28 Jan
2005
28 Jan
'05
4:30 a.m.
Randy McLaughlin <randy(a)s100-manuals.com> wrote:
- 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
28 Jan
28 Jan
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
5 a.m.
From: "Computer Collector Newsletter" <news(a)computercollector.com>
<snip>
There really are people that still use classic computers on a day to day
basis. I have a couple of clients that do.
One lawer uses a 68K Xenix server to archive his legal papers (don't ask me
why it's not about the $).
Another uses some Vax servers to monitor a paper mill, they are changing
over to PC's running Windoze servers. Their software people do not support
Linux.
For me I just play with my classic systems.
Randy
>>>
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. 
5:05 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 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.
I, too, like my vintage systems as much as the next guy, but lately I've
been finding
myself using the HyperTerminal app on my modern Win2K PC as the console
when I'm doing things on my 1973 PDP-11/40. I can toggle over to the web
browser while I'm copying RK05 disk packs, cut and paste the output of the
PDP-11/40 RT11 DIR command into an email on Outlook, and use simh to
test and run the RL01 disk image that I just sent from the 11/40 to my PC
via
the 11/40 console's serial port. I can use the latest version of Adobe
Acrobat
Reader to read a PDF version of an ancient PDP-11 manual that I downloaded
from Al's Bitsavers while I have my 11/40's
console sitting there in a
Window
on the same computer, while I listen to my MP3 files on the same computer,
while I have Remote Admin running in another window so I can watch my
web server, which is 40 miles away!
When I have visitors and I want them to have the authentic 1970s computing
experience, I unplug my PC from the 11/40 console cable and connect my
VT52 DecScope as the console, to go along with the other vintage terminals
connected via the DZ11 multiplexer.
So..... my point of view is that I like to use my modern stuff right
alongside my
old stuff.
Ashley
5:11 a.m.
From: "Ashley Carder" <wacarder(a)usit.net>
<snip>
I, too, like my vintage systems as much as the next
guy, but lately I've
been finding
myself using the HyperTerminal app on my modern Win2K PC as the console
when I'm doing things on my 1973 PDP-11/40. I can toggle over to the web
browser while I'm copying RK05 disk packs, cut and paste the output of the
PDP-11/40 RT11 DIR command into an email on Outlook, and use simh to
test and run the RL01 disk image that I just sent from the 11/40 to my PC
via
the 11/40 console's serial port. I can use the latest version of Adobe
Acrobat
Reader to read a PDF version of an ancient PDP-11 manual that I downloaded
from Al's Bitsavers while I have my 11/40's console sitting there in a
Window
on the same computer, while I listen to my MP3 files on the same computer,
while I have Remote Admin running in another window so I can watch my
web server, which is 40 miles away!
When I have visitors and I want them to have the authentic 1970s computing
experience, I unplug my PC from the 11/40 console cable and connect my
VT52 DecScope as the console, to go along with the other vintage terminals
connected via the DZ11 multiplexer.
So..... my point of view is that I like to use my modern stuff right
alongside my
old stuff.
Ashley
I too find it easier to use hyperterm (S100 systems in my case as my email
address implies).
I wonder what percentage of classic systems insists on real terminals vs.
terminal emulation.
Randy
9:13 a.m.
It was written....
I too find it easier to use hyperterm (S100 systems in
my case as my email
address implies).
I wonder what percentage of classic systems insists on real terminals vs.
terminal emulation.
I use vintage terminals strictly. The most modern I used was a VT220 on an
HP 2000/Access. I later switched to a Televideo 950, and hope very shortly
to use a 264x :) No modern terminals or systems.
If I have to use a modern system related to my old systems, it's at least an
opensource one. I have a PC running FreeBSD dualbooting with Caldera DOS.
This system is used to control my Facit N4000 paper tape reader/punch, M4
9914 tape drive, and Data I/O 29B prom reader/writer. This system is used to
store and copy images of paper tapes, mag tapes, and roms. It doesn't
interface directly with my old systems.
