I'm sure that most places (based on 1st and 2nd hand experience) use Windows machines for these things, because it's what people know. Think: anywhere with CAD software for engineering purposes, or small shops with under (oh) 10 or so 'CAD/animation' employees.
I'm sure it's used on the backend more often than the frontend, but the fact that you cater to what your animators, draftsmen, engineers, and the like know instead of telling them what to use (those programs are quite complex, and picking them up overnight to the point of proficiency is impossible) is realistic.
So no, this software is not simply/easily replaceable.
I personally use Open Source exclusively. My motivation should be obvious: the fact that everyone can't use open source software should be obvious by the fact that there are no basic replacements for widely used tools which are compatible or even comparable:
* Visio
* SharePoint
* MS Office
* Photoshop
* anything AutoDesk
* any and all proprietary CRM/ERM/etc. system which is currently in use
* Any and all medical systems, equipment, etc.
These things cover the bulk of common 'clerical' operations. Usually, they're used (in the case of Office) in conjunction with a specialized and proprietary CRM (such as in the legal field) for documentation/case/etc. management. There is no separation of the two.
Simply put, I base my assessments on experience. There are no viable/suitable alternatives in most cases, never mind a clear and easy one. I've BTDT, and tried to move to "all open source" for customers (largely on personal time, looking for alternatives).
At best, an 80% solution is possible, in conjunction with virtualization and centralization of certain applications - and then it's just an increase in IT management overhead due to the complexity of it all. Arguably, getting people off the "WINTEL" platform is harder now than it would've been 10 years ago due to how mature and specialized software has gotten.
A pretty damn high percentage of the 'total workforce', I'm sure. HR? Yeah, it's not like every company doesn't have an army of these workers. Healthcare? It's one of the biggest industries in the US (and growing). (Almost) everyone has a lawyer, and every county has a courthouse (complete with its own paid lawyers, judges, etc.) which need to track cases.
Retail (surely you've heard the term, 'service industry'?) is the gross bulk of the US economy at this point. Maybe some chains use "open source" as part of the systems, but the end result surely isn't shared wholesale with their competitors. (Please realize this includes food service.)
I wager I accounted for at least 50-60% of the total workforce. I'm sure
Take a look at BLS data and find me an economic segment that might actually be able to use "all open source". That's right, just the "Computer and Mathematical Science Occupations" professions, which is a relatively trivial percentage, and maybe general clerical (sometimes). Why is that, do you think? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that most Open Source software is written for those who write software - people like themselves. Those who write software are most likely to be in the sciences, not (say) transportation or business management.
What's salesforce.com have to do with anything? Why should I care, specifically, about yet another 'cloud' service?
When it comes down to it, it's cheaper for us to buy more RAM and replace parts as needed on our existing workstations than purchase the needed infrastructure and thin clients to even begin replacing our workstations.
And how long will that last? I assume by that statement (because I've seen similar environments) that you're running XP on these workstations. Sooner or later you'll have to bite the bullet and get something modern; 5-year-old+ hardware just won't cut it forever.
Then you're looking at significant costs in hardware and even more significant costs in rolling the new systems out. Who here remembers (in the 2000-2005 timeframe) all the temporary job postings for 'migrations' from pre-XP to XP? There were a LOT of them, and they were surely costly to those who ran them. VDI, on the other hand, could tenably be rolled out with the same, existing staff (assuming they're competent).
Well aren't you a special little snowflake.
Guess what? You aren't everyone. If everyone had the same needs you do, software companies - catering to the domain needs of people, companies, conglomerates, municipalities, and governments - wouldn't exist.
Just a couple things which open source won't (doesn't) do (well/sufficiently):
* CRM, particularly for specific domains
* Human accounting
* healthcare
* Legal/trial workings
* Drafting, rendering, and animation (still one of the only domains exclusively populated by 'real' desktops running Windows)
* Pretty much any and all retail establishments which want to track merchandise
As a result, we've got software which runs only on Windows. Isn't it interesting how supply and demand works?
The best way to do it, I think, would be with transparent VDI and 'true' thinclients with ROM images, or even something like LTSP on 'real' desktop hardware (and ro flash storage of some sort). User clicks an icon on their desktop and a server 5 miles away initiates a login session for the user and launches their application. You retain much of the 'real desktop' functionality while benefiting from the central server paradigm at the same time.
Here's the big difference,though:
* Physical desktop infrastructure is short-sighted.
* VDI is long-sighted.
Yes, the costs may be higher in some regards, but it shifts your focuses significantly.
