Return-Path: <lancair.list-request@olsusa.com>
Received: from marvkaye.olsusa.com ([205.245.9.240]) by truman.olsusa.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.1.2 release (PO203-101c)
          ID# 0-44819U2500L250S0) with SMTP id AAA19008
          for <lancair.list@olsusa.com>; Thu, 29 Oct 1998 17:30:20 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19981029172815.00e09294@olsusa.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998 17:28:15 -0500
To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
From: Marvin Kaye <marvkaye@olsusa.com>
Subject: Re: MicroSytems VM1000
In-Reply-To: <3.0.3.32.19981029170746.00e0c0f0@olsusa.com>
X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com
Mime-Version: 1.0

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
I've been monitoring the posts on Compuserve for many years now and
remember seeing more than a single comment about problems with VM systems.
While I think their units look incredibly cool, and there is no doubt that
many of them out there are operating within limits, I have some personal
reservations about a system which places all of its eggs in one basket, as
does this one with its DPU.  Just my $0.02 (and personal opinion) but it
was a long time ago that I decided that I will forego the coolness of the
VM unit for the enhanced reliability of individual gauges for the
monitoring of my power and fuel systems... it seems much less likely that
every gauge on the panel will choose to self-destruct simultaneously than
will a single unit (or multiple units) all of which are controlled by a
single brain.   While the single brain theory seems to work ok with organic
systems (most of the time, anyway <g>) in this regime I feel much more
comfortable with individual senders controlling individual displays with
nothing in between to interrupt the flow of information. 

   <Marv>