Julian> I actually have a few problems with how the show was run, Julian> speaking mainly as an exhibitor, I think it was run quite Julian> backwards. To charge to exhibit, then not charge for Julian> admission, is a slap in the face to the individuals who Julian> hauled their stuff out to show. It's perfectly common hamfest practice, and no one seems to think this is strange -- and certainly they don't think of it as an insult. Instead, it's a way to make the event more attractive to the buyers -- think of it as a small marketing fee. paul

Rumor has it that Joe R. may have mentioned these words: I beg to differ... see below: City: Dayton, OH. Location: Hara Arena. Time: Mid-May. Event: The largest hamfest on this here planet. The largest, nicest, and I'd wager *costliest* booths didn't sell a thing. Both Icom booths (yea, 2!), the Kenwood, Yaesu and Alinco booths had absolutely nothing for sale. They were exhibitors and were there solely to show off their equipment. I'd bet that they had to pay to get their spaces... and a pretty penny, too! The booths that were selling their wares to offset the cost of the show were mainly ramshackle quickie jobs there to "do the best they can without increasing their cost margins." I saw zero booths that were there solely for the hobby with absolutely no pecuniary interests whatsoever. Now: City: Burlington, MA. Location: Sun Campus. Time: Mid-July, 2004. Event: VCFEast, Version 2. [[ No offen[sc]e meant to any of the exhibitors at the show... ]] At that event, many of the nicest displays (that I saw, anyway) were the ones that were there primarily to sell their wares. They are the ones who put more effort into a "professional, polished" appearance. The less polished exhibits were the ones which (IMHO) expressed to me the thought of "Dude! Check out my kewl stuff!" a.k.a. booths with zero pecuniary interests. Again, no offen[cs]e is meant by this - I applaud all the exhibitors at VCFEast (and also VCFMW, which I was unforch unable to attend due to last minute familial concerns) but whether or not to charge a) exhibitors and b) spectators is solely up to the discretion of the person(s) putting on the show. The audience didn't get in for free, from the sounds of it. To me it sounds as if it were more like "if for whatever reason you didn't pay we won't hunt you down and break your kneecaps." Wasn't it said that 70ish people paid, and a couple dozen didn't? That would put it around 75% of the people *did* pay to get in. This is speculation, but this could have been due to a lack of volunteers for the show to man the door at all times. =-=-=-=-= Hopefully this row blows over very soon, and I hope that it does not discourage those in power from putting on a VCFMW 2.0... for I am already planning on going if it happens, and will volunteer to help out if it does. I'll even pay to get in, even if I'm working. Dudez & Dudettez... It's all for the fun of it anyway! Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- Roger "Merch" Merchberger | "Profile, don't speculate." SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers | Daniel J. Bernstein zmerch at 30below.com |

Rumor has it that Bob Shannon may have mentioned these words: Then let me know which areas this doesn't work and I'll be sure to avoid them. [[ OK, if there's implied attitude in the above statement, it's not intended.... ]] 98% of my workday involves Winblows, lusers, cow-orkers and spam. My other 2% can be defined as "commute." Classic computing is something I do to get away from the "formality of crap" that makes up my day, and the few moments I get to steal away from my employer (well, that'd be me ;-) I consider to be a "3-minute personal holiday." When classic computing becomes Ducks Unlimited, the Elks lodge or Bill Gates dinner parties, I'm either 1) moving to the mountains of British Columbia with a generator and solar power, to enjoy my classics in peace, or 2) selling it all, hoping I make enough for a one-way ticket to Germany so I can at least drink decent beer. Well, if you're talking VCF explicitly, I think that would be up to Sellam, Pat, Hans and other that actually put them on. Others are certainly entitled to start their own venues and set their own rules. I can say one thing: If the VCF's evolve in the direction you're hinting at, I'll bow out now, because I don't know if I'd have the same "intestinal fortitude" Sellam has to get the ball rolling on a similar project, and the "New and Improved" VCF would be no fun for me whatsoever. [[ And yes, my coin collection has been for the most part static for 2 decades, since that hobby was yanked out of the hands of the common man. ]] All above is IMHO, of course. Trying (and so far failing) to survive yet another grumpy Wednesday, Roger "Merch" Merchberger P.S. Why do they always call Wednesdays "hump day" when I'm too damn tired for sex??? :-O ;-) -- Roger "Merch" Merchberger | A new truth in advertising slogan SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers | for MicroSoft: "We're not the oxy... zmerch at 30below.com | ...in oxymoron!"

