> >
> > Before I can start the system in multiple user mode, I gotta figure out
a
> > fail safe way to change the ROOT password. According to the MAN pages,
you
> > gotta supply the current password if you use the "passwd" command. That
> > won't work because I don't know the current password. DOH!
>
> Actually, most versions of passwd bypass the request for the old password
> if you are running them as root. I'd try 'passwd root' and see what
happens.
>
I was able to create a new user through "sam" (HPUX system tool) with ROOT
privileges. Unfortunately, I cannot get the system to reboot reliably. Keep
getting HD errors.
Previously, the system was failing while running FSCK during the boot
process. At that point, it would drop me to a shell as ROOT. That's how I
was able to get in before.
Last night, I ran FSCK manually to fix the problems and it did recover the
cylinders on the disk. Now when it is booted, it doesn't fail the FSCK so,
it continues and fails at different point. It just keeps looping and saying
"error blah, blah, blah, PID 1 killed".
Haven't figured out a way around that one, YET! Might be able to pass a
parameter while booting that will cause a different boot behaviour?
Looks like I'll probably have to reinstall the OS from scratch. I don't
think there was any thing on the system that wouldn't be included in the OS
installation anyway. I ordered the FREE software upgrade (HPUX 9.0 to HPUX
10) from HP and hope to hear from them in the next few days. I just hope
it's on a medium that I can read.
I sorta goofed and only ordered a couple of licenses. Originally, the
system had 64!
I'll let you know what happens.
Anyone know where I can HPIB "shoebox" drive for this thing?
See Ya,
Steve Robertson - <steverob(a)hotoffice.com>
Hi,
I picked up a Radius Pivot Precision Color 17 monitor today with both PC
and Mac cables. Does anyone know where I can get software to rotate the
picture on the CRT? I've looked all over Radius's site but can't find
any. I'm looking for software for both the PC and the Mac.
Joe
On 8 Jun 99 at 19:50, Joe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I picked up a Radius Pivot Precision Color 17 monitor today with both PC
> and Mac cables. Does anyone know where I can get software to rotate the
> picture on the CRT? I've looked all over Radius's site but can't find
> any. I'm looking for software for both the PC and the Mac.
A quick look at ftp://ftp.radius.com throws up *some* of the software
for older Radius hardware including Radiusware for NuBus/PCI Mac
video cards. A lot of drivers have disappeared recently, including
those for Radius Rocket accelerators.
Try:
ftp://radius.com/radius.mac/
Phil
**************************************************************
Phil Beesley -- Computer Officer -- Distributed Systems Suppport
University of Leicester
Tel (0)116 252-2231
E-Mail pb14(a)le.ac.uk
I am quite sure I have some cables here that I got from my DEC surplus bids.
Contact me off list with the details of you system and/or the part # you
need and I will check for you. I am usually able to get them new for $5 to
$15 depending on particular bid.
Dan
dburrows(a)netpath.net
danburrows(a)mindspring.com
-----Original Message-----
From: paul yaskowski <paul(a)paul.dragontear.org>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: VAXstation CDROM questions (again)
>* Zane H. Healy (healyzh(a)aracnet.com) [06.08.99 21:08]:
>> > Here's my question: I have a VAXstation 3100, and i'm interested in
>> >upgrading VMS. Currently it runs VMS 5.4. Since the VAX doesn't have
>> >a cdrom, and i'm assuming the cost of a DEC CDROM is outrageous (i'm
>> >15, give me a break.), I was wondering if there is a way to install
>> >from a network CDROM drive. Could I setup my Linux box to share it's
>> >CDROM via NFS? Or is there perhaps any software that would allow this?
>> >Or am I insane? The questions..
>>
>> Find a cheap 3rd party CD-ROM that supports 512-byte blocks, and you'll
>> hopefully be able to use it. I've used a 2x Mac CD-ROM, and a 4x
Panasonic
>> external on my 3100. I've used the same external and a 4x Toshiba on my
>> Alpha's. The important thing is it MUST suport 512-byte blocks, most PC
>> CD-ROM's support 2048-byte blocks.
>>
>> I got the 4x Toshiba for $15 used, as a price reference.
>
> Any idea where I could pick myself up one of those? The CDROM is not
>the only price factor that i'm worried about, it's also the external
>SCSI cable. I looked at a DEC SCSI cable that will fit into the back
>SCSI port, and it cost a mere $95. I'm running a incredibly tight
>budget, the story of a teenager's life, and $95 is simply out of the
>question.
>
>-paul
>
>--
> paul(a)paul.dragontear.org [a paradigm of a paramount failure]
>
<Actually, most versions of passwd bypass the request for the old password
<if you are running them as root. I'd try 'passwd root' and see what happens
For ULTRIX you can go Single user and "edit" the password to "" and then
the root password is null. The trick however is finding it and dealing
with ED. I believe this works with other versions of Unix too.
Allison
< Any idea where I could pick myself up one of those? The CDROM is not
<the only price factor that i'm worried about, it's also the external
<SCSI cable. I looked at a DEC SCSI cable that will fit into the back
<SCSI port, and it cost a mere $95. I'm running a incredibly tight
<budget, the story of a teenager's life, and $95 is simply out of the
<question.
Where to get a scsi drive have been covered by others. Since you don't need
the drive all the time you don't need the cable either.
Here's how. Pop the cover amd locate teh SCSI cable (50pin). The design
allowed for several drives internal so plug in to one of those, also
pick up power there as it's available. It's ugly, but it works.
Allison
< Here's my question: I have a VAXstation 3100, and i'm interested in
<upgrading VMS. Currently it runs VMS 5.4. Since the VAX doesn't have
<a cdrom, and i'm assuming the cost of a DEC CDROM is outrageous (i'm
<15, give me a break.), I was wondering if there is a way to install
It does not have to be DEC. IT does have to be SCSI and capable of
512byte blocks. I have an old Toshiba 2x scsi that works ok for this.
<from a network CDROM drive. Could I setup my Linux box to share it's
<CDROM via NFS? Or is there perhaps any software that would allow this?
<Or am I insane? The questions..
Your not insane but, I think the tools to get from Linux NFS(TCPIP) to VMS
(VMS networks with DECNET unless you have UCX or CMUIP) files-11 are not
there.
The real question is why? VMS 5.4 is fine for a standalone system and
likely kermit is on the machine and if you real lucky CMUIP, that enough to
communicate with the net or other machines.
Allison
> >You might be better off looking for a replacement hard disk unit.
There's
> >a 'shoebox' sized thing that contains a 300Mbyte ESDI (I think) drive +
> >the appropriate HP interface board. I can find the number if Joe doesn't
> >beat me to it.
>
> You're way too slow! Who do you think found this and told Steve about
> it? And THEN helped him load it. The ESDI drives are the 7957/7958/7959
> series. They're about 80, 158 and 300 Mb capacity. I think there's a 7957
> on E-OverPay right now.
>
I've got several of the "showbox" drives with my HP 3000/42 but, don't want
to cannibalize that system (I think they're 7963B's). I may have to shop
around for another one.
Last night I fired up the 9000/840 again and got better results. Seems like
the HD is starting to loosen up a little. Could be that the servos were a
little sticky from being stored. Every time I start the system, it gets
fewer errors.
I was able to boot the system in single-user mode and got in as ROOT. I
don't know the exact boot sequence because my terminal failed during the
process ( cold solder joint in the verticle defelection circuitry). By the
time I got it hooked up again, the system had completed booting and I was
magically logged in as ROOT. Yipee!!!
Before I can start the system in multiple user mode, I gotta figure out a
fail safe way to change the ROOT password. According to the MAN pages, you
gotta supply the current password if you use the "passwd" command. That
won't work because I don't know the current password. DOH!
I can think of two possibilities:
1.) Create a new user with ROOT permissions.
2.) Modify the ROOT entry in the /ETC/PASSWORD file. This sounds kinda
risky. If the syntax isn't correct, I could really be screwed.
If anyone has any better suggestions, I'd like to hear them. In any event,
I don't want to risk locking myself out of the system.
It looks like there are very few user files on the system (at least on this
HD). Mostly what I'm seeing is the HPUX OS installation. Either the files
were purged, prior to decommission, or they're on the other HD.
Now, I gotta figure out how to mount the other drive. Every time I run the
command 'mount' I get an ugly error. When I run it, I can hear the HD
seeking and after about 2 minutes, the error message displayed. Gotta
feeling this utility is on one of the bad HD sectors.
Anyway, things are looking better :-)
Catch Ya Later,
Steve Robertson - <steverob(a)hotoffice.com>
The problem is with the pictures and diagrams. Now, if you have tools which
make this a straightforward task achievable in a day or so for the 5k or so
pages ultimately involved, then maybe you're the one for the job, but
beware! It's never as simple as it looks. BTW, I don't think GIF is an
efficient way to represent LINE ART, which is what generally is involved in
illustrations and schematic diagrams.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, June 07, 1999 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: Disk Drive Documents
>>
>> That, in fact, is the case here. I have two laser printers and three
>> ink-spitters, and a pen plotter, none of which speak PS. They even
require
>> different dialects of PCL. There's even an impact printer from the
>> DOT-Matrix (for multi-part forms) which doesn't speak either.
>>
>> The only language common to all my printers is ASCII. All but the
TOSHIBA
>> Dot-Matrix printer speak HPGL if they're prodded.
>
>Doesn't that say something? Like use plain ASCII if at all possible :-)
>
>Actually, Ghostscript should be able to drive (or be modified to drive)
>at least one of your printers. And it will read/print at least Level 1
>postscript files.
