test-drb September 2001

test-drb@ccmp.vtda.org

256 participants
661 discussions

by dhquebbeman＠theestopinalgroup.com

Pentagon too... what's next? > -----Original Message----- > From: David Woyciesjes [mailto:DAW@yalepress3.unipress.yale.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 9:23 AM > To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org (E-mail) > Subject: OT: World Trade crash... > Importance: High > > > I take it you all heard about the two 737s (?) hitting the world trade > buildings... > one was possibly a hijacked airliner... each hit a seperate tower, I > believe... > > --- David A Woyciesjes > --- C & IS Support Specialist > --- Yale University Press > --- mailto:david.woyciesjes@yale.edu > --- (203) 432-0953 > --- ICQ # - 905818 >

25 years

Scanning (was Re: recent acquisitions for the House of VAX

by Antonio.Carlini＠riverstonenet.com

Jim Battle wrote: > At 02:16 PM 9/10/01 -0700, you wrote: > excess. The KA655 TM > >that is on the DFWCUG site appears from the PDF to be 100 > DPI/8 bit (note > >that's 800 bits per inch net and the result is harder to I don't know where 100dpi/8-bit came from - its 600dpi/1-bit (apart from maybe one or two pages which are 600dpi/8-bit). I don't know how to persuade Acrobat to tell me what the underlying resolution is, but I expect it's possible! > I agree that 300 dpi @ 1bpp is superior for text and line art > than 100 dpi > @ 8bpp, but I think your math is askew. You need to compare > the # of bits > per sq in, not inch. So 100 dpi @ 8bpp is 10KB/in^2, while > 300 dpi @ 1bpp > is 11.25 KB/in^2. For text and line art, though, the 1bpp image will > compress a lot better. I make 600dpi/1-bit to be a smidgen under 44KB/sq-in. This is an A4 scan (of a photocopy of an original which is less than A4 in all dimensions IIRC) so thats 8.5x11.5in i.e. anything less than ~4MB/page is compression kicking in! I think the pages average something like 300KB/page. I get PDF direct from the scanner but I don't think it does G4 compression. If anyone has a tool which will take in a PDF and spit out a G4-compressed PDF, I'd be very interested. I think I've seen people claim that 300dpi/1-bit scans run at about 60KB/page so I assume that G4 compression would bring these documents down to about 250KB/page (15-20% smaller). Of course, "perfect" OCR would knock it down a good deal more than that! Antonio > > And if, for some reason, you want to scan line art and text > in gray scale, > 4bpp is plenty enough. Use 8bpp only for continuous-tone images. Possibly true (although almost every page that I use 8-bit for does have a photo of some gubbin or other). But the scanner spits out 1-bit or 8-bit and there are not that many knobs available for tweaking. Antonio

25 years

Scanning (was Re: recent acquisitions for the House of VAX

by Antonio.Carlini＠riverstonenet.com

Jim Tuck wrote: > To convert to PDF, I normally use ABBYY FineReader 5.0, a > very nice bit of OCR software. It preserves layout well, does > near-font conversion of readables, and includes images of > whatever is questionable. >From my pov, the most interesting question is how close to 100% correct conversion does it manage to do? Give an A4 (or US Letter) page full of text, how many errors (i.e. incorrect letter or punctuation mark) would you expect to see after proof-reading manually? (Questionable usages where the character is inserted as an image don't really count since there is no "loss" of information ... they don't help reduce the size either though). Does it take PDF wrapped around TIFF as an input? Antonio

25 years

Scanning (was Re: recent acquisitions for the House of VAX

by technos＠nerdland.org

For me, it's usually Kofax Imagecontrols for capture, destripe, deskew, and char rebuild. (I happen to have a nice Fujitsu high- speed document scanner with Kofax accelerator). I have used Photoshop and a series of filters to do the same thing, albeit slower. Gimp works just as well as PS. Photoshop on Macs, Kofax on NT, and Gimp on *nix. To convert to PDF, I normally use ABBYY FineReader 5.0, a very nice bit of OCR software. It preserves layout well, does near-font conversion of readables, and includes images of whatever is questionable. I have also used tif2ps and ps2pdf on *nix, operating on the source tiff. This is usually best if I want near-perfect PDFs >from the source images. I'll be honest; I don't have that much demand for PDF. Most of my work product is either plain ASCII text or multipage TIFF. I'll do an odd PDF once every few months for Marketing, that's it. Other people could comment much better on PDF conversion. Jim On Tuesday, September 11, 2001 1:21 AM, Bruce Ray [SMTP:bkr@WildHareComputers.com] wrote: > Jim > > ...so what tools do you find adequate/appropriate for scanning > manuals, > "cleaning" them up, and converting to Adobe .pdf format... and on > what > platform(s).. > > Bruce