I do have a laptop with XP that I live on, and I used it almost exclusively
for email and web browsing. For programming, it's vandyke's SSH to the
aforementioned unix box :)
Jay
11 a.m.
I wonder what percentage of classic systems insists on
real terminals vs.
terminal emulation.
I've found so many bugs in certain so-called 'VT100 Emulators' (not
running on any of my machines, I hasten to add!) that I feel the only
thing I can actually trust to work on a PDP11 or VAX is a real DEC
terminal. At least I like to have them around to determine if
mis-formatted output is due to problems on the DEC side or yet another
bug on the PC side...
That said, I do find terminal emulators useful. I use my HP95LX Palmtop
as a 'pocket terminal' when sorting out a minicomputer. It's easier to
stick that on top of the CPU cards than find somewhere to balance a VT52
:-) . I like ot have some kind of terminal emulator, even just a dumb
teletype one, on every machine with a keyboard, display, and RS232 port.
-tony
3:28 p.m.
I wonder what
percentage of classic systems insists on real terminals vs.
terminal emulation.
I've found so many bugs in certain so-called 'VT100 Emulators' (not
running on any of my machines, I hasten to add!) that I feel the only
thing I can actually trust to work on a PDP11 or VAX is a real DEC
terminal. At least I like to have them around to determine if
mis-formatted output is due to problems on the DEC side or yet another
bug on the PC side...
That said, I do find terminal emulators useful. I use my HP95LX Palmtop
as a 'pocket terminal' when sorting out a minicomputer. It's easier to
stick that on top of the CPU cards than find somewhere to balance a VT52
:-) . I like ot have some kind of terminal emulator, even just a dumb
teletype one, on every machine with a keyboard, display, and RS232 port.
-tony 
7:26 a.m.
RE: people who use classic computers as their primary
machine, not
including those of you on the list who work for computer museums --
That'd be me. Or almost.
My primary house machine is a SS20. I can't recall exactly when the 20
came out. I find some SS20 books on docs.sun.com with copyright dates
in 1997 and 1998, but I don't know whether those are originals or
later-revised editions.
I have other central house machines that are definitely classic in the
classiccmp sense of ">10yr old". My house DNS server is a Sun-3/60 and
my house gateway is a SPARCstation IPX, though neither is really "my
primary machine".
I'm very curious how many of you exist.
Only one of me. Can't say about any others. :-)
And, do you use classic computers by 1.) choice, 2.)
lack of budget,
or 3.) technological need (that is, legacy connectivity)...?
Mostly 1, with a bit of 2. I do have some non-"classic" machines; for
example, my "fast cpu" box is an Athlon 2600, and I have another that's
a K6-2/500. But the bulk of my collection (90%?) is old stuff.
(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"...?
I tell them "then go find someone else". (Actually, I usually don't
even get close enough to such places for the question to arise.)
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse(a)rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
12:16 p.m.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 16:26:48 -0500 (EST)
der Mouse <mouse(a)rodents.montreal.qc.ca> wrote:
For a time I was using my SS10SX as my main system. Dual cgfourteen
framebuffers and big Sun monitors running X in a xinorama mode. It's a
really nice machine. It's perhaps time to find a faster CPU for it and
set it up again.
RE: people who
use classic computers as their primary machine, not
including those of you on the list who work for computer museums --
That'd be me. Or almost.
My primary house machine is a SS20. I can't recall exactly when the
20 came out. I find some SS20 books on docs.sun.com with copyright
dates in 1997 and 1998, but I don't know whether those are originals
or later-revised editions.
3:01 p.m.
For a time I was using my SS10SX as my main system.
Dual cgfourteen
framebuffers and big Sun monitors running X in a xinorama mode. It's a
really nice machine. It's perhaps time to find a faster CPU for it and
set it up again.
Most of my servers are old Macs, including a IIci and a Q605. The Power
Mac components will be on-topic in about two years.