>
>-tony
>
I ran into this from time to time myself, and, in the case where company
politics prevented me from drawing my own, I drew dashed lines around the
structural blocks in my diagram. This made the draftsment less prone to
rearrange my work. Dashed lines are something many draftsmen really hate.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Dwight Elvey <elvey(a)hal.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 5:55 PM
Subject: Re[2]: Disk Drive Documents
>ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote:
>>
>> On the other hand, I've seen schematics that have been redrawn by
>> draftsmen. They have rearanged the components to make the diagram look
>> balanced on the page. The result is that the logical structure of the
>> schematic has gone. Figuring out how it works is next-to-impossible.
>>
>
>Hi
> I used to hate that when the draftsmen would take my
>carefully organized schematics and crunch them down into
>an unreadable mess. I had them as logical blocks
>because that is the way I thought about the designs.
>When the techs on the bench were trouble shooting,
>they'd always come to me for the original drawings.
>I tried to fight it once but the boss said it
>was wasting too much paper ( let me see, a $60K system
>couldn't afford $0.20 more paper?? ).
>Dwight
>
I received several boxes of old parts, I hope someone might be able to
tell me something about them.
Hard drives...
1- Seagate ST-251, 3- ST-4384E (94186-383H).
1- Control Data 94166-182
1- Miniscribe 3053
Plug in cards...
5- WDC1985 - WD1003-WA2 These look like they might be HD controllers.(I
hope)
Several Zenith Data Systems cards, including a cpu card with an 8088. These
look as if they may have been a PC Clone built on sort of a backplane.
There were about twenty pounds of other cards, but these seem to be the
most interesting.
Regards
Charlie Fox
Charles E. Fox
Chas E. Fox Video Productions
793 Argyle Rd. Windsor N8Y 3J8 Ont. Canada
email foxvideo(a)wincom.net Homepage http://www.wincom.net/foxvideo
It looks to me like the format which offers the most hope of providing for
users of formats other than PDF is the TIFF output from the scanner. That
can be compressed using a commonly available tool like pkzip and it's
already pepared in the process of getting from a paper document to PDF.
Each page will be more or less as it was scanned, though there may be some
noise specks. No extra effort is involved aside from naming and storing
each one, then transferring the whole mess to the web site host.
If Tony wants to OCR it, he can, if SAM wants to skip the schematics, he
can, and pretty much anyone else who wants to do anything else can do that
too. Since a typical scanned page in raw bitmap is about 1 MB, though I
don't know how much compression can be squeezed out of a page of text or a
page of line-art, server capacity may become an issue. However, it may be
realistic to reduce the TIF-formatted files to CD, assuming there's a CD
available on the web host, and then it can deal with the TIF files.
DICK
-----Original Message-----
From: CLASSICCMP(a)trailing-edge.com <CLASSICCMP(a)trailing-edge.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 4:50 PM
Subject: Re: Disk Drive Documents
>>But, and this applies to text as well, once you've printed them out and
>>scanned them back in again, you've lost that structure. The scanner
>>produces a bitmap (probably a slightly distorted bitmap as noting is
>>perfect). It is _very_ difficult to automatically recover that structure
>>(would you like to write a program that analyses a bitmap and finds
>>component symbols in it?)
>
>Such programs do exist, however. Most of the fancy electronics-oriented
>CAD packages have "schematic capture" modules. And, of course, such
>packages run into the many kilobucks.
>
>--
> 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
>But, and this applies to text as well, once you've printed them out and
>scanned them back in again, you've lost that structure. The scanner
>produces a bitmap (probably a slightly distorted bitmap as noting is
>perfect). It is _very_ difficult to automatically recover that structure
>(would you like to write a program that analyses a bitmap and finds
>component symbols in it?)
Such programs do exist, however. Most of the fancy electronics-oriented
CAD packages have "schematic capture" modules. And, of course, such
packages run into the many kilobucks.
--
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
Please take a look below.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, June 07, 1999 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: Disk Drive Documents
>> The problem with PS is that it's not trivial (or achievable with
freeware)
>> to display, scale, search, or selectively print portions of it, is it?
PDF
>> allows all these. True, that's no help if you can't run Acroread.
>
>Remember that Postscript is a full programming language, and thus often
>the only way to figure out what a given file will do is to interpret it.
>Even the total number of pages printed by a given file is not easy (or
>even possible) to determine without running the postscript program that
>the file contains.
>
>Ghostscript (at least some versions) is free. That's a complete
>postscript interpretter for just about any modern OS that will run
>postscript programs and output a number of different formats (mostly
>bitmapped images of various types, possibly to drive particular printers
>(like PCL, some dot matrix, etc)).
>
>I don't believe postscript is a particularly useful format for something
>like this. But I could justify it's more portable than PDF (although you
>can do less with it).
>
>
>> Perhaps not the art of the layout, but the order in which things are
>> presented certainly can make the different between a very informative and
>> easy-to-use document and one which is impenetrable. That doesn't mean it
is
>
>True, but...
>
>Very often (in my experience) a given diagram (lets say a schematic)
>applies to several areas of text in a document (lets say the circuit
>description, the set-up instructions, etc). Often this diagram is printed
>in a convenient (for the printer) place in the manual (hopefully near one
>of the sections that applies to it). But continually flipping through the
>manual to relate the diagram with the text is a pain.
>
>A different point, also to do with layout is : Is it better to provide
>text in a platform-specific word processor format (so that the original
>fonts and layout is maintained, but some people can't use it) or in plain
>ASCII so that everyone can use it, but you won't get the right
>fonts/layout all the time. I would argue strongly for the latter (or even
>better, some ASCII-based markup language will hopefully allow you to do
>both).
>
>> I don't like those minimal-effort-PDF's which look like faxed documents,
>> badly aligned with the page boundaries, and looking like poorly rendered
>> dot-matrix images either, but I think it's highly important, for the
>> confidence of the user if not out of respect for the originator, to put
>> forth a creditable presentation of the original document. Making it
barley
>> readable means nearly illegible which is nearly worthless. OCR'ing,
>
>I think you're missing the point...
>
>IMHO if you're going to simply provide a number of scanned pages (not
>OCRed, not editted at all), then you lose a lot of the benefits that PDF
>may have over a simple directory of individual scanned pages (which can
>be equally well cleaned up, etc to make them legible). In which case you
>might as well go back to providing a directory of scanned images which
>can be read on many more types of machine.
Well, I disagree. The guys who write technical doc's get paid a good deal
because they're good at what they do. Most engineers and programmers,
though they are excellent at what they do, they don't read, write, and spell
very well. That's a stereotype I find very well rooted in reality. Why
would I want engineers and programmers to fiddle with writing and
illustration done by competent professionals? If they want to fiddle with
the context, they can transform the source document in some way into the
format they like and edit the result. They shouldn't be allowed to p*ss on
the work many of us have learned to use with great success. It's imperative
that the documents be clean ( no gratuitous specks, spots, etc, that the
lines in the illustrations be straight where they should be, and curved
uniformly if they should be, and the white space be white, not speckled) and
a precise representation of the document it claims to represent. No
gratuitous cartoons, commentary, etc should be included. Neither should
anything be omitted.
>PDF (may) becomes useful when you have text _as text_, not as scanned
>bitmaps. When you have hotlinks in the document to other sections, etc.
Frankly, I don't know how text is represented in PDF. Some of these
documents have hotlinks, others use a tree at the left of the screen. I'm
not sure why there are multiple ways to do navigate.
For reasons I've already explained, not at all relating to my preference,
though it IS my preference, these doc's will probably turn up in PDF.
Whether they are also hammered into a form some of you like better depends
on whether you're able to come up with a way to build that way and find
someone to do it for you. If it's important to have non-PDF formats
available, and I believe it is, then someone has got to build the non-PDF
documents. Since places hosting such document collections already support
several major formats, I doubt there will a dearth of space for additional
formats. I am convinced, however, that, were I not already in possession of
these documents, I'd get them in PDF, maybe even put them on a CD if there
were enough of them, and use them as I please.
>-tony
>
I'll pass on PDF email, thank you very much.
I know it's of limited interest to many of the die-hard retrocomputing
persons in this interest group, but for your info, if you're interested, the
version of the Arcobat Viewer (Acrord32.EXE) which I'm using nearly every
day is a nearly totally reflex-operable program which allows me to view,
scale, SEARCH, print single-sided, or, with a freebie plug-in, print duplex,
which is double-sided in two passes, in full living color . . . the
important feature for this discussion being SEARCH. If this were just a
bitmap imbedded in a framework of some sort, you wouldn't be able to search
for text would you? How do you suppose, in light of what you know, this is
done?
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner <spc(a)armigeron.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, June 07, 1999 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: Disk Drive Documents
>It was thus said that the Great Richard Erlacher once stated:
>>
>> Well? . . . now you see why we disagree. This doesn't just extend to you
>> and to me, but rather to lots of other people who use documentation
>> differently.
>
> Five months ago we had a similar discussion, this time about what formats
>to use when emailing people (started because of complaints about messages
in
>HTML which were annoying several people on this list, myself included).
>Part of the problem, as you state, is that different people have different
>needs from documentation, and there are two aspects to documentation (or
any
>``printed'' material in general): content and presentation, or as Marshall
>McLuhan would say, ``message and media.'' Both are important (``the medium
>is the message'' anyone?) but for this crowd, it seems that the message
>tends to be more important than the medium.