Instead of having four to eight "desktop jockey administrators", you've got maybe three 'server administrators'. You've got fewer physical assets to manage, which means:
* user-experienced stability problems become apparent almost immediately
* you have fewer physical assets to manage
* hardware failures are treated as 'maintenance window' scenarios, or a quick plop onto someone's desk.
* Software infrastructure upgrades are fast: instead of 100, 500, etc. targets to upgrade, you've got 10, 50.
* Users do not experience nearly as much downtime related to upgrades, and most of the work can be done transparently during working hours.
Depending on the environment, a LOT can be said for a tightly run ship with fewer skilled administrators instead of a hodgepodge of workstations and an army of technicians. You can effectively run a tight ship with diverse application requirements this way, vs. the 'old way' where someone has a Windows XP machine on their desktop for legacy crap and a new W7 machine for their other work. You are no longer bound so much to the 'hardware upgrade cycle'.
I've noticed that California is bleeding classic "gas guzzlers" left and right right now. Buddy just picked up a '91 1 ton Suburban for $1200, not a scratch on the body and the odometer at 58k.
Where I'm at (Black Hills, SD), "outdoor/offroading" is fairly popular. Most of the Rangers I see, and half the Jeeps/80s Broncos/80s Blazers are lifted with mudders. A day with decent weather during the early spring and it's like an off-road parade through town.
The used vehicle market is pretty aggressive out here because of the economy (nobody's buying new stuff), so things are a bit picked over. Seeing poorly maintained minivans for sale with 200k+ miles @ $2k isn't uncommon, and the local dealerships gouge people similarly - so people tend to go elsewhere to pick up used stuff. (5 to 4 hours to Denver or Sioux Falls saves you 30-50%).
I feel the same way about the 3rd generation full-size vans and trucks from Ford and Chevy: they were made from '81-93' (Ford) and '73-'91 (Chevy) without any significant revisions. Body panels, suspension, engine, windows, seats, etc.: they're all (mostly) interchangeable across the model line. You can take engine parts from an F150 and put them in an E150, or G vans into C trucks (for the front end suspension and engine, at least).
Yeah, they crushed a lot of the parts to get the metal a couple years ago, but the yards are full of parts again (Cash for Mostly-Good-And-Working-Cars-But-Detroit-Needs-A-Handout).
Personally, I just picked up an '84 G30 6.2l MI diesel. I love it, and it shows no signs of quiting (or significant body rust, thank goodness). I'd been looking for a Ranger in decent condition, but I really wanted a diesel (and full-size vans aren't nearly as expensive used as a Ranger is: used light trucks have a pretty high premium on them, for some reason. :P)
I'm still keeping my eyes peeled for a Ranger. With the Vulcan engine, they're a good buy, assuming the rest is in servicable condition. It wouldn't hurt Ford to 'upgrade' the design somewhat and add a couple things to it to improve its performance. The fact that Toyota is beating Ford on price and fuel economy (while having a larger engine in their Tacoma) hurts Ford significantly, and I suspect it's not something that couldn't be remedied.
Actually, there is another company that makes something similar to a Ranger, still - Toyota Tacoma. Supposedly the Tacoma is the reason why the Ranger is falling behind; I don't know.
I'm sure it's not a bad truck, but I'd not trust it, given what I've seen from Toyotas in my short few years.
It's quite possible Ford just didn't charge enough for the Rangers, or made them too well: people don't buy them anymore because they already have one, or they're readily available on the road, still. :)
I really wish Ford had gone ahead and kept working on that inline 4 diesel they were talking about for, I think it was, the 2008 model. It was slated to go in the Ranger and the similarly bodied SUV at the time, I recall. I'd have bought one of those in a hot minute (and I don't "do" new vehicles).
That would have been a really, really sweet ride.
In its class, the only thing similar to a Ranger are those bodykit or imported (from Egypt) Jeep Trucks. Failing that you're looking at a used S10 or Ranger.
And yes, Ford trucks are just damn well made. They're durable and feel sturdy compared to the 'same weight rating' model from Chevy; their engines are historically better than Dodges.
Uh have you looked at the newer Mustangs? With a 5 liter v8, they get 25+mpg highway. That's pretty acceptable, particularly what the vehicle outputs and the handling. This is not a 1980s Mustang.
Honestly, if you think the Focus and the Mustang are crap, i'm wondering what you're looking for, exactly. A Rabbit or Geo type thing with a 3-gear slushbox? Good for you, I suppose.
Personally, I like my boat, and I'm suitably happy with the golf cart Focus.
