28 Jan
2005
28 Jan
'05
4:47 a.m.
>>> who actually _USE_ our classic computers
for our day-to-day work
Do you mean you use a classic computer as your ** primary ** machine, or just
that you happen to use it ** once in a while ** for your current work?
RE: people who use classic computers as their primary machine, not including
those of you on the list who work for computer museums -- I'm very curious how
many of you exist. And, do you use classic computers by 1.) choice, 2.) lack
of budget, or 3.) technological need (that is, legacy connectivity)...?
I love my vintage computer collection as much as anyone, or else I wouldn't be
on this list and producing my newsletter, and once in a while it is fun to
actually use them for modern purposes. Just ask the guy who was startled last
week when I started taking meeting notes an Apple Newton. But in day-to-day
'real life', I can't fathom using anything other than a modern system running
some equally modern version of Unix or Windows. (It's one thing to request the
PostScript file here in the classiccmp list, but how do you handle it in the
real world, where people may tell you "Sorry, our company only does business in
Microsoft"...?
For those on the list who like to flame -- please don't -- I am ASKING about
this topic, not preaching my point of view.
--- Michael Sokolov <msokolov(a)ivan.harhan.org> wrote:
Randy McLaughlin <randy(a)s100-manuals.com>
wrote:
=====
Tell your friends about the Computer Collector Newsletter!
-- It's free and we'll never send spam or share your email address
-- Publishing every Monday(-ish), ask about writing for us
-- Mainframes to videogames, hardware and software, we cover it all
-- W: http://news.computercollector.com E: news(a)computercollector.com
-- 662 readers and counting!
- Run the result through tiff2ps(1)
- and finaly generate a PDF with ps2pdf(1).
Could you perhaps be a little more friendly to people like me and Tony Duell
who actually _USE_ our classic computers for our day-to-day work, including
viewing classic computer documentation, and make the PostScript available
as well, i.e., with the last step omitted?
PostScript is infinitely more friendly to Classic Computers than PDF. A
PostScript document can be easily handled by someone who has no computing
technology younger than 1985, that's almost 20 y old, not just 10. No
graphical operating system required (how the heck is one supposed to run
Adobe Acrobat on a vintage command-line OS with a VT100 terminal??), just
use your favourite Classic command-line OS, be it ancient UNIX, VMS, RSX,
or whatever, to send the PostScript file (with a command line) to your
|d|i|g|i|t|a|l| PrintServer 40 (one of the original PS printers, same time
as LaserWriter), and you are done. Can't do that with PDF. And the
original PostScript prior to PDF conversion is always infinitely better
than PostScript produced by turning PDF back into PS (which is what I do
with all PDFs that come my way, because converting back to PS with a command
line tool is the only thing I can do with a PDF file).
One of the first laws I will pass after my revolution is that anyone who
publishes or sends to another person a PDF file produced by conversion from
PostScript but withholds the PostScript source shall be dragged into the
public square and flogged till he can't stand. The recipient of the PDF
file would simply need to call NKVD/KGB with the complaint.
MS