>
> As an experiement, I downloaded a PDF file (for the record, I have a PDF
>viewer for Linux). Can't save the document as text, but I could print it
to
>a file. So I did that. Ended up with PostScript. Took a look at the
>postscript and discovered that what I ended up with was basically a large
>bitmap embedded in PostScript. Sure, I also have GhostView, but the output
>looks like an okay scan of a rather mediocre photocopy. Nice.
>
> To be fair, the PDF in question appears to be just that though---an image
>encapsulated in PDF. I tried finding a word that I know exists in the
>document but oddly enough, the computer couldn't find it.
>
>> . . . and you'll have to do more than shout to convince me that's
(meaning
>> the fact every page is a document apart from the one major unit to which
it
>> belongs) not a big part of why the LINUX doc's are so impenetrably
muddled.
>
> Linux's docs are so impenetrably muddled because programmers in general
>don't like writing documentation (``The source is the documentation,'' is
>too often the excused used). Heck, there are problems with comments IN THE
>SOURCE CODE not being updated, so expecting any external documentation to
be
>up to date is asking a bit much (not that I like this any).
>
> -spc (So Richard, want me to start replying to you in PDF format?)
>
On Jun 8, 11:48, Charles E. Fox wrote:
> I received several boxes of old parts, I hope someone might be
> able to tell me something about them.
>
> 1- Seagate ST-251
> 3- ST-4384E (94186-383H).
> 1- Control Data 94166-182
> 1- Miniscribe 3053
ST-251 is an early 5.25" ST412-style (ie buffered step) 42MB (formatted)
MFM drive, 820 cyl, 6 hd, 17 spt, 3600 rpm.
ST-4384E is a 319MB (formatted 34 spt, 384MB unformatted) 5.25" ESDI RLL
drive, 1412 cyl, 13 hd, 34 spt, 3600 rpm, voice-coil actuated.
CDC 94166-182 is an ST4182E, 5.25" 151.8MB (formatted 34spt, 182MB
unformatted) ESDI RLL drive, 969 cyl, 9 hd, 34 spt, 3600 rpm, also known as
a Wren 3, and sold under the Imprimis brand.
Miniscribe 3053 is a 5.25" ST412-style 42MB (formatted) MFM drive, 1024
cyl, 5 hd, 17 spt, I don't have the speed but it's probably 3600 rpm.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
We're not in a hurry, yet, so we should look for a format suitable for
everyone. The reason document publishers like PDF is that it allows you to
view the document, print it, print excerpts, search, and so on, yet doesn't
let you extract text from it. Of course, you can output it to PCL, convert
the PCL to BMP, convert the BMP to TIF, then run it through an OCR processor
to create clear text. The reason I like it is that it allows me to keep the
OLD data books I have in my technical library on the shelves gathering dust
except when I want information that's not in the new ones. I tolerate that
it only works under WINDOWS, and I tolerate that it won't process other file
formats, and I tolerate that I can't extract a quote when I need to. It has
served me well, though, I have to admit.
The problem I see is that since the PDF is so easy to process for the
average Win95 user, even though that may not include everyone in this forum,
there's a PDF viewer for LINUX, just as there's one for various other *NIX
types. I don't know whether ther's one for OS8 or whatever the PDP8 users
have, but I see a potential problem when it comes to finding a "better"
tool. There may be a tool which YOU like better, for whatever reasons, and
there may be one which I like better for whatever reasons I have, but it's
unlikely someone will host a site on which we can put this document set in
half a dozen different formats. (BTW, there's another manual, now, i.e. the
MITSUBISHI 4894, or whatever they called their DS 8" drive back in the late
'70's.)
As for finding a "home" for this data, I think the "unofficial CP/M site"
might be the place, though I've not yet contacted the site owner. Many
CP/M-ers will at one time or another need this data.
In any case, I'll agree that each of us will have an approach to "using" our
computer which may not suit someone else, and those who have a preferred
format for openly presented technical data should make their preferences
known. The people who actually prepare the data and present it for use will
probably have the final say, though and there's no guarantee that I will
have any more to say in the final choice than you.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Sunday, June 06, 1999 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: Disk Drive Documents
>>
>> First of all, let me say that I'm in complete agreement with your notion
>> that the doc's don't have to be put out in only one format. It's just
that
>> I've been so extremely satisfied (ask anyone who knows me and they'll
tell
>> you that's not easy!) with the PDF for document publication that any
other
>> way simply hadn't arrived here yet.
>
>PDFs might be fine for publishing a newly-created document (although I
>would still prefer something where I could trivially extract any ascii
>text using standard tools), but I don't see the point for a collection of
>scanned images.
>
>> With the Acrord32 program under Win95, you can print the pages you want
and
>> skip the rest, you can search for specific words and phrases, and you can
>
>I think this is one of the big differences between how we use our
>software. I prefer to have one program to do searching (grep). One to do
>formatting (*roff, TeX, etc). Another to handle double-siding, etc. That
>way, I aways use the same program from the same task.
>
>You seem to prefer to have a single program to (say) read .pdfs and do
>anything you like to them.
>
>
>> print double-sided whether you have a duplex printer or not. You can
>> generate extremely good-looking documents with almost no effort. You
just
>> can't edit them or such, and that's fine with me. I've seen some truly
>> terrible PDF documents, obviously scanned from bad source documents or
with
>> a really dirty scanner, and not cleaned up as I'd probably be inclined to
do
>> if any of these documents turned out to be "bad" or difficult to read.
The
>> ones I've seen which were bad were posted PDF's of CP/M documents which I
>> probably ought to be glad I could get in any form.
>
>This is not the point. Obviously I'd rather have the document poorly
>reproduced than not at all. But if a document is only available in a
>format that I can't read, it's not going to be a lot of use to me.
>
>>
>> What I would like to avoid, here, is getting in a position where we
evaluate
>> the product on the basis of the tools used to generate it. I use
WIndows95
>
>That is not what I am doing...
>
>However, it is helpful if documents, particularly documents about old
>computers, are available to as many people as possible. This may well
>mean not using the latest/greatest (proprietry) tools.
>
>Most people here are technically knowledgeable. All of us would know how to
>expand one of the standard archive formats in our OS of choice and print
the
>individual files it contains. Most of us can install new programs to handle
>strange formats -- if they exist.
>
>> because it's a convenient tool for doing what I do with it. I use DOS
where
>> it's convenient and when I see a version of, say, LINUX that's got
current
>> documentation I'll look at it again too, since there are supposed to be
some
>
>Eh? The documentation that comes with linux is an order of magnitude
>better (at least) that that which comes with Windows...
>
>> things that it does very handily as well. I agree about the
documentation
>> angle, but I don't agree that being free makes a product better. It just
>
>Sorry, I wasn't clear. When I said (in private e-mail) that I am not
>going to pay for the second-best when the best is free, I didn't mean
>that linux was better _because_ it's free. I meant that linux happens to
>be the best tool that I have yet found for the sort of work that I do.
>And the fact that it's free is a bonus.
>
>Having got the best tool, I sure am not going to pay for something that's
>less useful to me...
>
>
>> improves the price-performance comparison factors and helps with
motivation
>> to try it. I do believe that publishing the scanned documents as
completely
>> as possible is desirable, so that when you run into that "see figure 8a
on
>> page ..." you'll have that as well. If you only need to print sheet 14
of
>> 39, that's what you should be able to print, not the entire document when
>
>A .tar.gz of scanned bitmaps allows you to do all that, in a totally
>OS-independant way...
>
>
>> If there were a good PCL or PostScript viewer, widely distributed enough
>
>Ghostview seems to work reasonably to view postscript, and it's available
>for most OSes AFAIK.
>
>But postscript files, especially those of bitmapped images, tend to be
_very
>large_ files... 10-20 times the size of the equivalent .gif...
>
>> that a substantial number of potential users would have it at their
>> disposal, that would also be useful distribution format. If it could be
>> hammered into a Word97 document, that might be a candidate. What's
>
>No. Word97 (or any other Word) is even worse the pdf. At least there are
>pdf viewers for other OSes. And the format is _documented_ somewhere. I
>have never seen a full and complete description of a Word file. As far
>as I'm concerned, such files are useless...
>
>[Note : people who e-mail me .doc files without warning normally get a
>.dvi file in return. And if they want to know what it is, they can darn
>well read Volume B of 'Computers and Typesetting']
>
>> important is that a large number of potential users have access to the
>> format that's chosen.
>
>What's important IMHO is that _all_ potential users can have access to
>the format. And that means picking a format that is fully documented, one
>that can be read on as many computers as possible.
>
>For text, either plain ascii, or one of the many formatting/markup
>languages that uses ascii source with embedded commands (TeX, html,
>*roff, etc). That way, you can read it on _anything_, even an ASR33 :-)
>
>For graphics, one of the many file formats that have proper
>documentation.
>
>>
>> Comments and suggestions are welcome!
>
>The above are just suggestions. There will be no flames from me (although
>I will be disapointed if I can't read them) no matter what format the
>files appear in (if they appear at all). After all, if you're providing
>information, you get to pick how you do it.
>
>I just feel that cutting off some potential users is a Bad Thing.
>
>-tony
>
After writing the last message, I wrenched the machine out of the
rack onto a table and found that:
Slot 14 had a jumper
Slot 13 did not.
So after three or four boot-ups with various clip leads installed,
I have taught myself that the jumpers are not needed in 13 and 14 if
the RL11 and Emulex cards are in them.
And: woo-hoo! I have the cards in the slots I wanted them to go
in, and the machine boots and runs as normal.
Mebbe tonite I'll drag up some RL02s and see if I can get them
talking to the RL11.
