D_Harris
Well-known member
I have a question for those who have had a lot of experience with arcade game maintenance in the early to mid 80s.
I was wondering if anyone really attempted an in depth assessment of maintenance and replacement costs of leafs vs. micros?
From what I can tell the original sales pitch convinced the market that micro switches were better because they were cheaper and ops didn't have to keep adjusting them. (Of course they didn't give gamers who preferred the feel of leafs a say).
But I was recently told that micro switches break often enough that the cost of replacement (and possibly time spent of replacement) negates any initial cost advantage they have over leaf switches. (Of course, that was one guy's opinion).
Anyway from what I can tell, most ops who buy a lot of the switches are convinced that micro switches are not just cheaper, but less trouble. Is this really true when you take everything into consideration?
Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.
I was wondering if anyone really attempted an in depth assessment of maintenance and replacement costs of leafs vs. micros?
From what I can tell the original sales pitch convinced the market that micro switches were better because they were cheaper and ops didn't have to keep adjusting them. (Of course they didn't give gamers who preferred the feel of leafs a say).
But I was recently told that micro switches break often enough that the cost of replacement (and possibly time spent of replacement) negates any initial cost advantage they have over leaf switches. (Of course, that was one guy's opinion).
Anyway from what I can tell, most ops who buy a lot of the switches are convinced that micro switches are not just cheaper, but less trouble. Is this really true when you take everything into consideration?
Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.


