Maker Pro
Maker Pro

DTV antennas?

J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
JosephKK said:
Jim said:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:22:32 -0700, Joerg

Martin Brown wrote:
[snip]
The cheapest generic UK Freeview set top digital box is now just £9.99
or roughly $20 and for $30 you could even get a recognisable brand
name unit. See for example:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/qid=12161...ge=1&rh=n:560798,n:560858,n:560880&sort=price

Keep in mind that we have true HDTV, meaming more than 1000 lines. That
requires some serious image rendering horsepower.


[snip]

Joerg, Why do you keep whining over HDTV? I thought you
_didn't_watch_ TV ;-)
I am just explaining it for all the others who do watch :)

However, we do watch the evening news and the occasional old movie. Plus
"Dancing with the Stars" and some PBS and there HDTV pictures are truly
stunning. Regular DTV is a bit disappointing. Not only because of the
shaky modulation scheme but also because the dynamic range seems to be
very few bits. Faces of people look like they have stockings pulled over
them or maybe they fell face-first into the masquera pot.

You are basically looking at the very visible difference between 8-bit
digitization and 10-bit digitization.

Including chroma info I guess. Luminance certainly looks like a lot less
than 8-bit rendering. They might digitize more but then it's chop chop
time before it goes on the air.

Bottomline if I stay away from the TV a bit and watch without glasses
it's ok. If I sit closer and have glasses on it's horrible.
 
M

mpm

Jan 1, 1970
0
Incidentally, I've been told that about 90% of tech support questions
are answered in the documentation or web pages. �That implies the90%
of the customer base has some form of written or on-screen learning or
communications problems.

Or, that 90% of websites are so horribly designed, that user's must
resort to calling in for help!

-mpm
 
M

Martin Brown

Jan 1, 1970
0
JosephKK said:
Jim said:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:22:32 -0700, Joerg

Martin Brown wrote:
[snip]
The cheapest generic UK Freeview set top digital box is now just £9..99
or roughly $20 and for $30 you could even get a recognisable brand
name unit. See for example:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/qid=12161...ge=1&rh=n:560798,n:560858,n:560880&sort=price

Keep in mind that we have true HDTV, meaming more than 1000 lines. That requires some serious image rendering horsepower.
[snip]

Joerg, Why do you keep whining over HDTV? I thought you
_didn't_watch_ TV ;-)
I am just explaining it for all the others who do watch :)

However, we do watch the evening news and the occasional old movie. Plus"Dancing with the Stars" and some >>PBS and there HDTV pictures are truly stunning. Regular DTV is a bit disappointing. Not only because of the >>shaky modulation scheme but also because the dynamic range seems to be very few bits. Faces of people look >>like they have stockings pulled over them ormaybe they fell face-first into the masquera pot.

Does ATSC preserve the old authentic US newscaster flesh tones that
drift between ghostly green and pale purple so characteristic of NTSC
or are they all clamped to pale orange these days?

One DTV decoder I have sometimes loses flesh tones to grey under
conditions of marginal reception in heavy rain. The rest of the
picture is unaffected. After that it starts dropping blocks and adding
more clicks to the audio stream (the latter being the most common
failure).
You are basically looking at the very visible difference between 8-bit
digitization and 10-bit digitization.

More likely it is harsher quantisation used on the JPEG coefficient
stream. An 8-bit RGB image is beyond most domestic LCD displays
capabilities under normal room lighting. If you freeze frame then you
will see the static artefacts of the image clearly, but averaged over
persistence of vision they should be unobtrusive on most material.

The one thing where you can see a lot of cheap consumer MPEG playing
engines fail are very dynamic sports with fast moving high contrast
patterns like water skiing for instance. The white spray plume against
smooth dark water will break some codecs and they generate a visible
mess. Take a look at a bank of sets in a showroom and you will see
what I mean.

It isn't for nothing that a lot of the broadcast demos use slow pan
high resolution close ups to show off the sets at their very best.