I still am not sure about the driver modules: from whence they
come (distribution kit?) and how they get integrated into RSTS. Does
one just copy them into the working directory? Does a partial SYSGEN
need be done? Are they already there, just hiding?
Thanks...
John
Hello ListFriends...
Further along the path of getting RL02s attached to my 11/44 system:
Given a stock 11/44 in a KD11-Z minus the CIS and FPP modules: the
last two slots, 13 and 14 are SPC slots. In my system, there are two
more backplanes installed and in use.
Memory slots 11 and 12 are occupied by G7273 double grant cards.
As configured [and working fine], slot 13 has the Emulex TC12 (which
is a quad-height module), and slot 14 hosts an M9202 bus jumper and
a grant continuity card in "D".
OK: I want to put an RL11 (hex height) in slot 13 and move the
Emulex card to 14. I did this twice... once with the RL11 in 13 and
the Emulex out of the box, grant card in it's place... the error
message on boot was:
?20 MPC=15
The second try was removing the grant card in 14 and inserting the
Emulex therein.. the error message on boot was:
?22 CPU HUNG
Restoring the system back to Emu in 13 and grant card in 14
restored the system to normal.
I am currently dragging the box out of the rack to check the NPR
jumpers, the RL11 doc is pretty specific and clear on what to do...
but I have no Emulex docs so I'm kinda lost there.
Am I barking up the right tree(s) so far?
Bonus question: the system is configured with (3) M5904 MassBuss
cards which I am not going to use right now.. if they are removed,
other than the grant cards needing to be installed... is this going
to cause havoc?
Thanks y'all
Cheers
John
Now that's the SECOND time I've seen someone list an HP1000 on Ebay calling
it an "Altair-like HP1000".
Sheesh! That makes me wretch..... :)
Then again, perhaps I should just get a magic marker, write "Altair" on the
front of all my HP's, and retire to the bahamas.
:)
Jay West
>> HARD DISK GUYS, explain this:
>> I put the GRiD's CONNER CP3104 (100MB drive) in K6 Desktop and I could not
>> get DOS to load onto it. I put it in a 486 machine (IDE not EIDE) and DOS
>> loaded fine.
>> I put a 402Mb Conner drive into thr GRiD and forced the geometry
>> using a setup program and I kept getting a BOOT DISK ERROR. WHY?????
>
>Probably because it was formatted under a different geometry. I would
>suggest fdisk'ing the drive (delete and re-create the primary
>partition) on whatever computer you want to install it on, then re-format
>it under DOS.
Nyet! I downloaded the seagate/conner disk utilities and uesd it to zero
write and verify the disk using the correct geometery. Then I fdisked and
formatted (I did this to both the OEM 100Mb and the replacement 420Mb disc)
and loaded DOS. No dice. I can't figure it out.
The oddities I noticed were:
1) when I loaded DOS onto the 100Mb drive, the COMMAND.COM and a few other
systems files would give me write errors when they were written to the
disc. All the other files in the DOS directory went on fine. Note: I was
using a K6 with built in IDE controller. Maybe it was the difference
between IDE and EIDE?
2) The 420Mb drive took DOS installs from both the K6 machine (EIDE) and my
486 machine (IDE) but, the GRiD wouldn't boot from it.
I am clueless about this.
----------------------------------------
Tired of Micro$oft???
Move up to a REAL OS...
######__ __ ____ __ __ _ __ #
#####/ / / / / __ | / / / / | |/ /##
####/ / / / / / / / / / / / | /###
###/ /__ / / / / / / / /_/ / / |####
##/____/ /_/ /_/ /_/ /_____/ /_/|_|####
# ######
("LINUX" for those of you
without fixed-width fonts)
----------------------------------------
Be a Slacker! http://www.slackware.com
Slackware Mailing List:
http://www.digitalslackers.net/linux/list.html
It looks like you've got a standard WD PC/AT HDC (WD1003-WA3) which will
turn out compatible with the Miniscribe 3053 and the ST-251, The big ST
drive, the 4384 is an ESDI type more or less equivalent to the MAXTOR 4380E.
I believe the CDC (same actual MFG as the Seagate, just the prior owner's
label before Seagate acquired them) is about half that size. If I remember
corretctly, it's half-height as well. I believe I have several of these,
but in non-functional status. Though the interfaces "look" the same, i.e.
same cable connectors, DON'T CONNECT THESE ESDI DRIVES to am MFM controller.
They won't work. The 3053 is another one I've tossed out/given away. Once
they don't work, the application being for MFM and where a relatively small
drive goes, I don't usually attempt to fix them. These two are both half
height MFM types of about 50+ MB capacity unformatted. Check for precise
details on www.theref.com, but IIRC, they have close to 1K cylinders and
either 5 or 7 heads.
The ESDI drives need an appropriate controller e.g. WD-1007 of any subtype,
or even the 1005 or 1009. These are really excellent examples of their
type, so I'd hope you can get them going. The WD controllers can deal with
the large number of cylinders so that's not a problem.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles E. Fox <foxvideo(a)wincom.net>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 9:53 AM
Subject: Old bits
>
>
> I received several boxes of old parts, I hope someone might be able to
>tell me something about them.
>
> Hard drives...
>
>1- Seagate ST-251, 3- ST-4384E (94186-383H).
>1- Control Data 94166-182
>1- Miniscribe 3053
>
> Plug in cards...
>
>5- WDC1985 - WD1003-WA2 These look like they might be HD controllers.(I
>hope)
>
>Several Zenith Data Systems cards, including a cpu card with an 8088. These
>look as if they may have been a PC Clone built on sort of a backplane.
>
> There were about twenty pounds of other cards, but these seem to be the
>most interesting.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Charlie Fox
>
>
> Charles E. Fox
> Chas E. Fox Video Productions
> 793 Argyle Rd. Windsor N8Y 3J8 Ont. Canada
> email foxvideo(a)wincom.net Homepage http://www.wincom.net/foxvideo
>
Spotted this on a newsgroup. The usual contact them as I know nothing about it.
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: Tomato Man <akerson(a)shell.clark.net>
Newsgroups: dc.forsale.computers
Date: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 8:04 AM
Subject: hp 9000 32M of mem cards free
>8 x 4M memory cards for an HP/Apollo 9000 series 400, 425, 433, 400dl,
> 375 or 380. Free to good home. Feel free to trade me your equally
> worthless stuff for an old PC.
>
>Cards are 8"x2", 40 chips each, DataRam brand.
Greetings,
I got the (assumed) GRiDCASE 1520 doing something today!
In fact, it's running an Apple ][ emulator right now. :)
The hard drive was totally hosed. Seized. Dead.
On a hunch, I opened up the Toshiba T1200 (which I can't use without
appropriate power supply) and extracated its HD.
I was happy to see that the Toshiba's drive used the same connector. I
guess it's a standard laptop drive. (Isn't it fitting that my very
first working laptop was also (more-or-less) the very first laptop? :) )
When I cracked open the outer case, I was even happier to see that the
Toshiba's drive was also 20MB and made by JVC.
Toshiba's drive: JD3824G01-4
GRiD's drive: JD3824G00-2
I figured they'd be the same drive, but methinks I was wrong. With the
Toshiba's drive in place, the GRiD now powers up the drive at the
appropriate time, and I guess the drive passes whatever test it needs to
pass, and then the GRiD is able to boot from floppy. But I haven't been
able to access the HD yet. It just makes unpleasant noises when I try.
I don't have the proper SETUP program for the GRiD, but shouldn't FDISK
be able to tell me what's there anyway? Or is the busted SETUP possibly
the only thing wrong now?
Gah!
Anyway, the GRiD didn't complain about the clock not being set, even
after an hour of being turned off. But the clock also didn't advance in
that time. The battery says it's non-rechargable, but I'm still hoping
it will recover. :)
BTW, what a freaking pain working in the Toshiba is, compared to the
GRiD! Plastic framework that goes all over the place, multiple
different screw types in annoying places, etc. Getting the case open
with no instructions was easier, but once inside it's harder to deal
with.
Or maybe I'm just used to the GRiDCASE's innards now. :)
--
Doug Spence
ds_spenc(a)alcor.concordia.ca
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~ds_spenc/
I just found drivers for the Sound Source today. It turned out that one of
the people on my ICQ list also has a Sound Source. I loaded the Win 3.1
drivers in my P70, fired it up, and it works!
Now my next 'project'. I have an old Covox Speech Thing that I've had
sitting around for quite some time. Just for the heck of it, I plugged it
into the parallel port of the P70, fired up the P70, loaded windows, and....
A garbled mess of undefinable static came out of the speaker...
I'm guessing that this means that it works, but has nowhere near the
capabilities of the Sound Source.
I remember that someone had emailed me, saying that they had the drivers for
the Speech Thing (I know that Sputter is supposed to drive it, but have no
clue how to set it up because I don't know the port address of the parallel
port on my SupersPORT...) I lost the email of the person that said they had
the drivers (HD crash - *stupid windoze*). Do you remember who you are?
ThAnX,
///--->>>
-Jason Willgruber
(roblwill(a)usaor.net)
ICQ#: 1730318
<http://members.tripod.com/general_1>
Can anyone help me with any technical information on HP SketchPro digitiser. Product number 45911B. I have the device but nothing else. Even to know the DIP switch settings would be a big help.
Thanks
David
In a message dated 6/7/99 5:25:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jlwest(a)tseinc.com
writes:
> Geez... I didn't know all machines with switches and
> lights had the same architecture <grin>.
Who cares about the messy details ... think I'll put a zx81 in a box with a
bunch of switches & leds & post it on eBay:
*** RARE British prototype computer with 1KB RAM / advanced BASIC built in"
***
Should be good for about $200, eh?