25 years

Pin compatibility of 2716, 8316, 9218

by pete＠dunnington.u-net.com

On Sep 10, 23:26, Paul Williams wrote: > I'm looking at dumping the ROMs from a VT100 board, but I'm having > trouble finding pinouts of the ROMs. > > The VT100 FMPS says that locations E40, E45, E52 and E56 on the basic > board are 8316E 2Kx8 ROMs. However, the schematics don't show the > designations for all 24 pins. The online Chip Directory doesn't contain > the pinout for the 8316 either. > > My PROM Programmer will handle 2716 EPROMs, which the Chip Dir. does > contain a pinout for, and looks compatible with the 8316. I'd be tempted > to try dumping one of them, were it not for the fact that E45 on my > board is actually labelled "AM9218CPC", the pinout for which is also > absent from the Chip Dir. > > Could anyone please tell me definitively whether the 8316, 9218 and 2716 > are pin-compatible? Nearly, providing you're referring to the 5-volt-only 2716. The polarity of the chip selects is mask-programmable on the 8316. I don't know which way DEC used for the VT100, but the way they usually did it was CS1 and CS2 (pins 18 and 20) active-low with CS3 active high (pin 21, Vpp on a 2716, which is usually at +5V for reading). The alternative is CS1, CS2, and CS3 all active-low. So if you are reading DEC 8316's on a programmer, set it for 2716, and if it reads as if empty, bend out pin 21 and ground it. I'd be interested to know which VT100 ROMs you have, since I collect such things. The number that matters is something like 23-031E2 (23- means ROM, 031 is the code number, and E2 means 16K bit). The standard VT100 ROMs are 031 (or 061), 032, 033, and 034, but there are lots of variants. I have images (and original ROMs) of 061, 032, 033, 034 but I'd like to get any others to add to the archive. -- Pete Peter Turnbull Network Manager University of York

25 years

Scanning (was Re: recent acquisitions for the House of VAX

by Antonio.Carlini＠riverstonenet.com

Chuck McManis wrote: > This topic has gone over the list a few times, from > experience, the "best" > scans are 600 DPI black and white compressed into PDF files. No problem here. > The KA655 TM that is on the DFWCUG > site appears from the PDF to be 100 > DPI/8 bit (note > that's 800 bits per inch net and the result is harder to > read) The KA655 TM was done at 600dpi ... the source, however, was a none-too-good photocopy. Remember that Acrobat will display however you tell it to and fit-to-page on a 17" monitor looks quite different to the same on a 19" or 21" monitor. Try fit-to-width and see if that helps. > scanning this manual to my list. They don't appear to have > come up with a > 'standard' for their scans. That would help too. I suspect that if they mandated a standard then they might put off people who might otherwise contribute (and I still say that any scan is always better than no scan!). The scans just need to be good enough to be able to be OCRd perfectly 10 years from now (once someone gets around to writing OCR software that works almost perfectly rather than the current crop which seems to fail most of the time). Antonio

25 years

Scanning (was Re: recent acquisitions for the House of VAX

by technos＠nerdland.org

I work in digital imaging for part of my living, and do work for a number of archival projects as well. 600dpi@1bpp is insane. 300dpi is usually fine, if there is a prob increase the image depth. Jim On Monday, September 10, 2001 5:17 PM, Chuck McManis [SMTP:cmcmanis@netapp.com] wrote: > > > This topic has gone over the list a few times, from experience, the > "best" > scans are 600 DPI black and white compressed into PDF files. This > achieves > exactly what is needed, get the data without a lot of excess. The > KA655 TM > that is on the DFWCUG site appears from the PDF to be 100 DPI/8 bit > (note > that's 800 bits per inch net and the result is harder to read) I'll > add > scanning this manual to my list. They don't appear to have come up > with a > 'standard' for their scans. That would help too. > > --Chuck >