Regards,
Martin Brown
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Martin said:
JosephKK said:
Jim Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:22:32 -0700, Joerg

Martin Brown wrote:
[snip]
The cheapest generic UK Freeview set top digital box is now just £9.99
or roughly $20 and for $30 you could even get a recognisable brand
name unit. See for example:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/qid=12161...ge=1&rh=n:560798,n:560858,n:560880&sort=price

Keep in mind that we have true HDTV, meaming more than 1000 lines. That requires some serious image rendering horsepower.
[snip]

Joerg, Why do you keep whining over HDTV? I thought you
_didn't_watch_ TV ;-)

I am just explaining it for all the others who do watch :)

However, we do watch the evening news and the occasional old movie. Plus "Dancing with the Stars" and some >>PBS and there HDTV pictures are truly stunning. Regular DTV is a bit disappointing. Not only because of the >>shaky modulation scheme but also because the dynamic range seems to be very few bits. Faces of people look >>like they have stockings pulled over them or maybe they fell face-first into the masquera pot.

Does ATSC preserve the old authentic US newscaster flesh tones that
drift between ghostly green and pale purple so characteristic of NTSC
or are they all clamped to pale orange these days?

Nope. Now they are all "tan out of a can" brown. Whether white, partly
African American, Asian, now their skin all looks the same.

One DTV decoder I have sometimes loses flesh tones to grey under
conditions of marginal reception in heavy rain. The rest of the
picture is unaffected. After that it starts dropping blocks and adding
more clicks to the audio stream (the latter being the most common
failure).

More likely it is harsher quantisation used on the JPEG coefficient
stream. An 8-bit RGB image is beyond most domestic LCD displays
capabilities under normal room lighting. If you freeze frame then you
will see the static artefacts of the image clearly, but averaged over
persistence of vision they should be unobtrusive on most material.

The one thing where you can see a lot of cheap consumer MPEG playing
engines fail are very dynamic sports with fast moving high contrast
patterns like water skiing for instance. The white spray plume against
smooth dark water will break some codecs and they generate a visible
mess. Take a look at a bank of sets in a showroom and you will see
what I mean.

It isn't for nothing that a lot of the broadcast demos use slow pan
high resolution close ups to show off the sets at their very best.

That's one area where ATSC works quite well. Except with earlier sets
who couldn't handle the rendering volumes. With stuff like this it does
not pay to be an early adopter.
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
Including chroma info I guess. Luminance certainly looks like a lot less
than 8-bit rendering. They might digitize more but then it's chop chop
time before it goes on the air.


Well.... I suggest you look up mpeg2 encoding,
I can assure you that even 720x576 normal DTV here at a bitrate (and that
is important) of 4kbp/s can yield fantastic colors and quality.
Maybe you have a DVD player, at 10Mb/s you have good DVD quality,
Of course the ability to measure bitrate is in my soft, but it
can be important,
In the UK some stations (seen it on Sky channels) actually transmit
as 352x288, so 1/4 resolution, the receiver stretches it back to normal,
that means 1/4 the bitrate, so they can sell 4 channels in the same bandwidth,
Without a PC DTV card and the right soft it is hard to tell what they are doing
to you.
But I can assure you that 8 or bits is no issue at such low bitrates.


Bottomline if I stay away from the TV a bit and watch without glasses
it's ok. If I sit closer and have glasses on it's horrible.

Either your hardware is junk, or the TV stations severely limit bitrate,
or both.
DTV can be real good.
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
One of my techs had a slogan and excuse: "The bigger the mess, the
better it works". I've often suspected he was right.

"An empty desk is a sign of a disturbed mind." ;-)

Cheers!
Rich
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
I can assure you that even 720x576 normal DTV here at a bitrate (and that
is important) of 4kbp/s can yield fantastic colors and quality.

Correction: 4000kbp/s
Here is a screen shot reording the commerial staton VOX, at 4000kbps+
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/recording_vox.png
while the government owned ARD uses 7000kbps+ (almost DVD quality).
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/recording_ard.png

Recording _remotely_, note the little 'kbps total' field right side halfway from the top.