--
---------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ --
Cameron Kaiser, Floodgap Systems Ltd * So. Calif., USA * ckaiser(a)floodgap.com
-- Men talk of killing time, while time quietly kills them. -- Dion Bocicault -
3:18 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cameron Kaiser" <spectre(a)floodgap.com>
To: <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: Many things
Most of my servers are old Macs, including a IIci and a Q605. The Power
Mac components will be on-topic in about two years.
What no AWS95 or at least a 950 Mac?
3:49 p.m.
For a time I was using my SS10SX as my main system.
Dual cgfourteen
framebuffers and big Sun monitors running X in a xinorama mode. It's a
really nice machine. It's perhaps time to find a faster CPU for it and
set it up again.
How about getting something like a Sun Ultra 60 with 2GB RAM, dual
450Mhz CPU's, and dual Creator3d framebuffers? Or perhaps a Sun
Ultra 80 with Quad 450Mhz CPU's?
I'm finally getting my Sun Ultra 60 up and running, though I've only
got dual 300Mhz CPU's and a single Creator3d (though I could add the
2D version if I had a second monitor). I'm finding it surprisingly
snappy (and I'm writing this on a dual 2Ghz G5), though I do want to
replace the 300Mhz CPU's with 450Mhz CPU's (or a U80 with 4x450Mhz).
I'm surprised by how well Firefox functions on the system. My only
complaint is that I've been unable to run the Creator3d card in
1600x1200x60 on my Monitor (I've applied the patch so it can run in
that mode), but it won't work right with my Samsung 213T. I'd also
like to eventually add Gigabit Ethernet and a faster Disk controller.
If I didn't have the G5, this probably would be my main system. In
any case, it will probably be my main Sun for the next few years.
Another *very* nice Unix Workstation that is getting quite cheap
these days are the dual 300Mhz SGI Octane's. The only SGI systems I
have are my two O2's. I love my R12000/270Mhz! The only downside to
SGI systems are that it's a lot harder to get software for them than
it is for a Sun.
Zane
--
--
| Zane H. Healy | UNIX Systems Administrator |
| healyzh(a)aracnet.com (primary) | OpenVMS Enthusiast |
| | Classic Computer Collector |
+----------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Empire of the Petal Throne and Traveller Role Playing, |
| PDP-10 Emulation and Zane's Computer Museum. |
| http://www.aracnet.com/~healyzh/ |
8:07 a.m.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:47:12 -0800 (PST)
Computer Collector Newsletter <news(a)computercollector.com> wrote:
Do you mean you use a classic computer as your **
primary ** machine
Yes, sort of. My primary machine is a SGI Octane, not on topic,
but
classic for sure. Other main machines are Sun Ultra 10, SGI Indigo2 R10k
IMPACT, RS/6000 43P-140, DEC PWS500au. The only PeeCees I own are an IBM
PS/2-80 and some "old" embedded systems (486/33 to Pentium 200 era). But
I don't use those PeeCees.
--
tsch??,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
8:57 a.m.
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:47:12 -0800 (PST)
Computer Collector Newsletter <news(a)computercollector.com> wrote:
And, do you use classic computers by 1.) choice, 2.)
lack of budget,
or 3.) technological need (that is, legacy connectivity)...?
[forgot to answer
this]
Some of 1.) and some of 2.)
I don't like PeeCees. They are cheap, unreliable crap. Yes, they are
fast, but they tend to be quirky and buggy as hell. I spent too much
time in the past (and currently still do at work) working around stupid
PeeCee problems. So this fits to 1.)
I use Unix machines. A new Alpha, UltraSPARC, Tezro / Onyx, RS/6000,
HP/9000, ... would be fine. But it is out of budget. Even a G5 PowerMac.
(I have enough money for a G5 Mac, but as I don't have a _real_ need for
it I don't by one.) => 2.)
--
tsch??,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
10:49 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)...?