25 years

Apple ][ disk controller state machine

by dhquebbeman＠theestopinalgroup.com

> Thanks, dq. I have seen that doc, but it speaks mainly of the > 3.5 drive, which had several enhancements not available on the > 5.25 drive. Was the Apple ][ controller sufficiently similar to > the IIgs and progeny that this documentation is appropriate for > it also? I've never heard the Apple ][ controller chip referred > to as 'IWM' -- is that my ignorance, or was the chip renamed, or > are they (maybe slightly) different beasts? It's my understanding that the single-chip Integrated WOZ Machine replaced and duplicated the function of the discrete-component-based equivalent on the Apple II family... FWIW, the Lisa 1 and the very first non-production Macs used a strange 5.25 inch floppy known as the Twiggy Drive... I can show you photos of Macs that had been retrofitted for the 3.5 inch drives, but those drives are visible through huge 5.25 inch gaping holes... So while I can't say with certainty, I doubt the original circuit has any capability not duplicated in the IWM chips. Regards, -dq

25 years

IEEE-488 interface and Commodore Pet

by ajp166＠bellatlantic.net

Sorry but your wrong. Here in the USA IEEE-488/GPIB cards are considered industrial interfaces and command premium prices. I bought one for a control system and paid $399US!! That was for a cheaper non-dma slow GPIB. Allison -----Original Message----- From: Louis Schulman <louiss(a)gate.net> To: classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org> Date: Monday, September 10, 2001 9:13 PM Subject: Re: IEEE-488 interface and Commodore Pet >On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 19:55:38 +0100 (BST), Tony Duell wrote: > >#> > I don't know if the Brain Box supplied software only works >#> > with their card or any card. >#> >#> The card claims to be compatible with the IBM IEEE card, ># >#Which IBM IEEE card? There are at least 2, and they are totally >#different. I was given an IBM IEEE488 card which uses a pair of 9914 >#chips (one for data transfer, one to send commands, I think). The one in >#the O&A Techref is based round a NEC 7210 chip. > >The information I received from Brain Boxes is that their card uses the NEC 7210 chip. They still have some >of these cards in stock, although they are no longer in production. They sent me a very helpful e-mail. The >only problem is that they want 320 pounds for one card. > >Well, I don't know what things cost in Britain, but out-of-production DOS-based ISA cards generally don't >sell for US $540. Usually, it is more like US $5, maybe new US $50. So, I don't think I will be doing any >business with Brain Boxes. > >Louis >

25 years

recent acquisitions for the House of VAX

by Antonio.Carlini＠riverstonenet.com

> Chuck McManis wrote: > > something up for me. Where exactly has the DFWCUG ever indicated that scans >sent to them will be made available to others? If you go to their home page ><http://www.dfwcug.org> there is no mention of it, there are no links to >any scans in their "resources" section, there is nothing at all to indicate >such things will ever become available. I'm guessing you never read John Wisniewski's post in one (or more) DECnotes conferences on the Easynet where he announced the project - several years ago now! I've sent them about 6 CDs worth of stuff (like the uVAX 2K Tech manual and the KA655 tech manual and the TU58 user guide that appeared over the weekend) so it certainly looks to me as though if you send them scans, they'll make them available. A goodly chunk of the stuff has never been through my hands so either others are sending ready made scans (which they have asked for) or they have scanned manuals themselves which others have sent to them (one of the status messages indicated that they have 500lbs of docs waiting to be scanned). AFAIK they had Digital's blessing to do this (John was openly soliciting information within Digital). Don't take my word for it - scan that 11/730 docset and see if it appears or not - the 11/780 one seems to have made it! >Actually a much better link is this one: ><http://208.190.133.201/decimages/moremanuals.htm> OK - I see the problem now. I pointed Bill at a bunch of places when he announced decdocs.org - it's a nice easy URL and I can remember it without having to search (or organise!) my bookmarks. From there you hit the DFWCUG link and end up at http://montagar.com/~patj/dec/hcps.htm . If you go via the DFWCUG site at http://www.dfwcug.org/, hit the Cheshire cat link near the bottom. I cannot find their "mission statement" anywhere there (I'm sure it used to be there!) but a quick search turns up an update: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Patrick+Jankowiak&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=48&s elm=3A6AA429.5241E8F5%40worldnet.att.net >However, someone decided to scan some of the manuals as low resolution 8 >bit grey scale (what a waste of someone's scanning time!) Maybe, I usually resort to greyscale for pages with photographs or fine detail that B&W seems to miss. Greyscale is better than nothing ! Antonio

25 years

← Newer
1
...
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
...
67
Older →

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

test-drb September 2001