So YMMV especially on commercial stations,
And do not expect them to buy new film scanners or VTR,
they perhaps even play from old betamax or VHS even :)

So many things blamed on DTV may have a very different cause.
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan said:
Correction: 4000kbp/s
Here is a screen shot reording the commerial staton VOX, at 4000kbps+
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/recording_vox.png
while the government owned ARD uses 7000kbps+ (almost DVD quality).
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/recording_ard.png

Can you post a real screen shot, maybe with a newscaster on there? NOS
Journaal or something?

Recording _remotely_, note the little 'kbps total' field right side halfway from the top.


So YMMV especially on commercial stations,
And do not expect them to buy new film scanners or VTR,
they perhaps even play from old betamax or VHS even :)

So many things blamed on DTV may have a very different cause.


Sure. Nature movies and documentaries are broadcast in stunning 1080
line quality out here. It's regular low-res (480) and mid-res (720)
where they seem to skimp on dynamic range. Some stations carry up to
five digital channels in one and according to Shannon there is no free
lunch.
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
JosephKK said:
JosephKK said:
Can you
provide the synopsis, or must all others dig it up in places like the
comp.risk archives.
I read the report hosted here some years ago:
http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/lib/Therac_25/Therac_1.html . It's rather
long, but definitely worth the read. In brief:

-- The THERAC-25 was a radiation machine used for treating cancerous tumors;
it was designed by AECL and deployed during the late 1970s and 1980s
-- It was based off of earlier successful models, but had much more of the
safety control and interlocks implemented in software rather than hardware
(motivated by cost reductions and -- at least at some level -- a belief that
the software approach could improve safety).
-- Due to software bugs, the THERAC-25 provided fatal doses or radiation to
six individuals; some of them having rather painful deaths.
-- The THERAC-25 software was known for exhibiting slightly flaky and
non-intuitive behavior (error codes were usually give as numbers, but
originally the operators' manual didn't list what the various numbers meant),
so many operators didn't take "weird" misbehavior as seriously as they should
have initially; this arguably led to delays in AECL being contacted about
problems.
-- The direct cause of the deaths was due to software not always detecting
overdose levels and shutting off the radiation generator quicky enough, as
well as sometimes only indicating a "minor" problem (recovered from by
pressing a single key) when overdoses were detected.
-- The case of the machine inadvertently attempting to overdose in the first
place was due to bugs allowing the *displayed* dose parameters to potentially
be different than the *programmed* dose paramters: There was an 8 second
"window" while the control software was performing other tasks based on a mode
change wherein, if all the control parameters were changed on-screen and
"sent" the software wouldn't actually notice this fact and would keep using
whatever old parameters had previously been set... including dosage parameters
that were allowable when used in different modes with different
attenuators/scanning/etc., but deadly in the new mode.
-- AECL did extensive testing but initially was unable to reproduce the deadly
behavior that occurred in hospital settings; this was largely due to the
different usage patterns by test engineers at AECL vs. technicians at
hospitals (who, as regular/expert users, would enter data very quickly and
fall prey to the "8 second window" trap). As such, early on AECL firmly
denied that their machine could have been at fault for causing the deaths,
stating that "It [is] not possible for the THERAC-25 to overdose a patient."
Eventually one machine operator was able to cause the THERAC-25 to malfunction
repeadtedly at will, which caused AECL to change their tune.
-- Over time up until 1987, AECL made numerous software and hardware changes
(including adding hardware interlocks) to improve reliability and greatly
reduce the likelihood of it being a hazard to humans.

The report linked above points out that summaries like the one I just wrote
often suggest that the causes were more freestanding and simplistic than they
really were -- hence the suggestion to read the entire article. (One of the
things I identify with here is how you need to test with Real Users and not
just your internal techs/engineers -- Real Users are often far better at
exposing bugs, both initially when they "don't know what they're doing" and
try to do "non-sensical" things to your software, as well as later once they
become "expert users" and run through the software much more
quickly/cavalierly than internal testers usually do.)