"What we have here, is a failure to communicate." First off, not everyone has the same ideas of just what a VCF event actually ~is~. It is not an exhibition show like a classic car show. It is not a 'hamfest' like event either. It seems to fall somewhere inbetween, and I think the 'west-coast mindset' that originated the events has not always been well understood in other areas. I think future VCF events might want to look beyond emulating past events, and evolve. Either its a hamfest for blinkinlights, and it should drop any pretenses of awards, perks and judging, or it needs to become a little more formal. And if these shows are public exhibitions of the machines we collect, we need to communicate the existance of the show to that public. Thats not happening too well for the east coast events. In any case communications issues are common and unaviodable. They need to be both prevented and expected. But if people are going to move these large and valuable machines around, they need to know the power, receiving and unloading arangements well in advance. If perks are offered, they should be delivered. If awards are given, it should be clearly stated (in advance) how this is implemented, and if the process is formal (consistant) or random. There should not be any supprizes over how the fee arangements work after the show. All this should be (and probably is) written down and available on-line. When a problem does come up, work to fix it, not defend it. Rather than refund his money, why not get a sharpie and just make him a shirt? Geez. On the other hand... If you went to a VCF event and had a bad time, there are only a few possibilities that come to mind: 1. You had incorrect expecations about the nature of the events. 2. You borrowed Jay's trailer and had your prize mainframe system fall off the back of the flaming trailer and get crushed under a herd of steamrollers following you to the show. 3. You had no intention of enjoying the show. On the other, other hand... I'll attend VCF events, perhaps even travel to see a west coast show, but I'm not about to pack up and haul large systems to events like the last two I've done.

Sellam, I've enjoyed both VCF's I've attended, and if another it held in my area I'll gladly volunteer my time to help. Perhaps we could restore your Imlac at a show or something... While I have reservations about exhibiting again, I am not anti-VCF in any way, and I do support the shows. The differences between VCF east 1 and 2 were very clear. I did not mean to suggest that there is not a very clear evolution underway, or that the shows are not improving (overall). I'm sure these events are evolving and very clearly improving. 99% of what people have said here is intended to help that process. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Vintage Computer Festival" <vcf at siconic.com> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 2:12 AM Subject: Re: VCF Midwest update?

Bob... THAT would be a very cool idea! I for one would love such an item Curt Bob Shannon wrote: -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.0/63 - Release Date: 8/3/2005

Rumor has it that Vintage Computer Festival may have mentioned these words: How do you know who won in advance? Unless you mean "take pre-orders" for the calendars... I might be able to cheapen the process - I have most everything necessary to put out a decent (tho not _extravagant_) calendar: Nikon D70 digital SLR, color laser printer (for the cheaper pages), dye-sublimation printer for the glossy coversheet(s), and a comb-binder to put 'er all together. If you really needed a hole to hang it from, I just happen to have a drill press, too. ;-) Granted, it just got a whole lot more expensive by someone needing to subsidize my travel costs (read: airfare) to any VCF not within driving range... *That* would be way outta my league... Encourage away, but if I can't afford to go, then it's all moot... ;-) [[ Yea, *technically* the stuff could be emailed to me, but where's the fun in that??? ;^> ]] Laterz, Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers zmerch at 30below.com Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in!

Patrick> if he had wanted to make some concessions in getting the Patrick> calendars made. As it is, the pictures were taken with a Patrick> very high quality digital camera (to satisfy Tony, high Patrick> quality relative to what digital cameras can do ;), and he Patrick> had actual lithographic plates made for printing the Patrick> calendars, instead of having them digitally printed. Huh? Digital presses use offset, too. And "lithographic plates" (offset printing plates) these days are made by digital processes. paul

Patrick> On Thursday 04 August 2005 15:46, Paul Koning wrote: Patrick> if he had wanted to make some concessions in getting the Patrick> calendars made. As it is, the pictures were taken with a Patrick> very high quality digital camera (to satisfy Tony, high Patrick> quality relative to what digital cameras can do ;), and he Patrick> had actual lithographic plates made for printing the Patrick> calendars, instead of having them digitally printed. Patrick> Digital *printing* (which is what I said above) doesn't. Patrick> Well, at least the last time I checked, my Color LaserJet Patrick> didn't look or sound much like a printing press. :) Digital printing is ambiguous. To some it means xerographic printing; to others it means digital presses. Generically it means a device where computer data goes in one end and paper with marks on it comes out the other. paul

