31 Jan
2005
31 Jan
'05
4:10 a.m.
From: "Jim Battle" <frustum(a)pacbell.net>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 8:14 AM
Jim Leonard wrote:
<snip>
For me I looked into DjVu but like Jim I decided it is not practical to only
post DjVu.
I started with a simple goal to post the manuals of greatest interest to me.
I found a site that had similar goals (Howard Harte's manual site) and
decided to send my manuals to him and mirror his site. I also mirror other
sites I consider important such as Jim's SOL-20 Archive and post other files
not part of my mirrors. After some thought I signed up for a 3gb site with
a 25gb/mo band width. Before I knew it Howard's site exploded to over
3.5gb.
I faced with the choice of going to DjVu or putting out more cash to keep
the files as PDF's.
I ended up purchasing another 4gb site with 75gb/mo bandwidth that I
hyperlink to transparently giving me 7gb, I just hope it is good enough to
last a year.
I use PDF's simply because it works and it is the defacto-standard. It is
not a perfect answer but it is the "best" answer, it gives access to the
majority.
Anyone unable to handle either the large file sizes or PDF formats have
other options: They can talk a friend into downloading it and converting to
PS or printing, pay a office supply/cyber-cafe to do it, check with Herb
Johnson.
I provide the PDF's for free but if someone has to pay someone to print them
they are at least available.
Randy
www.s100-manuals.com
Eric Smith wrote:
> By default, DjVu uses lossy compression, which is
> significantly smaller. But for archival purposes, I *much* prefer the
> lossless coding. Should I decide to OCR the documents at a later date,
I have a comment on that below.
To be fair, DjVu lossy-encodes the graphics, not the text. One of the
"selling points" of the format is that B&W text is kept on its own
lossless layer.
On my Wang site, I've put up all of my documents as both djvu (because
they are much smaller -- often 1/3 the size) and as PDFs because almost
nobody has djvu.