Regards,
Glen Goodwin
0/0
At 07:47 PM 6/7/99 -0700, Charles P. Hobbs wrote:
>
>Has anyone heard of the HP1000 anyway, at least in a home/hobbyist
>context? It looks more like an industrial-type computer to me, something
>that would have never seen the inside of most private homes, unlike the
>Altair or IMSAI. . .
Ok, so call me odd (you would not be the first)... But I have a pair of HP
1000F CPUs (aka HP 2117F).
One of the early systems I used in school was a timeshared BASIC system
that ran on HP CPUs, so there is a sentimental attachment here.
Pictures on my web pages...
-jim
---
jimw(a)computergarage.org
The Computer Garage - http://www.computergarage.org
Computer Garage Fax - (503) 646-0174
Hi,
I picked up an old IBM AT the other day and found a strange card in it.
It's a full length card with an 8 bit ISA plug. It has two Burr Brown
DAC800P-CBI-V ( D to A?) ICs on it along with a large IC marked TSC
7109CPL. (I have no idea what that one is.) There is also a small flat
sealed Yuasa NiCad battery in the top corner of the card. It has 37 pin
male connector on the back and it's marked "copyright 1983 MBC". Most of
the ICs are dated 1986. It looks like it may be some kind of D to A
convertor card. Does anyone know what it is for sure?
Joe
Well? . . . now you see why we disagree. This doesn't just extend to you
and to me, but rather to lots of other people who use documentation
differently. Consequently there are differing needs which I believe need to
be addressed. This won't happen if all we do is trash the other guy's
solution. We need to find an adequate accomodation which has the potential,
at least, of meeting almost everybody's needs with an increase in work as
the scarcity of the need increases. Now, that may still not make you happy,
but it will at least try to prevent leaving you, or anyone else high and
dry, don't you agree?
. . . and you'll have to do more than shout to convince me that's (meaning
the fact every page is a document apart from the one major unit to which it
belongs) not a big part of why the LINUX doc's are so impenetrably muddled.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, June 07, 1999 8:07 PM
Subject: Re: Disk Drive Documents
>>
>> Now, I don't want to go off chasing another rabbit, but there is one
point
>> about published documents that I would like to make. That's that I think
a
>> complete document should be archived as a complete document. Lack of
this
>
>Archived as a complete document != is only one file once unpacked...
>
>> unity is the reason or at least a majorly contributing factor in why the
>> LINUX documentation is so screwed up, out of sync with itself, and out of
>> sync with the software to which it applies. If people can fiddle with
>> individual pieces of a document in its "library" then it's not long
before
>
>RUBBISH!!!.
>
>The reason linux documentation is in small pieces is to make it easier to
>keep it in sync with the software.
>
>Look, I rewrite some bit of linux. I also rewrite the appropriate
>documentation file (man page or whatever). You download them and install
>them. Your on-line manual is now updated to include the changes I made to
>the software.
>
>Otherwise it would be _impossible_ to keep the documentation up to date.
>
>> it's corrupted. That's a positive feature for the single-document
>> indivisible archive approach I prefer. Once you have possession of a
copy,
>> you're at liberty to fiddle with it all you want, but not at the source.
>>
>> I spent the better part of a year trying to get complete documents from
>> Sunsite and other loci when I had the urge to learn about LINUX. It
seemed
>> that EVERY PARAGRAPH was a separate file . . . what a PAIN. There I
sat,
>> 50 computers, 35 TB of storage available half a dozen available DS3's for
>> internet traffic, and I had to type one character for every ten I
>> downloaded, or so it seemed.
>>
>> There's got to be a better way. Please tell me what it is.
>
>Err... Buy a book on unix (Linux includes almost everything you'd expect
>to find on a unix system). Buy some of the better books on linux.
>Download the archive files of documentation. Download some of the
>complete manuals from the LDP. What more do you need?
>
>-tony
>
I freely admit that I'm not a UNIX expert, or even knowledgable to be
dangerous. I've driven vi and grep a few dozen times and installed drivers,
etc, and typed 'make' followed by a bit of other text, but the way I use
documents, is that I read everything I can about the subject and remember
it, largely verbatim, for LONG periods of time. Few people do that, but I'm
one. When you do that, the most obvious thing about the subject and about
the documentation is the inconsistency in the documentation. I'm a stickler
for precise documents. Maybe this is not part of your reality, but it's how
the world works for me.
I've avoided UNIX for all the years, since I was in college in the VERY
early '60's, not that it was an issue back then, and, clearly, though I have
had nearly a dozen dedicated machines running it right here, and I don't any
more, I've concluded that that's not what I want to study. I don't remember
things as well as I did when I was a student, perhaps due to overflow, and
maybe I'll do things differently in the future, but that's the approach to
documents that I can best grasp, so I've staked that territory out for
myself.
It doesn't matter to me that few or many people use the information in
question. I've had it for 20-25 years in some cases and never even used
some of the items myself, but recently, I've seen numerous posts and
received inquiries about one or another of these documents. Clearly,
someone wants to use them. If you don't need this data, you won't serve
anyone by looking it over. If you do, I suppose you'll have to satisfy your
curiosity somewhere. The computer where the data's stored won't care, and I
won't even know. When I see data available somewhere, I consider whether I
want it, and, if so, I find a way . . .
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Eskin <max82(a)surfree.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, June 07, 1999 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: Disk Drive Documents
>On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>>I did that, and as you say, they're generally just reductions to CD of the
>>published e-docs, except that they're permanently mixed together out of
>>logical or chronological sequence, so you can't track progress of a given
>>feature set. I wasn't after info on UNIX, I was after info on LINUX.
>>However that's not what THIS thread is about.
>
>If you're already familiar with UNIX, then your point is well taken. If
>you're not, and wish to use Linux, you should get familiar. They are
>almost the same in many instances as far as user interface is concerned.
>
>>I'm not sure clumsy is what it is, but it's inherently solvable if not
>>elegant. If I can break out parts of the document into PCL, then I can do
>>that into POSTSCRIPT as well, and so can you. If the guy down the hall
>>can't, he can ask for help.
>
>I won't be using these docs if they ever are made, so I'll shut up now :)
>
>--Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com)
> http://scivault.hypermart.net: Ignorance is Impotence - Knowledge is
Power
>
You wrote...
>Has anyone heard of the HP1000 anyway, at least in a home/hobbyist
>context? It looks more like an industrial-type computer to me, something
>that would have never seen the inside of most private homes, unlike the
>Altair or IMSAI. . .
Er... uh.... yeah, I agree with the above poster ;)
HP1000's probably aren't of interest to any collectors, so don't tell anyone
if you see one ;)
Nope, never heard of the HP1000's ;)
Probably just industrial things, never used for general data processing ;)
If you ever see one, I wouldn't be interested, but let me know anyway, k?
<GRIN>
Jay
please see (non-combative) comments embedded below.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Duell <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, June 07, 1999 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: Disk Drive Documents
>> All of this suggests that Word documents are a complete non-starter, and
>> however convenient PDF is in some ways, it shouldn't be the *only* format
>> provided. I think we're all agreed on that? I'd also submit that
>> PostScript is less useful than either. There are few systems that can
>> handle PostScript but not PDF; all can handle ASCII+GIF; it can be a real
>
>Hmm... Well, if it's level 1 postscript you can print it on an old Apple
>LW2NT printer, and those are pretty cheap and common now. They're also
>dead easy to fix :-).
>
>Maybe I was being a little biased, as that's the printer(s) I have here,
>so I have few problems with postscript. On the other hand, postscript is
>hardly suitable as a medium for distributing documents (IMHO).
>
>Are there really more machines with modern PDF views than ones that can
>run ghostscript? I thought that was available for virtually all
>modern-ish OSes, and anyway, source is available so porting it should be
>possible.
The problem with PS is that it's not trivial (or achievable with freeware)
to display, scale, search, or selectively print portions of it, is it? PDF
allows all these. True, that's no help if you can't run Acroread.
>> pain extracting individual pages from PostScript, especially the
>
>True. I think I was suggesting (but not seriously suggesting) a separate
>postscript file for each page.
>
>>
>> PDF is nice because it can preserve the original layout, with diagrams in
>
>This is great if you're the sort of person who believes layout is more
>important than content. It can be a right pain if the user wishes to
>alter the layout for whatever reason.
Perhaps not the art of the layout, but the order in which things are
presented certainly can make the different between a very informative and
easy-to-use document and one which is impenetrable. That doesn't mean it is
MORE important than the content, but it's important enough.
>> the right places etc, but for many purposes having the diagrams separate
>> (and viewed in a separate window) is actually a nicer way of working --
>
>Agreed...
>
>Actually, I've just thought of something.
>
>I have the shop manauls for some old (1960s) Citroen cars. Like all Citroen
>products, these manuals are unconventional.
>
>You open them in landscape format. The top part is then a 'book' of
>diagrams (only). The bottom part is the text, which refers to the
>diagrams by number.
>
>Actually, this is _extremely_ convenient when you're working. You can
>keep a particular diagram open while you read the text that goes with it.
>Or turn up a different, but related, diagram.
>
>The same thing could apply to computer manuals. How many times have you
>found yourself flipping between a circuit description and the schematic.
>I suspect that's one reason why DEC used to publish the printset
>(schematics) and maintenance manual (description) as separate books.
>Many times I've wanted to keep both open at once.
>
>One other thing to consider. Given separate text and diagrams, it's easy
>to (automatically) combine them into one document. It's much harder to
>separate them again.
