Talk:Computer repair technician

Article Creation

The creation of this article was inspired from friends asking me what you need to have to be an efficient computer repairman. As an apprentice at Eastside PC, (www.eastsidepc.com) in Milwaukee, I have learned by observation, and experience how my Master works, and why. As this article is editable, I know it may but cut and chopped.

The tools of the trade section is based on my own backpack, as well as my Master's, and colleagues' I have in the field. It is by no means universal or complete, but a guideline.

The ethics section is just plain business smarts. --Ben414 22:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics may be a very important section to this. I have far too many collegues who insert plan-to-fail items, just to get quicker return business. The same goes for using protection products with known issues, just because of a big price tag (Norton anyone?) Yue.san 06:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point that you'd rather hire an ethical computer r3pair dude than an unethical computer repair dude. However I think that if you were realistic, then you'd acknowledge that the sort of pay-scale that a computer repair dude operates on typically gives him a margin not so far up from a janitor, especially when compared to stock-broker or a anesthesiologist. Expecting some chump who is that low on the ladder to carry a really strong sense of ethics with him as he plods around town turning wrenches on old single-core processer x386's in your mom's dusty basement so that she can email you doesn't seem to take into account that if he does a super job he's unlikely to get a lot of repeat business and that, in any event, it's unlikely that you're going to give him a large tip. Rather than argue with you, though, I should concede the point that ethics is marginally important to any occupation and that computer repairs, being an occupation, should not be exempt from that. Also, I'm sorry if some computer repair dude burned you in the past and you feel short-changed. To be consistent, though, if you want to add an ethics section to computer repair tech, we should also add an ethics section to traipese artist, and most certainly to sushi chef. After all, we wouldn't want anyone to get sick from bad sushi.

--some guy

Being in the field, I have only been deceived a few times when I first got a computer, but there are those who insist on questionable practices. I see it all the time when I am shopping somewhere and hear these sales people merely thinking about their pocketbook, rather than a client/customer's needs. This will be discussed better in a wikibook. --Ben414 12:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update 12/22/06

I am pleased to see this article remain unvandalized. I do feel there are somethings that may be missing from it that remain intangible to me at the moment. If you know what else need to be done, or edited, without compromising the tone which I've set, feel free to add to it. --Ben414 16:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

This may seem a little vague, but I think like a of ten or so most common problems with computer hardware would be handy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.58.224.236 (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A Common Diagnosis Items section may be in order. For example: toolbars anti-virus anti-spyware "is it plugged in", ect. Yue.san 06:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. How do we do this without padding the article?? There are those who want to snip and clip at articles that grow too large. I will add a wiki I saw somewhere detailing common problems. Ben414

Commercial links

This is just asking for spam. Can we have consensus to delete this section please?Pedro | Talk 14:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why. Commercial products are a major part of the toolbag. Yue.san 06:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SPAM. Pedro | Talk 16:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the section should remain, but needs to be watched carefully. It's hard to be taken seriously if you're using some product that isn't an industry standard, whether it's official, or un-official. A Generic listing should be used as opposed to a commercial one, unless the commercial one stands far above others in the repair tech community. --Ben414 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.94.7.252 (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Certifications

I'm going to add a certifications section later. The link to A+ is good, but I think more specific titles should be included. (A+, Microsoft, Apple Certified, ect) Unless of course, a listing exists elsewhere? Yue.san 06:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trailblazing

I need to find some concrete sources to keep the editors happy. Now I am a tech who is forever learning, and has asked my local techs to add to the article what they see fit. Normally those opinions are valuable, but having had a few articles deleted from me, I am understandably paranoid. Is there somewhere besides our own experience we can use to satisfy wikipedia's censors....and haters?? Ben414

P.O.S.T. CARD

I KNOW PCI, ISA, PCI-X, Mini-PCI, EXPRESS CARD, AND PCI-E POST CARDS EXIST BUT I AM SKEPTICAL THAT AGP P.O.S.T. TEST CARDS ARE REAL? I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF SUCH A DEVICE AND DOUBT THEY EXIST; A GOOGLE SEARCH RE-AFFERMS MY BELIEF. CAN SOMEONE POINT ME TO ONE AND IF NOT THEN THE REFRENCE TO AN AGP POST TEST CARD IN THE ARTICLE WILL NEED TO BE REMOVED. --Root Beers 15:33, 29 March 2007

As a pc tech for seven years now, I've never heard of an AGP post test card either, only PCI and ISA. Maybe it's too expensive for most pc repair shops to purchase. Jcchat66 15:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know some repair shops have some very expensive test equipment so a Simple POST card would not be a biggie.. Ultra X makes some of the best POST cards on the market and they cost around $500-1500. Those PCI, PCI-e, and ISA cards test the AGP port via their native interface. It sounds to me like someone is just pulling stuff out of their imagination.

http://www.uxd.com/hardware-diagnostics.shtml --Root Beers 15:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restored Article

This article was restored due to a couple of people trying to dictate the direction of it. This article does not exist anywhere else to my knowledge, so I will fight to prevent any excessive edits to it. We have a talk page for a reason.

The people who have been contributing have an inherited knowledge of the subject from their schooling, expirience, and training.

As stated in the Update 12/22/06 Section of this talk page, I will not intervene as long as the article follows somewhat along the path I pushed it towards.

The free utilities section cannot be spam, since these are unofficial programs of the trade. The antispyware programs are from here, and others are from advice from my collegues, as well as contributions from other users.

The Suggested Premium Utilities and Tools section is a short list of programs the pros already use, and they offer, or reccommend. Examples of the most popular utilities was mentioned, as well as a link to other utilities mentioned on wikipedia.

The philosophies sections should be there, albeit, it should be modified for a more NPOV if I have leaned one way or the other.

BOTTOM LINE. An article does not exist in this detail anywhere, at least to my knowledge. You have a responsibility to preserve this article, and discuss problems you have on the talk page, in a diplomatic way, as the creators of wikipedia intended. Of course this article might not conform to certain standards... that happens with new things and is normal. The world is not black and white, as there is an infinate number of greys. --Ben414 04:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOT and WP:OWN in their entirety. I'm going to continue to remove prescriptive information from this article until it either finds an appropriate direction or withers to nothing. If you want to create a page of the sort you seem to be defending, please do so on Wikibooks, which was specifically designed for this purpose. Chris Cunningham 14:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I also am experienced in this area to an extent, and I do not see how this article covers the topic well at all. The reason I had pruned it was to remove unecessary lists, unencyclopaedic language and WP:POVish suggestion of specific tools - I don't see how these have a place here.--Konstable 11:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concession and Reasoning from Creator

I will concede that I am protecting this as my own. I know of no other source anywhere that listed anything related to this subject, and as such fought to preserve something I felt was one of a kind. I use wikipedia to learn many different things, and it is my first source when researching a topic or curiosity. The articles on the site are to varying degrees unmonitored, or caught in an edit war. I just saw the need for something a bit more detailed than "this is what a computer tech is", the end.

Is it the consensus that I have crossed into a how-to? If so, I have no problem with a basic article here, and then a wikibook somewhere also (how do I start one of those??). Do I have a motion for a basic article here, and a detailed, advice guided sister article on wikibooks??? --66.93.197.82 00:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lists in this article, IMHO, are not necessary and do not contribute to the article. It would be wiser to generalise and condense the main points into coherent paragraphs. If you want to see a good example of an article about a profession, I suggest to take a look at Security guard, a GA-quality one. Best luck! --Gimlei ^{(talk to me)} 14:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awful article

This article is simply bad and just list all computers parts and needs a rewrite ((butcer))