---Joel

I recently reviewed some software development and test specifications
that required that the test of the software developed, required
putting the system to the test with both normal users and developers
and interested third parties users trying to "bust" the system in any
way. I gave many suggestions on how to improve the process.

Even though I was da boss I had a reputation of busting almost any
software driven process so they used me as a buster. If I couldn't bust
it anymore the machine was considered to be almost mil-spec :)

Busting includes pulling the power plug and plugging it in shortly
thereafter. On poorly designed system that always seems to be able to
fry things up pretty good.
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
Can you post a real screen shot, maybe with a newscaster on there? NOS
Journaal or something?

Shure, but I am reording a move right now, later tonight, in the mean time:
you did see the HD shot from BBC HD IIRC:
BBC HD demo screenshot (1920x1080 interlaced, without de-interlace):
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/bbc_hd.gif

720x576 testcard:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard.png
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
720x576 testcard:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard.png

Actually 720x576 is this one, the other one was scaled down....:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard-2.png
 
M

mpm

Jan 1, 1970
0
� �US broadcast TV has used U-matic and 1" R-R for decades. Low power
and non profit stations tried Beta & VHS a long time ago, but had to
abandon it because they were impossible to maintain the proper time base
correction to meet the FCC standards. If we got something on VHS we ran
it through our Squeeze Zoom DVE and let it rebuild each field, but that
tied up $250,000 worth of equipment.

� �Local access channels on CATV systems were using Bata & VHS, because
they don't have to meet the same standards. It was amazing just how bad
the tapes could be. Shot under bad lighting, the camera not white
balanced, and the camera operator couldn't hold still.

--http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account:http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike -

Not sure if you're aware of it, but there a HUGE market for Umatic to
HD conversion.
There's so much footage on UMatic, and so few players (and no parts,
current production, etc...) that it is literally a race against time
to convert all this material. Even under perfect storage conditions,
UMatic tapes will deterioate.

To my knowledge ONLY ONE company has built a machine to automatically
dupe these tapes.
Their name escapes me at the moment (met them in New York last year),
but I know they have the contract to conver the Library of Congress'
archive. Seems like the perfect niche market...?

-Michael
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan said:
Shure, but I am reording a move right now, later tonight, in the mean time:
you did see the HD shot from BBC HD IIRC:
BBC HD demo screenshot (1920x1080 interlaced, without de-interlace):
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/bbc_hd.gif

Nice. It does have more vertical frazzles than 1080 here. But I am not
sure how much of that is due to my displaying it on a CRT here. Although
it's a hi-res Trinitron.
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Michael said:
US broadcast TV has used U-matic and 1" R-R for decades. Low power
and non profit stations tried Beta & VHS a long time ago, but had to
abandon it because they were impossible to maintain the proper time base
correction to meet the FCC standards. If we got something on VHS we ran
it through our Squeeze Zoom DVE and let it rebuild each field, but that
tied up $250,000 worth of equipment.

Local access channels on CATV systems were using Bata & VHS, because
they don't have to meet the same standards. It was amazing just how bad
the tapes could be. Shot under bad lighting, the camera not white
balanced, and the camera operator couldn't hold still.

Southern Comfort helps with the holding still :)
 
J

Jan Panteltje

Jan 1, 1970
0
OK Joerg, here are some snapshots I just took,
the rai-uno shows all those brown grades that you complain about,
The rai-tre just makes for an example of their studio stuff.
And the Russia-today is actually live studio I think, but they got the aspect wrong,
For other stations I would have to wait for the news, a bit late here.
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/snapshots/
But this shows there is nothing wrong with colors in mpeg2 digital, in fact
mpeg2 digtal colors are _not_ affected by tranmission problems, only
by wrong enoders (very unlikely) or decoders.
Also after traveling 40000 km x 2 to / from space, no noise, no errors, not
even counting the land based connection to the sat station, and it is
raining here too.
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jan said:
OK Joerg, here are some snapshots I just took,
the rai-uno shows all those brown grades that you complain about,


That's exactly it. Except that we don't have those jagged vertical edges.

The rai-tre just makes for an example of their studio stuff.


