29 Mar
2019
29 Mar
'19
3:57 a.m.
In a previous thread I asked for a couple of specific pages from Byte magazine, which I
got (thanks to all, especially Peter, for helping out!) But that brings up a bigger issue
(no pun intended.)
About a year ago I found the Byte scans on americanradiohistory.org and started reading
from the start. I found that those scans were less than great, with many missing pages,
pages out of order, pages scanned at resolutions too low to read, and a few other
problems. I went searching the web for other scans and, with a few exceptions for
individual issues, found that ALL the collections of scans seemed to be the same ones,
with the same bad pages.
I certainly appreciate the considerable effort of whoever did those scans, but I think
Byte is too important to not have good scans available. Perhaps a project to get those
good scans created would be something worthwhile for the members of this list to take on.
I realize what a huge project it is. Just going through the currently available scans to
find which pages are bad or missing is a large and time-consuming effort. But my opinion
is that it is important and worthwhile.
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Will
"He may look dumb but that's just a disguise."? -- Charlie Daniels
"The names of global variables should start with? ? // "? --?https://isocpp.org
29 Mar
29 Mar
11:01 a.m.
On 3/29/2019 4:57 AM, Will Cooke via cctalk wrote:
In a previous thread I asked for a couple of specific
pages from Byte magazine, which I got (thanks to all, especially Peter, for helping out!)
But that brings up a bigger issue (no pun intended.)
About a year ago I found the Byte scans on americanradiohistory.org and started reading
from the start. I found that those scans were less than great, with many missing pages,
pages out of order, pages scanned at resolutions too low to read, and a few other
problems. I went searching the web for other scans and, with a few exceptions for
individual issues, found that ALL the collections of scans seemed to be the same ones,
with the same bad pages.
I have been trying to read the Dr Dobbs PDF scans and a few other PDF's.
They seem to work only with the NAME BRAND pdf reader. Of course I use
the OTHER brand. It would be nice if when scanning a file THEY used a
generic output rather than latest bells and whistles.Some PDF's seems
to raw bit mapped images that take forever to display. If you can't read
them what is use of archiving them.
Bitsavers works for everybody but they don't have books in general.
Ben.
11:08 a.m.
On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 19:01, ben via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
I have been trying to read the Dr Dobbs PDF scans and
a few other PDF's.
They seem to work only with the NAME BRAND pdf reader. Of course I use
the OTHER brand.
Since you don't name names, I can't directly comment. We don't know
what OS you're running.
If you have a Mac, then you can get Adobe Reader for it.
https://helpx.adobe.com/acrobat/kb/install-reader-dc-mac-os.html
If you run Windows, well, I favour FOSS so I use Sumatra:
https://www.sumatrapdfreader.org/free-pdf-reader.html
Failing that, there's Foxit which is relatively light:
https://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf-reader/
On Linux, where I use XFCE, I favour Xreader as it has a traditional
UI rather than the modern GNOME weirdness:
https://github.com/linuxmint/xreader/
Original Adobe Acrobat Reader is still available and still works, though.
I no longer use KDE but I hear Okular is good:
https://okular.kde.org/
The reason I sometimes install the real Adobe thing on my Mac and my
Linux machines is that it seems to cope with fancy stuff such as
embedded 3D models, forms which must be filled in, stuff like that.
For just reading, I find FOSS viewers fine.
--
Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lproven at gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 - ?R (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
2:37 p.m.
On 03/29/19 14:08, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 19:01, ben via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
[...]
I have been trying to read the Dr Dobbs PDF scans
and a few other PDF's.
They seem to work only with the NAME BRAND pdf reader. Of course I use
the OTHER brand.
Since you don't name names, I can't directly comment. We
don't know
what OS you're running.
If you have a Mac, then you can get Adobe Reader for it. For just reading, I find FOSS viewers fine.
Indeed, I am really curious as to which PDFs cannot be read by Preview
(Mac) or xpdf (X). Could the OP please provide a link?
N.
3:39 p.m.
On 3/29/2019 3:37 PM, Nemo Nusquam via cctalk wrote:
On 03/29/19 14:08, Liam Proven via cctalk wrote:
Jelly baby o/s . Ops too much Dr Who , Jelly bean for the android.
I did install Adobe Reader, but it way too slow.
I need to Install it for my pc, if I can find it among all the other
stuff they want bundle you with.
Ben.
On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 at 19:01, ben via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org>
wrote:
[...]
I have been trying to read the Dr Dobbs PDF scans
and a few other PDF's.
They seem to work only with the NAME BRAND pdf reader. Of course I use
the OTHER brand.
Since you don't name names, I can't directly comment. We
don't know
what OS you're running.
If you have a Mac, then you can get Adobe Reader for it. For just reading, I find FOSS viewers fine.
Indeed, I am really curious as to which PDFs cannot be read by Preview
(Mac) or xpdf (X).? Could the OP please provide a link?
N.
11:18 a.m.
On Mar 29, 2019, at 2:01 PM, ben via cctalk <cctalk
at classiccmp.org> wrote:
I have been trying to read the Dr Dobbs PDF scans and a few other PDF's. They seem to
work only with the NAME BRAND pdf reader. Of course I use the OTHER brand. It would be
nice if when scanning a file THEY used a generic output rather than latest bells and
whistles.Some PDF's seems
to raw bit mapped images that take forever to display. If you can't read
them what is use of archiving them.
Bitsavers works for everybody but they don't have books in general.
