*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****
Amen to that.......
I run a private research foundation funded with income generated from my day
job, so even small expenses are major ones to me.
So I need to purchase used/donated/broken scientific tools and make them
work. I used a Phillips 201 TEM for 15 years and kept it in top shape
because of two things:
1. I had the schematics
2. I could do component-level repair on any of the boards.
3. There wasn't a computer that controlled every facet of the tool.
So my 201 functioned at a level of other, more modern tools costing 100X as
much.
Today, at least on the Zeiss side, they won't give you the schematics. They,
themselves, don't do component-level repair on their boards; they just
replace them.
A very expensive way to function....if you are the consumer.
One way to force consumers into expensive service contracts or the purchase
of new equipment is to make sure that the user can never repair
their tools themselves. Maybe the accountants have taken over from the
microscope people?
Gary
Pacific Endodontic Research Foundation
San Diego, CA
www.perfendo.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Guy Cox" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: Biorad MRC1024 MRC600 Scan and Vis boards
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****
Well, I'm sorry, but I don't go with this. I come from an electron
microscope background, and I know that we expected electron microscopes
(which, to say the least, are pretty complex pieces of equipment) to last 30
years - and they did. Philips kept germanium pnp transistors in stock for
tens of years after they became obsolete so that their microscopes would
keep running. Optical microscopes, even scanning ones, have much less
reason to become obsolete. My 90-year-old Zeiss 'jug-handle' is still a
state-of-the-art microscope in performance terms, in fact it has a more
precise focus mechanism than any equivalent Zeiss microscope on the market
today. I could (and did) buy new objectives for it when it was 50 years
old. (I can't now).
There is absolutely no reason why an optical or confocal microscope from the
80s should not still be working at a pretty good performance level - no
reason, that is, apart from greed on the part of the vendors. They chase
the rich labs and neglect the poor ones. There is nothing in a current
confocal microscope which will make it perform better than a 20-year-old
one. (Sure, there are lots of convenience factors in the new ones.) I
would just suggest to purchasers that they look at the parts availability
for 10-year-old scopes as a factor in their purchase decision.
I know many vendors will cry 'foul' at this (my wife does!) but they are
wrong, and short-sighted. Bio-Rad were supplying obsolete boards for their
MRC 500 and 600 scopes at 10 times or more of their original price just
because that kept microscopes running for a fraction of the cost of a new
one. How is that a bad business model? Both sides win. Many customers
switched to Bio-Rad just because a 3-year-old microscope from any of their
competitors was dead in the water if anything went wrong. The one thing
that sunk Bio-Rad was an unwise reliance on the Cornell multi-photon patent
(for which they paid a lot of money) to make their fortune. This was bad on
many grounds. First, thinking they has a monopoly, they didn't see the need
to develop their product. Second, as always happens, other companies found
loopholes and supplied more advanced systems. Third, eventually a bigger
and richer company decided that the simplest solution was to buy the patent
holder rather than buy a licence.
It's not just an economic issue, it's also an environmental one. I am
horrified at how many top-rank scopes are gathering dust in our facility and
elsewhere. The only way forward is for purchasers of high-end systems (I'm
talking about the million dollar plus mark) to put into their purchase
contracts a requirement for at least 20-year serviceability. At that level
companies will say yes, and that will trickle down to ensure that the
smaller fry, without such leverage, will be able to keep their systems
running.
Guy
Optical Imaging Techniques in Cell Biology
by Guy Cox CRC Press / Taylor & Francis
http://www.guycox.com/optical.htm
______________________________________________
Guy Cox, MA, DPhil(Oxon), Honorary Associate,
Australian Centre for Microscopy & Microanalysis,
Madsen Building F09, University of Sydney, NSW 2006
Phone +61 2 9351 3176 Fax +61 2 9351 7682
Mobile 0413 281 861
______________________________________________
http://www.guycox.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Cammer, Michael [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, 27 June 2012 11:31 PM
To: Guy Cox
Subject: RE: Biorad MRC1024 MRC600 Scan and Vis boards
Based on a story from someone at BioRad who moved to Zeiss with the buyout,
Zeiss didn't provide for saving BioRad parts. On their own the BioRad
employees rented a truck, threw the parts in back, and drove them down to
Germany.
We were BioRad owners in the U.S. Soon after Zeiss bought BioRad they sent
BioRad owners a letter with a phase-out schedule for supporting the BioRad
hardware. We are now two years past the final phase-out date (if I remember
correctly). So we were warned.
Do Leica, Nikon, Zeiss & Olympus support equipment from the 1990s (or even
2000-2001) anymore? I can't even get a simple N.A. 0.55 condenser for the
Olympus IX70 (well, if I asked on the microscopy bboard maybe I could get a
used one).
And computer equipment. We have an Andor camera, only two years old, with a
PCI board but all the new computers come with PCI Express. This delayed a
recent repair by a week when the computer on our TIRF system died. And
Nikon doesn't even provide support for 32 bit computers anymore.
Regardless how Zeiss handled the Biorad buyout, a decade later the
technology has changed so much that it's time to let Zeiss off the hook.
________________________________________________________
Michael Cammer, Assistant Research Scientist
Skirball Institute of Biomolecular Medicine
Lab: (212) 263-3208 Cell: (914) 309-3270
-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Guy Cox
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 8:33 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Biorad MRC1024 MRC600 Scan and Vis boards
So how is it that Zeiss, who claim to do their best to support Bio-Rad
customers after the takeover, have not bought these boards? Maybe list
members should draw their own conclusions.
Guy
Optical Imaging Techniques in Cell Biology
by Guy Cox CRC Press / Taylor & Francis
http://www.guycox.com/optical.htm
______________________________________________
Guy Cox, MA, DPhil(Oxon), Honorary Associate, Australian Centre for
Microscopy & Microanalysis, Madsen Building F09, University of Sydney, NSW
2006
Phone +61 2 9351 3176 Fax +61 2 9351 7682
Mobile 0413 281 861
______________________________________________
http://www.guycox.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of test_message
Sent: Tuesday, 26 June 2012 6:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Biorad MRC1024 MRC600 Scan and Vis boards
*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
*****
I am the designer and manufacturer of these boards, and I'm clearing out the
office prior to retiring. I have an amount of - mainly - ISA Vis boards
which will be skipped unless someone is interested. It needs to be
commercially neutral, but I'd rather they found a home than landfill.
--
View this message in context:
http://confocal-microscopy-list.588098.n2.nabble.com/Biorad-MRC1024-MRC600-Scan-and-Vis-boards-tp7578537.html
Sent from the Confocal Microscopy List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
|