I was rambling a bit, and not really clear. A calendar showing the VCF exhibits would be practical. The coffee table book I was suggesting would not be limited to exhibits. Many collectors on this list have prized systems or large installations that just are not practical to bring to a VCF. To make a coffee table book documenting these machines, each collector who wants to submit a system would provide (or arange for) digital images of their system, and some detailed documentation on its history and state of preservation, etc. Maybe collect these on a web site over some preset time period, and then evaluate and judge the entriesafter some through research. Sort of a web-based virtual VCF. Basically the 'prizes' would be how much coverage your system got in the book. This approach would be nearly ideal for the really heavy iron thats too large or valuable to truck around like a microcomputer system (not that such a book / contest project would not accept micros...). There could even be enteries for the CDC 6500 up at the museum, or the PDP-1 restoration, etc. It should not matter if the 'collector' is private or professional (maybe seperate these by catagory if needed...).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That is surely a contradiction in terms -tony

Patrick> On Thursday 04 August 2005 13:49, Tony Duell wrote: Patrick> Please, not this argument again... Patrick> What he meant is "good enough" quality, for producing Patrick> calendars or books from. A 20"x20" piece of sheet film Patrick> isn't necessary for doing that, and a few k$ (or perhaps Patrick> less) digital camera can produce "good enough" photos. In Patrick> fact, I'd argue that to most people (Tony, as you should Patrick> know, you're not 'most people') a $300-$500 digital camera Patrick> will produce "good enough" results. Certainly the kind of resolution that professional photographers would look for to make calendar-grade photos is readily available in the upper end of consumer digital cameras. Pros probably aren't using that, but the reasons for that are more in areas like swappable lenses and the ability to take lots of shots quickly, rather than in the resolution. Fanatics can get cameras with many tens of megapixels, and if you want a 30 by 50 inch photo you might want to rent one of those. But for 8x10 that's excessive. paul

WTF? I posted this nearly two weeks ago! Gordon. gordonjcp at gjcp.net wrote:

Depending on price, etc., . . . put me down for one copy at "excessive wuality". -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com

I had the opportunity to use 11"x14" film at one point (part of medical imaging equipment, but it was obviously scaled up from 4"x5" stuff.) I love going to extremes, but I love using medium-format (2.25" x 2.25" frame on rollfilm) equipment compared to large-format stuff (even the "portable" large-format stuff like View Graphics are a bit awkward). The monorail sits in the box for years at a stretch but my Mamiya gets used a couple times a month. All that said, if you want a decent-sized calendar then a digital point-and- shoot is not gonna do the job AT ALL. A very high-end professional digital camera (many thousands of dollars, but they can be rented) could do OK at that enlargement size, but even with big flash cards you'll find that you don't have room for many pictures at high resolution. Film really is easier and cheaper in this case for this application. Tim.

Yeah, it's not so bad printed onto 8"x10" photo paper. I don't like it at 11"x14". Admittedly it's hard to make truly sharp 11"x14" prints from a typical 35mm negative too, but then again I haven't shot anything smaller than medium format in 15 years now, so my perceptions may not match the average guy's. (I love B/W films with strong sharp grain, printed to give really sharp prints. As Kodak has proved, not your typical consumer stuff anymore. In fact I've gotten more into photography since Kodak has discontinued their B/W papers, which is too bad because over the past couple years I've actually grown to like Kodak Polymax papers. I'll probably go back to Ilford.) Another problem I have with digital cameras is I don't like 1.5:1 aspect ratios. Again, I'm obviously on the losing side as I much prefer square negative formats and prints! The photo archive people where I work have some really cool toys. They pull out a large-format negative from 30 years ago, stick it in the drum scanner, dink with it a little bit on the computer, click and send it to 20"x24" photo paper that is dry in a few minutes. But... they don't get their hands wet!!! Tim.

Film will be like vinyl records and tube amplifiers, it will never completely go away. ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Donzelli" <aw288 at osfn.org> To: "General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 10:53 PM Subject: Re: VCF suggestions...

On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 11:32 +0200, Jochen Kunz wrote: One thing I found when travelling is that it's much nicer to have a conventional analogue film camera vs. digital. It's easy to get hold of film (and batteries if needed) pretty much anywhere, but with digital you have to worry about being able to recharge the camera batteries, finding somewhere to download data off the camera every so often (or take enough CF cards with you to cover the amount of photos you're likely to take) etc. cheers Jules

At 06:58 AM 8/5/2005, you wrote: Ye gods. I get about 500 pictures on a $100 1 gig CF with a 8 megapix Nikon. Sometimes I can shoot that many on a single charge. How much space and money is consumed by 14 rolls of 36 exposure 35mm? Next time you look for film, look for memory cards. They're there, too. You like analog cameras and lots of pictures? Great, take one along with your digital. You're stingy with film and you don't even realize it. You won't be with digital. - John