Wow, that's quite low res. More like in one of our sub-channels that run
permanent weather forecasts.

And the Russia-today is actually live studio I think, but they got the aspect wrong,


What happened to her hand?

For other stations I would have to wait for the news, a bit late here.
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/snapshots/
But this shows there is nothing wrong with colors in mpeg2 digital, in fact
mpeg2 digtal colors are _not_ affected by tranmission problems, only
by wrong enoders (very unlikely) or decoders.
Also after traveling 40000 km x 2 to / from space, no noise, no errors, not
even counting the land based connection to the sat station, and it is
raining here too.


My first impression after having visited Europe in March is that the
image quality of ATSC is a tad better. The RF path robustness isn't.
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jeff said:
Nope. Companies that have atrocious products, usually have excellent
support and support web sites. That's because they use support to
compensate for product and documentation deficiencies. It's often
cheaper to answer the same dumb question 5,000 times, than to fix the
product.

Similarly, companies that have superior products don't need an
elaborate support structure. An amazing number of products literally
work out of the box and without any complications. In other words, if
the product were any good, we wouldn't need support, and I might be
out of some work. I would prefer having the manufactory spend their
time and effort on better products, not on better support.

There are companies with excellent product and great web sites. ON Semi,
for example. Which gets rewarded with lots of design-ins, at least from
my side.

[...]
 
J

JosephKK

Jan 1, 1970
0
JosephKK said:
Jim Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:22:32 -0700, Joerg

Martin Brown wrote:
[snip]
The cheapest generic UK Freeview set top digital box is now just £9.99
or roughly $20 and for $30 you could even get a recognisable brand
name unit. See for example:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/qid=12161...ge=1&rh=n:560798,n:560858,n:560880&sort=price

Keep in mind that we have true HDTV, meaming more than 1000 lines. That
requires some serious image rendering horsepower.
[snip]

Joerg, Why do you keep whining over HDTV? I thought you
_didn't_watch_ TV ;-)

I am just explaining it for all the others who do watch :)

However, we do watch the evening news and the occasional old movie. Plus
"Dancing with the Stars" and some PBS and there HDTV pictures are truly
stunning. Regular DTV is a bit disappointing. Not only because of the
shaky modulation scheme but also because the dynamic range seems to be
very few bits. Faces of people look like they have stockings pulled over
them or maybe they fell face-first into the masquera pot.

Does ATSC preserve the old authentic US newscaster flesh tones that
drift between ghostly green and pale purple so characteristic of NTSC or
are they all clamped to pale orange these days?

I see that you are talking about the sixties. NTSC itself has not
preserved that, because the public objected. I will not bore
everyone with the changes over time, though i kinda recall what they
were, i would have to research it to give a decent answer. Color
reproduction has been very good since the early 70's and is / has been
nearly flawless since 2 years after the introduction of vertically
integrated reference (VIR)
One DTV decoder I have sometimes loses flesh tones to grey under
conditions of marginal reception in heavy rain. The rest of the picture
is unaffected. After that it starts dropping blocks and adding more
clicks to the audio stream (the latter being the most common failure).

More likely it is harsher quantisation used on the JPEG coefficient
stream. An 8-bit RGB image is beyond most domestic LCD displays
capabilities under normal room lighting. If you freeze frame then you
will see the static artefacts of the image clearly, but averaged over
persistence of vision they should be unobtrusive on most material.

Don't know about you but my old sat box is 8-bit and i see it
regularly. I think i am placing the "issue" in the correct place
here.
The one thing where you can see a lot of cheap consumer MPEG playing
engines fail are very dynamic sports with fast moving high contrast
patterns like water skiing for instance. The white spray plume aginst
dark water will break some codecs and they generate a visible mess. Take
a look at a bank of sets in a showroom and you will see what I mean.

Yes i have seen it. If i understand the specifications correctly (i
cannot afford a set just over personal curiosity) it is actually an
issue between excessive compression for the material or poor encoder
implementations.
It isn't for nothing that a lot of the broadcast demos use slow pan high
resolution close ups to show off the sets at their very best.