I can't speak for the later year model Focus, but the 2000 has a fairly responsive wheel, and I'd not say the suspension is "soft". It's not a sport's car, but it's not a Cadillac, either. It's a reasonably comfortable car for tootling around town, if you're small enough.
Actually, I was thinking of Japanese made cars in the 5-15 year-old range (Toyota, Subaru).
My '84 Chevy truck with 180k is going strong, as is our 2000 Ford Focus, with 142k on the meter. The key thing here is maintenance: most people don't do it, or if they do it, do it wrong or too infrequently for it to help.
It (used to) happen quite often:
* the engine and/or transmission leaks oil badly
* a cylinder loses compression and it'd cost more to rebuild the engine
Those are 'engine only' but you can bet that frequent start/stops will wear these components out more quickly, as well as the electrical system (plugs, distributor, solenoid, etc.) and fuel injection system (injectors, due to have fuel sitting 'in' them more frequently, fuel pump, etc.). For most people, these are expensive problems, but as a general rule it's a pain in the ass to replace any of them. By the time a vehicle reaches 5-7 years old, it's something worth selling the vehicle for and 'upgrading' instead of dealing with, for many/most people (who aren't mechanically inclined).
Look at used, for-sale-by-owner vehicles. Many are in that 4-8 year range, first or second owner, with the original battery and engine problems under 120k.
I inferred from his statement that standard car batteries wouldn't recharge quickly enough to provide capacity for frequent restarts. That would make sense; designing that much capacity into standard batteries would be a waste.
I drive a diesel with two 1200mah batteries. I've got a voltmeter on the dash. On a cold start (glow plugs switched on for 12-13 seconds) I lose about 1-2 volts of potential energy/significant mAh. Doing that, repeatedly, in cold weather, sounds horrendous. Those batteries would die from over-cycling quite quickly.
If you could mitigate the cold weather effect, lithium based batteries might do it. But, just the same, I'd personally not risk it.
Shutting off the engine for a moment will not send the system back to the less efficient open loop.
Where do you live? It gets down to -20F where I am during the winter - frequently.
This system sounds like hell if it's cold, and/or if your battery is low. Get a jump, start the car... and it turns itself off again. Soo, you've got to drive around to keep it going to make the engine actually run. All the while, the cold weather wear and tear on an engine that hasn't warmed up takes its toll - particularly at highway speeds.
Also, cold engine performance (in terms of power output and fuel economy) is significantly worse. Unless they put temperature regulators in there to make it not shut off if it's under a certain temperature (a sensible decision), you're going to see people a) not buying the vehicle, or b) buying it and disabling the 'feature'.
I would think they'd have to invent/discover better cold-weather fluids for something like this to work effectively. However, that's likely to decrease the life of the vehicle in warm weather driving...
Seriously, you kid, right?
A vehicle engine can't run on a single cylinder.
No, seriously, buy a Ford.
(I wasn't the parent poster.)
Ford has greatly improved their vehicles since, oh, 2002 or so. They were known for some shoddy workmanship for roughly a decade (starting around 1993), but their QC has improved significantly, as has their quality engineering.
GM, on the other hand, still sucks.
(PS. I own a 26-year-old Chevy van and a 2000 Ford Focus. I like my Chevy better, but that's largely personal preference. The Focus, with 160k on it, has had regular maintenance (fluids + filters), brakes done - and a pair of shocks (on the front). Still getting about 26mpg, with no fluid leaks or other issues (aside from the body damage resulting from 4 not-at-fault collisions - which is good, because the insurance on that is killing me.)
This is AMD we're talking about, here.
You know, the same company which basically started the whole "unlocking hardware" phenomenon in the commodity hardware realm? IIRC this started with the Thoroughbred Athlons - quite accidentally. Now it's usually possible to 'unlock' them in the BIOS, if that's your cup of tea.
Video cards have been 'upgradable' by changing the clock speed, in the past - the 'defaults' were just lower for the cheap card. This is really nothing much new.
Though, considering that higher end cards/chips are the bread/butter of companies like this, you may be right.
Multifuel vehicles run on gasoline, ethanol, methanol, and other fuels. Brazil has them. They don't cost much more than our vehicles (I think the difference is about $35).
The problem here is that by going 'multifuel' you lose a significant amount of efficiency on any one of the fuels. There may be a way around it, but I don't think it would be 'automatic'. You'd have to twist a knob or switch a lever to say "I've got dead hippies in my tank" or "I've got carrot oil in my tank".