Any replies, offlist please! Rumor has it that John Foust may have mentioned these words: Show me a consumer film camera made in the last 15 years that doesn't take batteries in some form or another... Then you're shooting in the wrong mode. ;-) I get 140 pictures on my 1Giggers with only a 6MP Nikon (D70), because I shoot raw instead of jpg. I can then bibble the pix to help bring out extra detail & whatnot, as (at least on my camera) raw == 12-bit lossless info, whereas jpg == 8-bit lossy info. More info means I have a better chance of recovering a bad shot taken by the idiot behind the camera (me). Many would say that if you're serious, you're not using 35mm... ;-) I'm an amateur (at best) and my digital SLR outperforms my old Canon 35mm (in ways that only I care about! ;-) enough for me to ditch film. 'Course, I will never, never, never, never take pictures on the level that Tony does. I don't need equipment like that to take pictures of my kids stuffing blueberries up their nose. For a lot of people, there's a huge difference between "stingy" and "careful." Why do we work with computers with K's of memory instead of laptops now that can take G's? Are we "stingy" with memory??? I'm not saying you can't be a great photographer with digital - just that those who are learned to be careful with film first, and *do it right the first time.* Because of the ease of chimping photos with digital cameras, many people who claim to be pros aren't because the don't learn what they should know *before* they push the shutter button. [[ Roger holds up 2 fingers on each hand facing outward, in a 'V' fashion, puts on his best Nixon impersonation (Best == pitiful...) and says "I am *not* a pro." ]] =-=-=-=-=-=-= What's sad about this thread is: 1) I started it, altho ontopically [[ my offer to make a calendar with all my neat (to me) shiznit ]. My offer still stands, BTW. ]] 2) This pissing match [ film vs. digital ] has happened on this list 2-3 times before, and it's the same old roadkill. How does one invoke Darwin on threads like this? "Survival of the fittest" --> and this thread ain't fit to survive anymore... -- Roger "Merch" Merchberger | "Profile, don't speculate." SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers | Daniel J. Bernstein zmerch at 30below.com |

Tony> Take, or require (the latter meaning that you can still use the Tony> camera, with a good range of shutter speeds, without the Tony> battery, only the exposure meter doesn't work). Tony> IIRC, the new-ish Leica MP doesn't meed a battery other than Tony> for the meter, the shutter is totally mechanical. And I believe Tony> Nikon have done a limited run of a reproduction of one of their Tony> classic S-series rangefinder cameras, that is fully mechanical Tony> too. My Contax RTS, which is at least 30 years old, needs a battery to release the shutter. Tony> Mroe seriously, the batteries taken by most film cameras were Tony> standard primary batteries and are a lot easier to find than a Tony> custom Li-ion or NiMH pack for a digital camera. I forgot what the Contax needs. A primary battery for sure, but I don't think it's one of the usual AA or such. It might be as bad as a set of nice microphones I have (Signet) -- which require an 8 volt mercury battery. Seriously not PC, and hard to find even 10 years ago, probably completely nonexistent now. paul

On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 11:37:40PM +0100, Tony Duell wrote: Maybe I'm a bit weird, but I like those. I like them a lot. In fact one of my best photographs was taken with one. I've taken perhaps two or three better out of thousands of digital photos. That's because a good photograph is mostly composition and luck, with equipment not mattering much at all IMO. Oh, and Photoshop :-) For at least some digital cameras you can get carriers for off-the-shelf cells. The feature of my D70 I like the least is that I can't use AAs. Anyone know if the D50 can? -- David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david Eye have a spelling chequer / It came with my pea sea It planely marques four my revue / Miss Steaks eye kin knot sea. Eye strike a quay and type a word / And weight for it to say Weather eye am wrong oar write / It shows me strait a weigh.

I've read, several times, that because large format film is relatively expensive per shot, you spend a lot of time setting up the camera for each picture, making sure things are just right so you don't waste film. The result, at least for static subjects, is that the qulaity of your photography improves _because_ you stop to think what you are doing. -tony

It was thus said that the Great Jules Richardson once stated: I found the opposite. I recently took a trip to Las Vegas and over five days took 426 photos. Assuming I used 36-picture rolls of 35mm film, that would have been 12 canisters, and again assuming I spent $10 total for each canister (film + developing) I would have spent $120---instead I spent about $10 for a package of AA batteries (since I didn't want to have to worry about rechargables during the trip). I did have my laptop and once or twice a day I would dump the pictures 1100) to justify the price of the camera (which I got two years ago). However, I would *still* love to use my 35mm SLR, but compared to my digital, it's not really cost effective anymore (at least, at my level of ability, and besides, the digital camera I can fit into my pocket and take everywhere with me---I really can't do with with my SLR). -spc (In fact, I think I've taken more photographs in the last two months than I did in two semesters of photography in college ... )