Ben.
Perhaps an obvious thing to say, but I'm sure others who have encountered this would
appreciate your efforts if you were to re-scan these things or convert existing scans from
the format you are having difficulty with into a format that is less proprietary.
There are definitely scans out there that would be better if they were made today or even
made with more care. Some things could use re-scanning.
Nevertheless, I appreciate the fairly significant amount of effort that went into scanning
things originally, particularly when scanners were worse, computers were slower, and disk
space was expensive. I am not angry at them for not doing a bunch more work than they
actually already did.
12:47 p.m.
On 3/29/2019 12:18 PM, Hagstrom, Paul wrote:
Perhaps an obvious thing to say, but I'm sure
others who have encountered this would appreciate your efforts if you were to re-scan
these things or convert existing scans from the format you are having difficulty with into
a format that is less proprietary.
I am using a PDF reader ( B&W ) that runs android 4.2. I need a DATABOOK
for say a 74H00 I got it.
Other books I am less lucky with. Right now I am looking modifying the
Small C compiler from Dr Dobbs for the homebrew computer I have (living
now on a DE1 FPGA card) . A nice 10/20 bit cpu but non standard to check
the old back issues for finer details.
There are definitely scans out there that would be
better if they were made today or even made with more care. Some things could use
re-scanning.
Nevertheless, I appreciate the fairly significant amount of effort that went into
scanning things originally, particularly when scanners were worse, computers were slower,
and disk space was expensive. I am not angry at them for not doing a bunch more work than
they actually already did.
Well CD roms have been around a long time, so archiving data was never a
problem.
The real problem was
all the libraries dumping the older books for the latest windows95 c++
or Microsoft application. They are not online. Google will find a lot
books for 2018 but very few from 1975.
I am looking for bare metal OS right now, I just finished the I/O for SD
card and burned the eeproms on the DE1 card. The hardware has more than
32KB of memory but I would like see if I can get the small c compiler
in 24KB of memory with a 8Kb OS.
Ben.
31 Mar
31 Mar
1:37 a.m.
You may want to take a look at the byte collection at the internet archive: BYTE Magazine
: Free Texts : Free Download, Borrow and Streaming : Internet Archive
Comparing the first issue side-by-side, I think the Internet Archive version is a
different scan.? It is better quality.? The letters have more uniform density than the
American Radio History version. Also, they have a page of byte re-scans; I'm not sure
what issues are addressed by the rescans. BYTE Magazine Rescans : Free Texts : Free
Download, Borrow and Streaming : Internet Archive
|
|
| |
BYTE Magazine Rescans : Free Texts : Free Download, Borrow and Streaming...
Rescans of issues found within the BYTE Magazine collection. Byte magazine was a
microcomputer magazine, influen...
|
|
|
|
|
| |
BYTE Magazine : Free Texts : Free Download, Borrow and Streaming : Inter...
Byte magazine was a microcomputer magazine, influential in the late 1970s and throughout
the 1980s because of it...
|
|
|
On Friday, March 29, 2019, 5:57:49 AM CDT, Will Cooke via cctalk <cctalk at
classiccmp.org> wrote:
In a previous thread I asked for a couple of specific pages from Byte magazine, which I
got (thanks to all, especially Peter, for helping out!)? But that brings up a bigger issue
(no pun intended.)
About a year ago I found the Byte scans on americanradiohistory.org and started reading
from the start.? I found that those scans were less than great, with many missing pages,
pages out of order, pages scanned at resolutions too low to read, and a few other
problems.? I went searching the web for other scans and, with a few exceptions for
individual issues, found that ALL the collections of scans seemed to be the same ones,
with the same bad pages.
I certainly appreciate the considerable effort of whoever did those scans, but I think
Byte is too important to not have good scans available.? Perhaps a project to get those
good scans created would be something worthwhile for the members of this list to take on.?
I realize what a huge project it is.? Just going through the currently available scans to
find which pages are bad or missing is a large and time-consuming effort.? But my opinion
is that it is important and worthwhile.
Any thoughts?
Thanks,
Will
"He may look dumb but that's just a disguise."? -- Charlie Daniels
"The names of global variables should start with? ? // "? --?https://isocpp.org
6:33 a.m.
On March 31, 2019 at 4:37 AM Dave via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
You may want to take a look at the byte collection at the internet archive: BYTE
Magazine : Free Texts : Free Download, Borrow and Streaming : Internet Archive
Comparing the first issue side-by-side, I think the Internet Archive version is a
different scan.? It is better quality.? The letters have more uniform density than the
American Radio History version. Also, they have a page of byte re-scans; I'm not sure
what issues are addressed by the rescans. BYTE Magazine Rescans : Free Texts : Free
Download, Borrow and Streaming : Internet Archive
HI Dave,
I do believe the main collection of Byte at the Internet Archive is the same scans as
American Radio History, although they do appear to have been better processed. But the
worst problems, such as missing pages, still exist. However, the rescans are much better
from what I have seen. I had found those when searching earlier, but had forgotten about
them since the particular page(s) I was looking for (pg 96,97 of Jan 78) wasn't
included. The rescans seem to include 42 issues, one of which I had been looking for (Jul
79).
Thanks for searching those out and reminding about them.That certainly helps.
Will
2053
days inactive
2055
days old
8 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
cym224＠gmail.com -
dfnr2＠yahoo.com -
hagstrom＠bu.edu -
lproven＠gmail.com -
wrcooke＠wrcooke.net