>
>[...]
>
>> There are plenty of document formats that don't keep everything in one
>> file. Why should that be a requirement? There are probably more systems
>
>In fact whenever I've written a large document, I've always split it up
>into separate files. Makes it a lot easier to manage (like splitting up
>source code into separate files, I guess).
>
>[PDF]
>
>> [1] unless I discover that the "text" within it isn't OCRed or typed, but
>> scanned bitmaps, in which case I'll likely throw it away again.
>
>YES!. A PDF file shouldn't be used as a way of grouping a number of
>single-page bitmaps together.
>
>-tony
>
I don't like those minimal-effort-PDF's which look like faxed documents,
badly aligned with the page boundaries, and looking like poorly rendered
dot-matrix images either, but I think it's highly important, for the
confidence of the user if not out of respect for the originator, to put
forth a creditable presentation of the original document. Making it barley
readable means nearly illegible which is nearly worthless. OCR'ing,
however, invites editing, reformatting, and other sins, which , out of
respect for the document's originator, and probably still owner, should be
avoided. Besides, having what is, for all intent and purpose a complete
de-facto facsimile (not fax) of the document in question as opposed to an
edited and possibly corrupted copy is a great confidence builder the third
day you're trying to effect a repair in which you NEED the document. That's
another reason to make the file monolithic in my view.
That, in fact, is the case here. I have two laser printers and three
ink-spitters, and a pen plotter, none of which speak PS. They even require
different dialects of PCL. There's even an impact printer from the
DOT-Matrix (for multi-part forms) which doesn't speak either.
The only language common to all my printers is ASCII. All but the TOSHIBA
Dot-Matrix printer speak HPGL if they're prodded.
How can the needs of the many be met without disabling resolution of the
needs of the few, and vice-versa? Who will do the work? From which of
several source formats?
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Turnbull <pete(a)dunnington.u-net.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, June 07, 1999 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: Disk Drive Documents
>On Jun 7, 18:30, Max Eskin wrote:
>> I recommend PostScript at least as an option, since it's inside every
>> laser printer and many inkjets.
>
>obNitPick: My laserprinter doesn't have PostScript, only PCL. Lots of
>lasers don't, and not many inkjets, at least in my experience. I drive my
>laserjet from a PostScript raster engine (not Ghostscript) running on one
>of my unix machines.
>
>
>--
>
>Pete Peter Turnbull
> Dept. of Computer Science
> University of York
Now, I don't want to go off chasing another rabbit, but there is one point
about published documents that I would like to make. That's that I think a
complete document should be archived as a complete document. Lack of this
unity is the reason or at least a majorly contributing factor in why the
LINUX documentation is so screwed up, out of sync with itself, and out of
sync with the software to which it applies. If people can fiddle with
individual pieces of a document in its "library" then it's not long before
it's corrupted. That's a positive feature for the single-document
indivisible archive approach I prefer. Once you have possession of a copy,
you're at liberty to fiddle with it all you want, but not at the source.
I spent the better part of a year trying to get complete documents from
Sunsite and other loci when I had the urge to learn about LINUX. It seemed
that EVERY PARAGRAPH was a separate file . . . what a PAIN. There I sat,
50 computers, 35 TB of storage available half a dozen available DS3's for
internet traffic, and I had to type one character for every ten I
downloaded, or so it seemed.
There's got to be a better way. Please tell me what it is.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Eskin <max82(a)surfree.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, June 07, 1999 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: Disk Drive Documents
>I'll respond to several parts of this thread at once...
>
>>> >will serve everyone. In this case, that means plain ASCII for the
text.
>>> >For the images or graphics, that's a bit trickier, but GIF format is
about
>>> >the widest deployed graphics format out there.
>
>I recommend PostScript at least as an option, since it's inside every
>laser printer and many inkjets. If the system can display GIFs, it's
>probably capable of displaying most modern formats. If it can't, the GIF
>file likely would have to be converted to PS for printing anyway.
>
>>> Well, I don't, and for the reason that lowest common denominator means
the
>>> lowest efficiency for the most people. I want to make it easy and
>>> accessible to as many people as possible. Based on statistics, that
means
>
>It's not about 'many people' at all. You're catering to a technical
>audience that is capable of making sense of the datasheets.
>
>>> that the only OS that really matters is . . . now say it along with me
. .
>
>How many shares of MICROS~1 stock do you own?
>
>>> As far as I'm concerned, what's most important is that the documents be
>>> stored as complete, separate, and single files. They should not be
broken
>>> up into pages or chapters or text in one part and graphics in another in
the
>
>Why is that? If necessary, they can be put together with tar or PKZIP
>(though you probably are only familiar with WinZip). If you're after
>neatness, don't bother. Again, an audience that knows what to do with
>datasheets can figure it out.
>
>>A PDF file can't change that. If you want to re-draw all the images in
>>some CAD system, go ahead. But if you're just going to scan them, all you
>>end up with is bitmaps, no matter what file format you eventually store
>>them in.
>
>If it's a circuit schematic, it may be possible to design a program to
>interpret the bitmap and make an object-oriented graphics file (or use an
>existing one - Photoshop-like programs may have the proper filters).
>
>--Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com)
> http://scivault.hypermart.net: Ignorance is Impotence - Knowledge is
Power
>
First of all, I don't know much about publication formats for documents to
be published. I do know that Acrobat format is VERY convenient for the
folks who publish documents. It's much more compact, of course, if the
graphics are reduced in density, from 2780 or whatever DPI they use in the
printing trade, but in general it's something they put out because it's
relatively cheap and easy for the publisher. Of course it can be quite
involved and still be cheap and easy when compared with distributing 100k
physical data books, 15-40 volumes, averaging 800 pages each or some such.
That's why they so happily put the PDF's on a CD and give that away instead
of the 250 lbs of books.
Having said that, I've scanned and reproduced, even edited quite a bit of
graphic material, and, having been raised by a parent who worked in the
printing industry for 40+ years, and having worked there myself a bit, I am
not completely out of touch with what has to happen to create a
distributable file. It's just the needs of the "right" people that elude
me. I've got equipment/software to read and utilize PDF. I can view and
process other types of files to lesser extent, but I guess that still makes
it possible. I don't know how to search for a text string in PCL or
PostScript, nor do I want to learn, since nobody seems to want to do that
either.
I've already got what I need, in that I own the documents, so I don't need
to distribute them. I just know what a pain it is to have to fix an XYZ 320
when you don't have doc's to show you the way. For that reason I'm willing
to make my materials available. I've even found a web site which will host
these files in a location where they'll be exposed to many users of
"old-time" machines. What's more, PDF is my preferred format mainly because
I have already found a volunteer who's got the tools and will apply them to
generating the documents in PDF. If someone wants to make them into another
format, I suppose the TIFF's which are what many scanners put out as a raw
bitmap file, can be made available for OCR or re-editing and re-layout. I'm
not likely to do that myself, though.
If someone has suggestions as to how the needs of Non-PDF users can be met,
Now's the time, I guess . . .
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Pete Turnbull <pete(a)dunnington.u-net.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, June 07, 1999 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: Disk Drive Documents
>Leaving aside some of the vitriol, Sellam, Tony and Dick have made some
>valid points about document format.
>
>These documents and others like them are of interest mainly to people who
>collect old machines; whether there are more Windows users who die every
>day than there are users of computer systems desiring but inherently unable
>to view PDF files is totally irrelevant -- the vast majority of those
>Windows users aren't interested in these documents. On the other hand,
>there are lots of people like us who use classic machines day-to-day. For
>example, until recently, the machine I used most often was an Acorn
>Archimedes. It certainly has graphics and comms capabilities, but it can't
>view PDF. (There is now a viewer, but it's too big, too slow, and too
>restricted to be useful on my Arc). Even now, I don't use Windows, and I
>know many other users who don't. There are several UNIX OSs out there that
>don't have PDF viewers, and a few that only run old versions of Acroread
>(there was a lot of complaining about a year ago that AIX didn't have a PDF
>viewer). Furthermore, I'm sure that many enthusiasts might well use the
>internet, say at work, to download "stuff", that then gets copied for use
>on a classic machine elsewhere. Finally, as far as machines are concerned,
>not all of them can use cheap large-capacity hard drives, so size *is* an
>issue.
>
>All of this suggests that Word documents are a complete non-starter, and
>however convenient PDF is in some ways, it shouldn't be the *only* format
>provided. I think we're all agreed on that? I'd also submit that
>PostScript is less useful than either. There are few systems that can
>handle PostScript but not PDF; all can handle ASCII+GIF; it can be a real
>pain extracting individual pages from PostScript, especially the
>almost-DSC-compliant PS produced by Microsloth. Even printing it can be
>problematic.
>
>PDF is nice because it can preserve the original layout, with diagrams in
>the right places etc, but for many purposes having the diagrams separate
>(and viewed in a separate window) is actually a nicer way of working --
>depending on purpose and personal preference. For the latter scheme,
>there's little wrong with flat ASCII text files and some GIFs. Stream TIFF
>might theoretically be better suited to scanned diagrams, but isn't so well
>supported as GIF. As for the size of the raster image, it can be scrolled
>or scaled on any reasonable graphics system I've ever seen -- and that's
>exactly what happens anyway when a scanned image is put in a PDF file and
>displayed or printed. If the images are separate, anyone who wants can
>print one separately, blown up to the size they want (resolution
>permitting) and printed out separately to pin on the wall over the bench.
> You can't do that with Acroread.
>
>There are plenty of document formats that don't keep everything in one
>file. Why should that be a requirement? There are probably more systems
>that use directories or folders than single files. Tar/zip for
>distribution is fine for these.