I agree 100%. I can see plenty of times where digital photography is appropriate -- the most obvious one being press work where you gain the ability to quickly trasnmit your picture across the world if necessary. This, however, does not mean that digitial photography is appropriate for _all_ situations. I haev mentioned that I think the best cammera to use for photographic classic comptuers is a large-format camera, probably a monorail. This doesn't mean it 's the best camera for all situations (I'd love to see you attempt sports photography with one ;-)). Much of what I'm interested in photographing is either small-ish closeup objects (bits of classic computers :-)), or old architecture. The large format camera is good for both of those. But note I said most, not all. I do have plenty of other cameras, including 35mm. If i'm just wandering around as a tourist, I'll take a reasonable 35mm SLR and a couple of extra lenses (I prefer fixed focal length lenses to zooms for 2 reasons, (a) they tend to bave better resolution and (b) you tend to move around to get the best composition of your photograph rather than standing in one place and zooming until it looks right. The former generally leads to better-composed pictures). And even for classic computer photography there are times when I'd use 35mm. The obvious one is if I want to take slides to illustrate a talk I'm giving. Most lecture rooms have a 35mm projector. Rather fewer have a medium format (6*6cm image) or large format projector. And yes, I'll admit it. I like the feel and handling of some classic cameras. [...] Completely off-topic, but I was looking for an HP manual the other day and I came across the original _service_ manual for the Kiev 88 and 88TTL, in English (the other Kiev manuals I have, for the 19 and 60 series are in Russian...). I have no intention of selling this manual (I might get such a camera one day), but I can certainly look things up if you ever need to get inside. You didn't think I only had service data for old computers, did you :-).. -tony

No one here cares about your uncle and his jewelry and hand models. (Sorry to take it out on you, Steve. Nothing personal...) At the risk of lecturing where I too have sinned (we all have) -- it's one thing to have off-topic stuff now and then, but the degree to which many cctalk's seem entirely incapable of restraining themselves from posting "me too / oh yeah / yeah!" crap is absolutely baffling. Now, it's ironic because this very email could start ANOTHER redundant thread (although I strongly urge against that) -- this topic was discussed here several months ago, I recall -- BUT -- just because cctalk is "on and off-topic" vs. cctech doesn't mean that any and all off-topic is acceptable. It's just supposed to mean "non-technical vintage computing issues and the and occassional joke." One of the nice features about Erik Klein's vcforum approach: there are separate categories for off-topic and political rants. (Granted, his site doesn't have the traffic of classiccmp, so it's easier to police.) -----Original Message----- From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of steve Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 10:11 AM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: VCF suggestions... Agreed, my uncle is a professional photographer, photographs mostly museum pieces, jewelry, watches, ancient artifacts stuff like that (hires hand models), his photographs are used in large coffee table sized books, posters, full page magazines ads, museum brochures etc the pictures are outstanding. Anyway he has a safe (literally) full of hasselblad camera's and lens as well as 4x5 an 8x10 view cameras. he now uses digital scanning backs that fits directly on back of these camera. These are 100+ megapixel units that produce files over a gig in size. There is nothing a 8x10 film view camera can produce that these camera's can't equal, in my opinion. --- William Donzelli <aw288 at osfn.org> wrote: ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Jim Leonard wrote: actually, I think the comment about high res digital backs for Hasselblads was the most on-topic part of the discussion. My 500CM is certainly over 10 years old :-) -brad

Hmmm.. I reckon that a good 35mm camera (good meaning a top-end lens and fine grain film) is equivalent to 12-20 megapixels. Rmemeber there is a big differnce between 'sharpness' (which can be fiddled later with a digital camera) and resolution (i.e. the ability to see fine detail in the image). Large format film is between 0.5 to 1 _gigapixel_ IMHO. True, but that's no reason not to record them in the first place. You can always loose information (e.g. by scanning at a lower resolution), you can never gain it. In other words, if I take a large-format film picture of something, I can always scan the negative or a print made from it and, say, produce an 8Mpixel image (which would be considerably poorer than the original film image). But if you take an 8Mpixel image with a digital camera, no way can you then produce something equivalent to my film. -tony

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 00:35:37 +0100 (BST) ard at p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote: You can buy a 4x5 'digital back' for that camera. A quick google search brings up places that mention them, but I can't find a place that lists a typical price. I know they used to cost about the same as a luxury sports car, so it's probably not an online 'shopping cart' item to purchase. Then you'd have the 'bellows, lens, etc.' arrangement that you're familiar, and probably very skillful, with. All the large format tricks would work. You'd also be dealing with 450MB images for each shot.

