Smart Computers fix themselves?

[ukulele]

When will computer designers start making computers that can fix themselves? It can't be all that difficult. You would only need to design computers with duplicate sets of parts and use all plugin modules similar to the old Quasar TV's. Motherboards could just be a empty socket board. When a part fails it could automatically switch over to a duplicate part and flag a notice that a module or drive failed. The user would then just need to change the bad part and get on with life. Would you be willing to pay double for a computer that could fix it self or be easily upgraded by just plugging in a couple of new modules or is there an obvious reason why this would never work? If the OS was written right it should be able to know which part failed.

[omega31]

Aren't there server systems that can do pretty much what you described?

Example:
http://www.sun.com/servers/highend/sunfire15k/

SWAPPABLE HARDWARE
Feature: Hot-swap components.
Function: Hot-swappable CPU/Memory boards, PCI cards, hPCI I/O assemblies, fan trays, power supplies, air filters, and System Controller boards.
Benefit: Maximizes system uptime during maintenance and helps you avoid unplanned downtime.

[bushmaster]

No what ya need is a computer utilizing nano technology. So that when a part fails such as a cpu or memory it actually dissasembles the old part, salvages whats usable, and builds a new part thats reconfigured from the salvage. Replicators LOL.

[ukulele]

Nano bots? Thats a scary thought. Imagine what damage they could do to your computer if they they had a microsoft OS? If they were Mac bots, they might get jealous and screw things up worse in a PC. :eek:

omega31, I like your avatar, but you need an eyeball or something on the monitor. It looks dead.

[bushmaster]

They would have to be Linux Tux-bot's designed to look like teeny weeny little penguin's.

[ukulele]

Tuxs bots? Nah, it would be too hot in there for them, besides there sound cards and quick cams would probably never work right. How could they communicate or see what they were doing? :p

[j.m@talk]

Originally posted by ukulele
Tuxs bots? Nah, it would be too hot in there for them, besides there sound cards and quick cams would probably never work right. How could they communicate or see what they were doing? :p

Maybe a A/C bot would be in order :D

[bushmaster]

Well that when we start using LN2 for cooling.

[Fishsauce]

Wow, Those servers are cheap only $4 million dollars for one... Just go down to my local Fry's and pick one up.:p

[ukulele]

I didn't know there was a tech firm left in the world that could afford a 4 million dollar server! :eek:

"I'll take two please, do you accept American Express cards?"
"Sorry Visa Gold with Bill Gates name on it only" :p

[danee]

Originally posted by bushmaster
No what ya need is a computer utilizing nano technology. So that when a part fails such as a cpu or memory it actually dissasembles the old part, salvages whats usable, and builds a new part thats reconfigured from the salvage. Replicators LOL.

Everyones always thought that nanobots sound cool... but one scary question is never answered..

What happens when there's nothing left to repair ?
All technical cenversations regarding these have never actually discussed how to make them dormant or non active again, once theyve been activated.

What we actually need are stable Operating Systems.
Imagine a world where a M$ product never crashed and was operational 100% of the time.

[bushmaster]

What happens when there's nothing left to repair ?

Then they do like us compulsary fiddlers. They screw around with the system they made stable till it's un-stable again and then they can get back to work. It's a vicious cycle man. But somebody's got to do it.

[ukulele]

I have always been a firm believer that MS has never liked the idea of a computer that is too stable. Would anyone switch from an operating system that was always running stable and fast? If a system can detect an error condition and fix itself who would want to spend more money to slow it down with more bloatware? Must everyone I know that upgraded to win2k or XP from win9x did so in hopes of getting better stability. In reality XP is not really much better. It has plenty of issues that make it buggy too. Just look around here at all the post with XP problems. The vast majority of the posting on these problems could be avoided if the OS was programed to simply detect an error condition and suggest a fix. Instead what we get is an error message that tells us nothing usefull unless one is a programming genius. If it can detect and report an error then the cpu is obviously still working and I see no reason why it can't at least suggest possible fixes in plain english.