>
>As Sellam said, you'll never get a concensus about a single format that all
>of the interested parties can access. I don't agree that means you should
>use only the lowest common denominator; I think it means you should provide
>two (or more) formats. I'll download the PDF if it's available[1], but
>I'll surely download the ASCII too. Of course, I'm assuming that one is
>more-or-less as easy to produce as the other, if you have the originals.
>
>[1] unless I discover that the "text" within it isn't OCRed or typed, but
>scanned bitmaps, in which case I'll likely throw it away again.
>
>--
>
>Pete Peter Turnbull
> Dept. of Computer Science
> University of York
please look at the comments below.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Eskin <max82(a)surfree.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, June 07, 1999 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: Disk Drive Documents
>On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>>I spent the better part of a year trying to get complete documents from
>>Sunsite and other loci when I had the urge to learn about LINUX. It
seemed
>>that EVERY PARAGRAPH was a separate file . . . what a PAIN. There I sat,
>>50 computers, 35 TB of storage available half a dozen available DS3's for
>>internet traffic, and I had to type one character for every ten I
>>downloaded, or so it seemed.
>>
>>There's got to be a better way. Please tell me what it is.
>
>Well, you could get a Linux CD or book, which will have all of these for
>you. However, I'm not sure which documents you're referring to. I've had
>no related problems. There is also another issue, and that is that from
>what I've found, the docs are useless 'learning about Linux'. They are
>useful if you need command syntax, or if there is some specific thing that
>you need to do and documentation exists for it. I found a book called
>'UNIX Shell Programming' to be an invaluable resource. I do dislike Linux
>books because they are usually either printed versions of the e-docs, or
>very superficial. Check your library for a book on UNIX.
I did that, and as you say, they're generally just reductions to CD of the
published e-docs, except that they're permanently mixed together out of
logical or chronological sequence, so you can't track progress of a given
feature set. I wasn't after info on UNIX, I was after info on LINUX.
However that's not what THIS thread is about.
>This, however, has little to do with the disk drive documentation. Nobody
>will try to modify it, and since it will be tech manuals, I hardly think
>that there will be a dilemma as to which file to download. Your all-in-one
>approach does have merits, but as people have said, it's clumsy. A better
>choice would be to either tar/zip the files together or simply put all
>related files into one directory, so that when one needs to get a manual,
>one just does 'get *' at the FTP prompt.
I'm not sure clumsy is what it is, but it's inherently solvable if not
elegant. If I can break out parts of the document into PCL, then I can do
that into POSTSCRIPT as well, and so can you. If the guy down the hall
can't, he can ask for help.
>--Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com)
> http://scivault.hypermart.net: Ignorance is Impotence - Knowledge is
Power
>
There is one other aspect to consider in making a public archive of these
documents, and that is that this is not my information, nor is it public
domain. So far, no one has mentioned that there is likely still a copyright
on the documents. I suppose permission will have to be obtained from the
copyright owner. It's likely, since most of these companies, e.g. Seagate,
Siemens, Mitsubishi, Xerox (bought Shugart Associates. (?)) are big users of
PDF format for some of the reasons previously stated, probably have a
preference for PDF. It's too soon to speculate on what these companies will
do.
Please see my commments embedded below.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Sellam Ismail <dastar(a)ncal.verio.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Sunday, June 06, 1999 9:27 PM
Subject: Re: Disk Drive Documents
>On Sun, 6 Jun 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
>> In any case, I'll agree that each of us will have an approach to "using"
our
>> computer which may not suit someone else, and those who have a preferred
>> format for openly presented technical data should make their preferences
>> known. The people who actually prepare the data and present it for use
will
>> probably have the final say, though and there's no guarantee that I will
>> have any more to say in the final choice than you.
>
>Well, I definitely agree with Tony on this.
On which point, Sam?
>The fact is you're never going to get consensus amongst everyone on what
>format the file should be in. So in this case, if the intent is to create
>a public archive, you must go with the least common denominator, which
>will serve everyone. In this case, that means plain ASCII for the text.
>For the images or graphics, that's a bit trickier, but GIF format is about
>the widest deployed graphics format out there.
Well, I don't, and for the reason that lowest common denominator means the
lowest efficiency for the most people. I want to make it easy and
accessible to as many people as possible. Based on statistics, that means
that the only OS that really matters is . . . now say it along with me . .
.
I don't anticipate getting complete agreement from everyone. What has to be
considered is (1) What do the owners of the data have to say? (2) What are
the people willing to do the work willing to do? (3) Where are these
documents to be stored and presented to the public and how much space will
they allow for this purpose? (4) What will satisfy the needs and preferences
of MOST of the people having access to the documents? The weight assigned
to the answers will probably be in about this order as well.
As far as I'm concerned, what's most important is that the documents be
stored as complete, separate, and single files. They should not be broken
up into pages or chapters or text in one part and graphics in another in the
stupid, Stupid, STUPID way much of the LINUX documentation is published.
Further, while GIF format is probably OK for your vacation pictures or the
latest centerfold, I don't find it particularly advantageous for presenting
line-art drawings because common viewers don't have a standard presentation
format for them. They come in a size matched to some raster image and if
your display matches it, great, else too bad. Again I prefer the PDF, not
only because it is what most people can get and use for free, but because it
is a single format useable in common for both text and graphics.
>Sellam Alternate e-mail:
dastar(a)siconic.com
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.
>
> Coming this October 2-3: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0!
> See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
> [Last web site update: 05/25/99]
>
Hi,
I'm using my Compass again. :)
I have the GRiD 1520 (I think that's the model) disassembled on the
kitchen table beside me.
It does, I repeat, it *does* have a hard drive in it. Either it is very,
very quiet, or it wasn't spinning up before. Could be why it didn't pass
the "test".
I've located the battery, too. Looks to be non-rechargable, and it's
soldered to the motherboard. Looks like a pink capacitor. TL-5101.
Anyone know the specs on this?
The hard drive is from JVC. I didn't even know that JVC made hard drives.
"Manufactured by Victor Company of Japan, Limited". It's labeled "20 MEG
HD" on the outside of the metal case. It's a model JD3824G00-2. There is
one error listed, on cylinder 155, head 0, sector 4.
The hard drive is a very slim 3.5" unit, with a 26-pin connector going
into it. Those 26 pins _include_ the power. What kind of drive is this?
The floppy drive definitely works. I plugged it into my Amiga 1200 and
viewed some JPEGs from it.
The little modem board (?) is from USRobotics.
The AC adapter actually slides out of the case. It has battery terminals
on its inside end. Obviously the battery pack must fit into the same
space when the machine is on the move. There's some other kind of
connector on the end of the AC adapter, too, but I don't know what that's
for. Also, why is there an external 16VDC connector if the battery slides
into the case?
The CPU is a HARRIS (says INTEL lower down) CG80C286-10.
There are four monstrous square FARADAY chips near the CPU, 21 pins to a
side. FE3000A/M79V004, FE3030/M73HB002, FE3010/M92H801, FE3020/M73HB001.
There's a 40-pin ceramic DIP labeled "256K RAM". Could be video RAM, I
suppose, but it's far away from the video board and plasma display
connecions. There's a socket next to it, of the same physical size.
There are four banks of RAM on little boards, kind of like SIMMs but not.
The board edges seem to be soldered to the motherboard. There are four
empty spaces for more of these things. 30 pins each. Or is that what
30-pin SIMMs are supposed to look like? :)
Some chips have GRiD labels.
The chip which I presume to be the main video chip is a square YAMAHA
beast, 21 pins per side, with labels "7822851/V6366B-J/6102B-J".
Possibly most importantly, there are modifications inside. On the
motherboard, at position U83, there is a piggybacked 20-pin chip, with
some cut pins and wire leading to the chip below it (only one) and to U72
and U73. There's another piggybacked 14-pin chip at U26, and a couple of
other patches here and there. I thought a machine beaing the GRiD name
would be beyond these kinds of patches. :)
Anyway, I ended up doing the full disassembly by accident. I was trying
to figure out how to open the case, and the only obvious screws were the
ones under the carrying handle. I unscrewed two of those and "jingle
jingle jingle" some metal pieces fell from their moorings and started
drifting around inside. Oh joy.
Turns out they were under the battery compartment. Turns out I needed to
disassemble EVERYTHING to get under there and put the pieces back in
place. Turns out they were the springs that hold the handle in one of two
positions.
Now I hope I can get the darn thing together again. I didn't take notes,
and there are tons of screws all over the place.
--
Doug Spence
ds_spenc(a)alcor.concordia.ca
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~ds_spenc/
On Jun 7, 18:30, Max Eskin wrote:
> I recommend PostScript at least as an option, since it's inside every
> laser printer and many inkjets.
obNitPick: My laserprinter doesn't have PostScript, only PCL. Lots of
lasers don't, and not many inkjets, at least in my experience. I drive my
laserjet from a PostScript raster engine (not Ghostscript) running on one
of my unix machines.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
For anyone that cares...
This weekend I fired up my new (old) HP 9000/840S minicomputer.
The 840S is a fairly large minicomputer circa 1987. This particular unit is
fully loaded with 24MB of RAM (I think 12MB was standard), 36 serial ports,
4 HPIB interface cards, a SCSI card, and a LAN interface. The system is 3
1/2' tall, 2 1/2' wide, and 3' deep. I weighs between 350 and 400 pounds.