Is that right? Patrick (in a July 31 message here) cited "head count for the exhibits was about 70 (paid) people". -----Original Message----- From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Julian Wolfe Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 5:36 PM To: 'General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts' Subject: RE: VCF Midwest update? I actually have a few problems with how the show was run, speaking mainly as an exhibitor, I think it was run quite backwards. To charge to exhibit, then not charge for admission, is a slap in the face to the individuals who hauled their stuff out to show. This wouldn't be so bad, except that the promised T-shirts were never delivered, and without notice to anyone. It may only be ten dollars, but it's a matter of principal. Way to show appreciation for your exhibitors by ripping us off. I may attend next year, but I certainly won't exhibit - you know the old saying...screw me once, shame on you, screw me twice, shame on me. Julian -----Original Message----- From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Finnegan Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 12:48 PM To: cctalk at classiccmp.org Subject: Re: VCF Midwest update? To be clear, Hans and a few others said that of the event, and I was just trying to point out how successful it was for a first time event. Despite the 'small' number of exhibitors, we did fill up 21 tables and could have expanded that by at least another 4-5. Also, since we collected donations instead of charging admission, there were probably a dozen or two people beyond that 70. :) Pat Pat -- Purdue University Research Computing - http://www.rcac.purdue.edu The Computer Refuge - http://www.computer-refuge.org -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Finnegan <pat at computer-refuge.org> Date: Sunday, Jul 31, 2005 1:04 pm Subject: Re: VCF Midwest update? On Sunday 31 July 2005 00:16, 'Computer Collector Newsletter' wrote: Would love to hear from anyone who attended today -- how'd it go? Everyone I talked to seemed to think it went fantastically, especially for a first time event. We ended up with 12 exhibitors (including 1 that showed up at the event with no warning), and all 8 vendor and consignment tables will filled up. The estimated head count for the exhibits was about 70 (paid) people, which was a little less than expected, but still a pretty good turnout. I think we had a slightly smaller turnout (~50) for the speakers. VCF/Easts. ;) Pat -- Purdue University ITAP/RCS --- http://www.itap.purdue.edu/rcs/ The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org

That's a fair and honest explanation and I appreciate that. However, there still is an issue of charging the people creating the draw for the event and giving them absolutely nothing - i.e. by exhibiting, we have money to lose and nothing to gain. That seems screwy to me. To be quite honest, I think the entire financial load should have been put on the vendors' shoulders. THEY are the ones gaining something from this, not the exhibitors. My other suggestion is, and this is on another subject, you need to have a winner in each category, not 2nd/3rd/4th place, because you're comparing apples to oranges here. All of that being said, I will have to see how and when the next VCF is organized in order to decide if I will go again next year. I had a fairly good time though, thanks for that. Julian -----Original Message----- From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Finnegan Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 6:06 PM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: Re: VCF Midwest update? On Tuesday 02 August 2005 16:36, Julian Wolfe wrote: T-shirts? Ask Sellam about that. I never promised T-shirts to anyone. ;) That was probably a side-effect of some website content that didn't get updated properly. There was at least one other inconsistency there which caused problems. It's really hard to run a show correctly the first time, and the one reason we "didn't charge admission"[1] was because we didn't have the manpower to enforce it. The amount of money it cost to run the show was nearly equal to the $10/exhibitor fee. I don't see how I ripped you off. Other than vendors and consignment sales, no person got paid for the event. In fact, people who ended up with >1 table paid *less* than what it cost. If you want, I can send you a receipt for your $10 fee and you can write it off as a tax deduction, as you were paying a Purdue student club, which amounts to a non-profit organization... Because of my oversight, we didn't even have prizes for exhibitors until Hans stepped forward and donated some (Thanks Hans!). I'm sorry but I don't think that you were screwed (except maybe for not getting a t-shirt, which wasn't done on purpose). Charging more for exhibitors than attendees is the standard in conferences. I had no manpower to enforce collecting admission fees (the only people there working were me and about 2-3 other people), and I was trying to do attendees a favor. I guess if you try to help someone out (increase attendance), someone else just feels like you were trying to screw them. :( Anyhow, Julian, if you (or anyone else in attendance) felt mistreated or wronged by me, please let me know. I really would like to make the 2nd Midwest VCF a better event than this was. I know there were some problems, and not being able to reliably collect admission may have been one of them. I would have appreciated it if you had told me during or during the cleanup or something. To respond to your other post... On Tuesday 02 August 2005 17:27, Julian Wolfe wrote: Actually, $40 vs $10, not that it makes much difference. Again, the T-shirt thing was completely accidental. I haven't heard this complaint from anyone else. That's not how it's usually done. I was copying (as much as possible) how Sellam has done VCF (west) and VCF/Easts in the past. I'm sorry that you feel that way, Julian, I never intended to screw anyone over. Hell, I'd return your $10 exhibiting fee out of my own pocket if it'd make you feel better about being an exhibitor next year.[2] [1] We instead asked for a $5 donation from each attendee, most of whom paid it. As Evan noted, that's how we got the number "70 paid attendees". I know that the attendance was higher than that, as others have pointed out. [2] My pocket is not to be used as a get-rich scheme. Don't expect to get a response or refund from me if you haven't alread expressed dissatisfaction with the event. Pat -- Purdue University ITAP/RCS --- http://www.itap.purdue.edu/rcs/ The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org

