There I've saved the two images in EPS (Encapsulated Postcript format). Now
for the bad news: The files are about ten times bigger than their GIF
counterparts. I can not afford to place them on my server but if you don't
mind long downloads I can send them to you as attachement.
Francois
I knew there was a reason for using GIF:)
>> I just uploaded the schematics as published in Radio Electronics in May
1976
>> it's at :
>> www.pclink.com/fauradon
>> under the tech info page.
>
>This gives me an interesting dilemma. Is it going to be quicker for me to
>figure out some way to print that out on my Postscript printer or for me
>to trace the schematics out from the real hardware :-)
>
>-tony
>
In case anyone's interested, a front page story in today's
(Tuesday, 9-MAR-1999) Washington's Post features a picture of a
"VAX 11/780 Supercomputer" in a discussion of US policies towards
supercomputer exports. The computer and two tape drives (TU77's?)
are clearly visible.
--
Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
>The RQDX3 would let you use an RX50, but it's not clear to me that this
>buys you very much. I don't think you can install VMS, Ultrix, or NetBSD
>from RX50s.
MicroVMS 4.x - a trimmed down VMS kit intended specifically for small
installations - came on a couple dozen RX50's. I think this is just
about as cruel as the Wagner Ring Cycle on "convenient" 45's.
You can still build a VMS STABACKUP (standalone backup) kit
on RX33's or RX50's, should you so desire. Just do @SYS$UPDATE:STABACKIT
and answer the questions.
The most convenient install medium for the past decade or so, of course,
is CD-ROM. Alternatively, clustering a machine with an already-up
node and moving the install sets over the network is pretty slick.
--
Tim Shoppa Email: shoppa(a)trailing-edge.com
Trailing Edge Technology WWW: http://www.trailing-edge.com/
7328 Bradley Blvd Voice: 301-767-5917
Bethesda, MD, USA 20817 Fax: 301-767-5927
Hi,
----------
> From: Chuck McManis <cmcmanis(a)mcmanis.com>
> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: YANU - uVax
> Date: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 1:08 AM
>
> At 10:39 PM 3/8/99 -0800, Zane H. Healy wrote:
> >You are joking about wanting to "upgrade" aren't you? The only reason I
> >can think of to do that is to attach a RX50, since you've already got a
> >very good ESDI controller.
I have all the controllers/rx50 ...
I never used it. ESDI disks are easy to get, more capacity, ....
> Yes, the only reason I want to add the RQDX3 is to have a monitor prom
> supported bootable device with removable media. One of the uVax has the
> Exabyte on it (I don't know if the Viking will boot it or not) and the
> other has no media at all (although it does have a TK50 controller so if
I
> could find a TK50 drive that would work.)
A TK50 is cheap, and you can boot from.
> I'm going to try to net-boot NetBSD on it since I don't have any other
> VAXen to cluster it with. If that is successful then perhaps it won't be
> such a big deal, but I dislike computers that have a fairly high
> infrastructure overhead before you can get them running.
?!?!?!?!
Sorry, i have 2-3 uVax here, all of them have only cpu/mem/ethernet. All of
them are working fine. "infrastructure overhead" ????
just my .0002 cents.
cheers,
emanuel
I had high hopes of benefitting from my sheet-fed scanner by scanning large
software and hardware manuals into machine-readable files and searching
them, but it turned out there is no easy way.
Most scanner software sets, even the ones costing less than $100 including
the scanner, have a "scan to text" mode, which means you lose all the
illustrations but get a machine-readable text file. Subsequently, you have
to reconnect them to the pictures by composing a new version of the
document and inserting the pictures, scanned as line art or as color
pictures, with the associated disk-space consumption. Tables, screened
half-tones, and other highly structured images, regardless of the fact
their content is really text, need to be treated as graphics because of the
alignment of the printing grid with the scanner grid. If you scan screened
photos, you can get lucky with the pictures, but it is just that . . .
LUCK. Normally you have to take the most trouble with screened half-tone
pictures. Once the document is scanned and composed, you can compress it
and ship it around on the internet as an object.
Dick
----------
> From: Arfon Gryffydd <arfonrg(a)texas.net>
> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Scanning old manuals
> Date: Tuesday, March 09, 1999 9:33 AM
>
> Okay,
>
> I have some old computer manuals and I just bought a scanner......
Anyone
> care to suggest the best way to convert these manuals to electronic form
> and not take up HUGE amounts of memory?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Arfon
On Mar 9, 12:32, Stephen Dauphin wrote:
> I'd like to second this notion. Could those on this list, who are
> scanning for posterity, share their methods?
>
> What platform(s), what hardware(s), what software(s). Any intermediary
> format(s), final output format(s). Whatever it takes.
I, too, would appreciate thoughts on software/platform.
> [I note Jim Stricklan's reply came in while writing this. I have scanned
> down to newspaper legal notice size. Is this 6 point? It OCRed virtually
> identically at 200 or 300 dpi and the results were high 90%]
That's not what I'd call "high". That means that on average, you have to
correct or interpret every tenth character. I'd call less than 99% "low",
not high. Our Department looked at this a few years ago, and rejected
anything less than 95%, I think. Even that means correcting (or as one
person put it, "clicking on") one character in every twenty.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
<'click on this little picture to make it go'. Linux will do some damage i
<the server market and other places where you have to have someone with som
<computer smarts but, most corporate purse strings are again controlled by
<those same 'click-idiots'.
Not, will do. It is one of the significant players in the server market
and growing. In that market teh cost of ownership and the ability to find
people that know it and can grow it are big pluses.
<I really wish GNU would take a good command line OS (like CP/M), make it
<32/64 bit, and multi-tasking/user and add a GUI and try and compete with
<Winblows.
I'm a CP/m advocate but that really doesn't fly. First there are CP/M
emulators for Linux already. The other is CP/M was never a prime time
candidate for a GUI thing being totally single user and single tasking,
the later CCPM may have had a shot.
To keep closer to topic. Those that forget CP/M and what it was will
forever repeat it's errors. It was good, is good and limited. The lack
of heirachal directories is a serious limitation for modern software
another is the size of disk and files (8mb in 2.2, 3.0 got it to 32mb).
The single thread and single task problem would have to be dealt with
as well. Then all the apps one would want would have to be ported from
Z80 or worse 8088.
There are people trying to do windows like/compatable interfaces but
hitting the MS APIs is like shooting at a moving target. Besides
Linux/unix has xwindows. What's missing is applications that appeal to
those that already know windows. On the desktop no one cares what the
OS is so long as the application they want/need runs under it.
Allison
Sheesh! Don't you just hate it when someone replies to the whole list
instead of the one relevant person? Even worse, when they waste even more
bandwidth and email space with useless "whole list" apologies! :-)
-- Tony