Of course.
 
J

JosephKK

Jan 1, 1970
0
Shure, but I am reording a move right now, later tonight, in the mean time:
you did see the HD shot from BBC HD IIRC:
BBC HD demo screenshot (1920x1080 interlaced, without de-interlace):
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/bbc_hd.gif

Impressive. The "still" has visible vertical and horizontal
artifacts, in a video stream these would be invisible.
 
J

JosephKK

Jan 1, 1970
0
JosephKK said:
Can you
provide the synopsis, or must all others dig it up in places like the
comp.risk archives.
I read the report hosted here some years ago:
http://courses.cs.vt.edu/~cs3604/lib/Therac_25/Therac_1.html . It's rather
long, but definitely worth the read. In brief:

-- The THERAC-25 was a radiation machine used for treating cancerous tumors;
it was designed by AECL and deployed during the late 1970s and 1980s
-- It was based off of earlier successful models, but had much more of the
safety control and interlocks implemented in software rather than hardware
(motivated by cost reductions and -- at least at some level -- a belief that
the software approach could improve safety).
-- Due to software bugs, the THERAC-25 provided fatal doses or radiation to
six individuals; some of them having rather painful deaths.
-- The THERAC-25 software was known for exhibiting slightly flaky and
non-intuitive behavior (error codes were usually give as numbers, but
originally the operators' manual didn't list what the various numbers meant),
so many operators didn't take "weird" misbehavior as seriously as they should
have initially; this arguably led to delays in AECL being contacted about
problems.
-- The direct cause of the deaths was due to software not always detecting
overdose levels and shutting off the radiation generator quicky enough, as
well as sometimes only indicating a "minor" problem (recovered from by
pressing a single key) when overdoses were detected.
-- The case of the machine inadvertently attempting to overdose in the first
place was due to bugs allowing the *displayed* dose parameters to potentially
be different than the *programmed* dose paramters: There was an 8 second
"window" while the control software was performing other tasks based on a mode
change wherein, if all the control parameters were changed on-screen and
"sent" the software wouldn't actually notice this fact and would keep using
whatever old parameters had previously been set... including dosage parameters
that were allowable when used in different modes with different
attenuators/scanning/etc., but deadly in the new mode.
-- AECL did extensive testing but initially was unable to reproduce the deadly
behavior that occurred in hospital settings; this was largely due to the
different usage patterns by test engineers at AECL vs. technicians at
hospitals (who, as regular/expert users, would enter data very quickly and
fall prey to the "8 second window" trap). As such, early on AECL firmly
denied that their machine could have been at fault for causing the deaths,
stating that "It [is] not possible for the THERAC-25 to overdose a patient."
Eventually one machine operator was able to cause the THERAC-25 to malfunction
repeadtedly at will, which caused AECL to change their tune.
-- Over time up until 1987, AECL made numerous software and hardware changes
(including adding hardware interlocks) to improve reliability and greatly
reduce the likelihood of it being a hazard to humans.

The report linked above points out that summaries like the one I just wrote
often suggest that the causes were more freestanding and simplistic than they
really were -- hence the suggestion to read the entire article. (One of the
things I identify with here is how you need to test with Real Users and not
just your internal techs/engineers -- Real Users are often far better at
exposing bugs, both initially when they "don't know what they're doing" and
try to do "non-sensical" things to your software, as well as later once they
become "expert users" and run through the software much more
quickly/cavalierly than internal testers usually do.)

---Joel

I recently reviewed some software development and test specifications
that required that the test of the software developed, required
putting the system to the test with both normal users and developers
and interested third parties users trying to "bust" the system in any
way. I gave many suggestions on how to improve the process.

Even though I was da boss I had a reputation of busting almost any
software driven process so they used me as a buster. If I couldn't bust
it anymore the machine was considered to be almost mil-spec :)

Busting includes pulling the power plug and plugging it in shortly
thereafter. On poorly designed system that always seems to be able to
fry things up pretty good.

My experience as well. I quickly learned that being a "buster" often
entails a love / hate type relationship.
 
Top