First off, don't be such a cheapskate. IT IS ONLY TEN BUCKS fer cryin out loud. Exhibitors get something from a booth, even if nothing is for sale. Exposure. Exposure brings leads, and leads bring in more toys for the exhibitor. Some collectors go to shows and exhibit for only this reason. Ten bucks, or twenty, or a hundred, depending on the show, is cheap if just one good lead comes up. At most hamfests these days, I make more money on average from leads I pick up by having a table than the crap I sell at it. William Donzelli aw288 at osfn.org

With all of the complaints being offered, I wanted to say that I enjoyed VCF Midwest! My heartfelt appreciation to Pat and the folks who put it on. I've been envious for years about the VCF events on both coasts and in Europe but I haven't been able to travel to any of them. It was fantastic to have one in the midwest. While everything may not have gone off as planned, it is very hard work to put on any kind of event, so I prefer to look at how much went well..especially for the first event in the midwest! The speakers were great..some wonderful stories. The exhibits were fantastic. It was great to be able to talk to some of the people from this list and be able to put a face to the email. It was great to be able to pick up a couple of new toys to play with (and the prices were fantastically affordable)! I hope this was the first of many midwest vintage computer events! -Bob -- bbrown at harpercollege.edu #### #### Bob Brown - KB9LFR Harper Community College ## ## ## Systems Administrator Palatine IL USA #### #### Saved by grace

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Bob Brown wrote: 1st: Auri Rahimzadeh, "Back to the Future" 2nd: Laurence Kelby, "Got Wood" and "Micro Kits" 3rd: two exhibitors tied for 3rd place: Michael Lee, "NeXTstations and More from Mike's Basement" Tom Uban, "Imlac PDS-1D" The winners will be getting a ribbon sent to them. Congrats! -- Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org [ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ] [ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]

On Wednesday 03 August 2005 09:08, Bob Brown wrote: For third place, we had a tie between Tom Uban's "Imlac PDS-1D" and Michael Lee's "NeXTstations and More from Mike's Basement". In second place was Laurence Kelby, with his exhibits "Got Wood" and "Micro Kits". In first place was Auri Rahimzadeh's "Back to the Future" exhibit. I want to congratulate all of the exhibitors on a job well done. All of the exhibits were interesting and well laid out. Furthermore, I feel that Auri's and Laurence's exhibits were in my opinion very deserving of first and second place - both of them had quite huge and complex exhibits, and did a very impressive job. After than the "top two" exhibitors, who wowed us with their expansive exhibits, everyone else did still did a wonderful job as an exhibitor, and it would have been difficult for me to chose what I'd give 3rd place to, which probably explains why there was a tie. :) I just want to thank everyone that came out to speak, exhibit, vend, or just view the exhibits. I had a fun (if exhausting!) time, and am grateful for the turnout that we got. I hope that everyone else had at least as much fun as I did, if not more. Finally, I want to publically thank Sellam for allowing and helping me to put on as successful of a first midwestern VCF as we did. I couldn't have done it without him. Pat -- Purdue University Research Computing --- http://www.rcac.purdue.edu/ The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org