The CPU has an emormous transformer in the base with a number of primary
windings. This allows it to be configured for a number of different line
voltages including: 110, 120, 220, 240, and 208. Fortunately, there is a
wiring diagram printed inside the power distribution panel and the jumpers
were all color coded. I set it up for 240 since that's what my voltmeter
indicated at the outlet.
I had previously removed all the cards from the CPU (there are approx 25
cards). I turned the machine on and tested each of the 3 power suplies.
There is a "System Monitor" module that runs the control panel and it also
provides test points for all the system voltages. When I checked them, they
were all pretty close to the voltages indicated on panel.
I reinstalled all the cards and connected a terminal to the console port.
Flipped the breaker and the machine came alive! The CPU did it's self test
and everything seemed to work just fine. After a few moments, it indicated
a BOOT error as would be expected without a boot device attached.
The system came with a pair of HP 7937 hard drives mounted in rolling
cabinet. The drives are approx 14 tall, 14" wide, and 30" deep. They weigh
between 80 and 100 pounds each and have a capacity of approx 500MB.
A cursory inspection of the drives found that the heads had not been locked
in the "ship" position. I didn't know what kinda treatment they had
received so, I just crossed my fingers and fired them up.
There was a loud squeel from the drives as they spooled up. That was
obviously a bad sign :-(
I spent the entire afternoon Saturday and most of the morning on Sunday
working on the HDs. After removing them from the cabinet and disassembling
them on the kitchen table, I discovered what was making the horrific
noises. The motor, that spins the fan, also spins the HD through a belt
drive. When the motor started up, some of the old insulation got caught in
the belt and gummed it up pretty good. That particular foam insulation
turns to a sticky, gooey, black mess when it ages and the S*** was all over
the place.
After several hours, up to my elbows in Acetone, I managed to get
everything cleaned up and completely reassembled the units (OH my aching
back). Now I was ready to try it again.
I applied to power to the first HD and it spun up without the horrible
noises it made previously. The only problem was the LEDS, on the front
panel, indicated a "Servo" ERROR. I cycled the power on the unit several
times (allowing it to spin down) and about 30% of the time I could get a
green LED (disk OK). I applied power to the second HD and got similar
results although it failed the POST more often.
So, I attached the first HD to the CPU and was ready to go. I had to cycle
the HD several times to get a green indication and then I turned on the
CPU. After several moments, it went through the boot sequence... Yipee!.
During the BOOT, FSCK detected numerous faults in the HD and several of the
scripts in the ETC/RC directory could not execute. Obviously, the HDs were
having difficulties. After about 15 minutes, I finally got an "(un)welcome"
screen and login prompt. It said "Property of the US government... blah,
blah, USC code XXX... blah, blah, you're going to jail".
Since I didn't know the ROOT password, I was at a dead end but, at least it
did boot!
I rebooted the system and tried to restart in single user mode hoping, I
could find a way in to the system. Alas, I cannot get the system to boot
again. I think FSCK probably tried to fix the HD, during the previous boot,
and now it doesn't work at all :-(
I had intended to register the system with HP and get the OS upgrade
anyway. Thankfully, they're offering HPUX 10.2 for free so, it won't cost
me anything for the software.
With any luck, I'll be able to reformat the HDs and clear up the problems
they were having. I'll let y'all know what happens.
See Ya,
Steve Robertson <steverob(a)hotoffice.com>
<Linux != X. In other words there are text-based linux boxes around (ones
<which plain can't display a graphical image, but which could print it).
<Care to suggest a viewer for that system.
Ghostscript, I used it to push PDF, PS, EPS to ly LQ570 and it's runable on
DOS, WIN31, W9X and all flavors of unix.
<What about Xenix on a PC/AT or on a Tandy 6000. Or PNX (on any model
<PERQ). Or Uniplus+ on a Plessey Mantra. Or Zeus on a Zilog S8000.
Ghostscript source...
<All the world is _NOT A PC_...
True and most of it has a hard time with FTP/LYNX/Pine and an IP stack.
Get it posted, convert to other formats as needed.
Allison
Leaving aside some of the vitriol, Sellam, Tony and Dick have made some
valid points about document format.
These documents and others like them are of interest mainly to people who
collect old machines; whether there are more Windows users who die every
day than there are users of computer systems desiring but inherently unable
to view PDF files is totally irrelevant -- the vast majority of those
Windows users aren't interested in these documents. On the other hand,
there are lots of people like us who use classic machines day-to-day. For
example, until recently, the machine I used most often was an Acorn
Archimedes. It certainly has graphics and comms capabilities, but it can't
view PDF. (There is now a viewer, but it's too big, too slow, and too
restricted to be useful on my Arc). Even now, I don't use Windows, and I
know many other users who don't. There are several UNIX OSs out there that
don't have PDF viewers, and a few that only run old versions of Acroread
(there was a lot of complaining about a year ago that AIX didn't have a PDF
viewer). Furthermore, I'm sure that many enthusiasts might well use the
internet, say at work, to download "stuff", that then gets copied for use
on a classic machine elsewhere. Finally, as far as machines are concerned,
not all of them can use cheap large-capacity hard drives, so size *is* an
issue.
All of this suggests that Word documents are a complete non-starter, and
however convenient PDF is in some ways, it shouldn't be the *only* format
provided. I think we're all agreed on that? I'd also submit that
PostScript is less useful than either. There are few systems that can
handle PostScript but not PDF; all can handle ASCII+GIF; it can be a real
pain extracting individual pages from PostScript, especially the
almost-DSC-compliant PS produced by Microsloth. Even printing it can be
problematic.
PDF is nice because it can preserve the original layout, with diagrams in
the right places etc, but for many purposes having the diagrams separate
(and viewed in a separate window) is actually a nicer way of working --
depending on purpose and personal preference. For the latter scheme,
there's little wrong with flat ASCII text files and some GIFs. Stream TIFF
might theoretically be better suited to scanned diagrams, but isn't so well
supported as GIF. As for the size of the raster image, it can be scrolled
or scaled on any reasonable graphics system I've ever seen -- and that's
exactly what happens anyway when a scanned image is put in a PDF file and
displayed or printed. If the images are separate, anyone who wants can
print one separately, blown up to the size they want (resolution
permitting) and printed out separately to pin on the wall over the bench.
You can't do that with Acroread.
There are plenty of document formats that don't keep everything in one
file. Why should that be a requirement? There are probably more systems
that use directories or folders than single files. Tar/zip for
distribution is fine for these.
As Sellam said, you'll never get a concensus about a single format that all
of the interested parties can access. I don't agree that means you should
use only the lowest common denominator; I think it means you should provide
two (or more) formats. I'll download the PDF if it's available[1], but
I'll surely download the ASCII too. Of course, I'm assuming that one is
more-or-less as easy to produce as the other, if you have the originals.
[1] unless I discover that the "text" within it isn't OCRed or typed, but
scanned bitmaps, in which case I'll likely throw it away again.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
Hey!
I just put some Compass pics and info on my web page.
A bit of a rush job this afternoon, because I just got the message telling
me of the Impending Death of my Account. :/
Anyway, thunder storms rolling in, so I'd better log out. I hope the page
looks OK.
Time to sign up with a commercial provider. <s>
--
Doug Spence
ds_spenc(a)alcor.concordia.ca
http://alcor.concordia.ca/~ds_spenc/
On JVC drives, the problem wasn't the heads sticking to the media, but the
spindle bearings themselves sticking. My Zenith SupersPORT has the same
problem (JVC drive) if it's not turned on for more than a week.
///--->>>
-Jason Willgruber
(roblwill(a)usaor.net)
ICQ#: 1730318
<http://members.tripod.com/general_1>
-----Original Message-----
From: allisonp(a)world.std.com <allisonp(a)world.std.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Montag, 7. Juni 1999 06:09
Subject: Re: GRiDCASE update, now laptop hard drives
>
>> > > What is this supposed to accomplish?
>> >
>> > The HD for mysterious reasons works again. The person I got the laptop
>> > from told me about it.
>
>The likely problem is stiction, heads stick to drive media and it will not
>spin causing a boot error. Dropping it is a destructive practice at best.
>next time try rotating it very sharply while sitting on the desk to help
>spin the media.
>
>Allison
>
>
>
On Jun 7, 15:44, emanuel stiebler wrote:
> Subject: kemit for rt11
> Hi all,
> where can I find the newest version ?
> P.S. RSX would be nice too ;-))
You'll find both at http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/pdp11.html or better
still by anonymous FTP to kermit.columbia.edu, in the directory 'kermit/b'.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
In with several boxes of old computer bits I frecently was given I found a
cd-rom titled OS/2 for Windows, complimentary copy.
Using a 486-66 with a cd-rom drive recognized by both Dos and Windows 95,
I followed the instructions and created two floppies, "Install and OS/2
disk 1."
Using these disks and following instructions I get to a point where it
says "insert CD-Rom disk", however by this time OS/2 has taken over to the
extent that the CD-Rom drive is no longer recognized, and everything grinds
to a halt.
Does anyone have any suggestions? (Polite) Maybe this is why OS/2 didn't
really take off.
Regards
Charlie Fox
PS-- Some of the other junk was over ten years old, particularly the hard
drives.
Charles E. Fox
Chas E. Fox Video Productions
793 Argyle Rd. Windsor N8Y 3J8 Ont. Canada
email foxvideo(a)wincom.net Homepage http://www.wincom.net/foxvideo
>where can I find the newest version ?
Where you can find all the versions:
ftp://kermit.columbia.edu/
Specifically, you want to look in the /kermit/b/ directory and get all
the files beginning with krt.
>P.S. RSX would be nice too ;-))
Same place, but get the files starting with k11.
--
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