Okay, I guess I have some patching up to do here, just to clarify how I feel after hearing Pat's explanation: 1. There was some miscommunication due to a bunch of factors, and after hearing everything, I really do think Pat did a good job considering the circumstances. I have actually changed my mind about that. 2. I will now for sure be exhibiting next year as long as I get enough ahead notice. Two months is not really enough. I know several people who actually were going to go but had already made plans for that date prior to the show. The more notice I have, the more I can do for preparation. Again, I under stand this was a first time experience, so I'm stating this more as a 'tip' than anything else. 3. I did have a good time at the show. I met a lot of people and had a lot of great conversation. I know I downplayed this a bit before and I apologize for that. Thanks for creating a friendly atmosphere, Pat. -----Original Message----- From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Hans Franke Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 9:17 AM To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts Subject: RE: VCF Midwest update? Am 2 Aug 2005 16:36 meinte Julian Wolfe: as who Having read that, and seen other posts, I think I have to add my comments on VCF MW (not that I would have hold them back anyway). To begin with, I have to recognice that it was the first show Pat ever did, and remembering my first VCF in Munich, or other firsts, he did a quite good job. Beeing without prior experience, Pat tried to implement the guidelines layed out in Sallams VCF Handbook as straight forward as possible. The processes pointed out therin are a result of several years of experience, but as all written rules, they need to be adjusted to the reality each time gain (did somebody shout kai-zen?). So one of the things that happened to be reality at Purdue was the seperation of speeches and exhibiton in two rooms on different floors. People went in to the speech without having shown up at registration before. Also with all the in and out, and a rather unlucky placement of the registration (forced due the floorplan) it was hard to enforce payment. So the switch to a voluntary payment was just fair. I think I was even part of the reason to this decision, since I pointed out to him that several people attended the speeches before paying the entrance fee. For the next VCF MW, I suggest to implement three measures: a) Using two rooms with a common entrance and connected to each other b) Handing out tickets (or stickers) to the visitors which they have to show for reentrance. c) Strict entrance controll (Real checks, not TSA style) Especialy a (and c) was also something I had to learn the hard way for VCFe - people try alwas to sneak in, and if you don't watch all entrences (or reduce them to one), they do so even without knowing that they should have payed. Julian, I would realy like to see you as an exhibitor again. We need to give Pat the same privilege to have a second try. We all should strive to a professional format, but don't forget that this is still 100% hobby driven (and in my opinion will stay that way). VCF at large being the #1 venture in classic computer shows doesn't change that fact. To be honest, I was also a bit surprised about the USD 10 when Pat asked me to pay - I guess he remembers my face - but I figured that it needs every buck possibele to get VCF over the hill, espechialy since attendance was hard to guess before the show happened. Now, coming to fees for exhibitors and comparsions to other shows, we should make a few definitions aghead: An *exhibitor* is a person at the VCF who shows of his or her computer(s) just for the sake of it. No upfront comercial interest here (*1) A *vendor* is someone who vants to sell or trade things at VCF. No matter if he's a pro, semi-pro, or just getting rid of surplus stuff. On trade shows such persons may be called exhibitors, but since VCF is a combination, we have a need to distinguish here. A *speaker* is someone hwo gives a lecture at VCF. A *visitor* is a person who attends VCF to experience the 'services' of the other three cathegories. I think it's out of question that usualy the vendors and visitors are supposed to pay an according fee. Now, for speakers and exhibitors, there may be different rules. It has also always been a difference between VCF California and VCF Europa. While the VCF handbook suggests a exhibitor fee, VCFe just asks exhibitors on a personal base (so for each person) for a voluntary buy of the 'Exhibitoners Pack' (ar about USD 30 each (*2)). I get a pretty good turnout there, since people realy want to support the show. For a future VCF MW, this might be the way to go. Especialy as long as an entrance fee for visitors can not be enforced. Some of the confusion might also be attributed to communication. That is another lesson to learn when you do a show like VCF. 95% of your job as producer at VCF is to produce in front of all people, you are have to act as a carnical barker :) If the change in the entrance police would have been made public right away, and eventualy extended to the exhibitor fee (not vendor), I doubt that any of the vendors would have gone back to request a refund. Speaking of a money making scheme, Pat, I want my money back! Preferably in 2 nice installments of a cold beer at the next VCF MW. H. Oh, and Pat, all the above is ment as constructive kritics, and not in any way to put you and your helpers down. I was realy surprised how well VCF MW went. *1 - In fact, my exhibiton was a new interface card for the Apple II (<Plug>It's a nice full size prototype card, including support logic and a full Megabyte of flash, just send me a mail if you're interested, a website will be up soon</Plug>) I did not bring any additional to VCF MW, since I wanted to go in there just to show my tinkering with the Apple II. *2 - Well, 30 USD seams a lot, but people get 4 meals (2x Lunch, 1x Breakfast, 1 huge Dinner Buffert) and some snacks included. It'S my belive, that there's nothing worse than people attending the show getting grumpy over not enough food *G* -- VCF Europa 7.0 am 29/30.April und 01.Mai 2006 in Muenchen http://www.vcfe.org/