Partly (1), Partly (2), and mainly because I am not clever enough to repair
a modern computer, I don't have a good enough logic analyser to diagnose
fualts in a modern computer (which comes back to (2) I guess), I don't
have a BGA rework station at home (yet! (2) again), and anyway spares are
hell to obtain anyway. But for my 20-odd-year-old PC/AT, much hacked, but
wtill with the original motherboard with extra chips and kludgewires
soldered to it, I have the schematics, the chips are ones I can
understand (and are pin-through-hole, so they're easy to replace), my
classic Gould logic analyser is easily enough to sort it out, and so on.
And classic computers seem to be so much better built and more reliable
than modern ones. I cringe when I get an ATX PSU in for repair -- cheap
SRBP circuit boards, marginally rated components, and so on. Comparing
that to the PSUs in my PERQs, PDPs, etc, well, there is no comparison.
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
That's modern! I take notes on a TRS-80 Model 100 or an HP110....
'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"...?
Say 'Sorry, I'll find somebody who actually has a clue, you've lost my
business'. Anyway, I have little desire to be part of the 'real world'.
-tony
4:53 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Sokolov" <msokolov(a)ivan.harhan.org>
Randy McLaughlin <randy(a)s100-manuals.com>
wrote:
You snipped all of my comments but only left my name, I only recomended
using tiff2pdf which saves a step and makes more efficient PDF documents.
More than that you missed the biggest point, PostScript is useless in this
case since the documents are stored as graphical images and cannot be used
on the classic computers.
I scan many documents and I can tell you that OCR'ing them and formatting
them so classic computers can handle them takes a huge amount of time. I
have better things to do with my time, including scanning more documents.
All of us that archive these documents would love it if someone would OCR
some of the documents and send the results back. It would save a huge
amount of space allowing for faster downloads and the ability to search the
documents.
Randy
www.s100-manuals.com
- 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
10:51 a.m.
More than that you missed the biggest point,
PostScript is useless in this
case since the documents are stored as graphical images and cannot be used
on the classic computers.
Wrong! Just about any classic computer can copy a postscript file to an
RS232 port which can be connected, say, to an Apple Laserwriter. I've yet
to see a classic printer that can handle pdf files directly!
-tony
6:34 a.m.
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 18:30 +0000, Michael Sokolov wrote:
Randy McLaughlin <randy(a)s100-manuals.com>
wrote:
Personally I prefer seperate TIFF images for seperate pages; usable on
all sorts of old and new hardware, plus it's quick to just deal with
whatever pages you want rather than some enormous single file.
Of course that's assuming we're talking about images here, not OCR'd
text...
cheers
Jules
- 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.
7:21 a.m.
PostScript is infinitely more friendly to Classic
Computers than PDF.
Hm, not in my experience.
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??),
You don't need Acrobat, no matter what a bunch of webpages may claim.
GhostScript groks PDFs just fine.
Indeed, ghostscript comes with a script that eats PDF and produces PS.
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse(a)rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
8:19 a.m.
On Fri, 28 Jan 05 18:30:52 GMT
msokolov(a)ivan.harhan.org (Michael Sokolov) wrote:
Radio Yerevan: In
theory yes, in practice no. The intermediate PS file
was several hundred MB in size. Converting it to PDF reduced it to
20 MB. It doesn't make sense to distribute a file that is larger as the
average hard disk connected to a VAX. I could have gzip (or even bzip2)
it, but as you refuse to use gzip...
Maybe this was not clear to you: We are talking about PS / PDF conaining
only lots of high res monochrome bitmaps. No OCRed text.
--
tsch??,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
- 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? 
8:44 a.m.
make the PostScript available
That's what pdf2ps is for... Ghostscript is quite portable, if not
particulary cycle-efficient or memory-conserving.
The whole concept of storing bitmaps in PDF's or postscript files seems
somewhat counterintuitive, still, to me. It's a bitmap, why not just
keep it around as a bitmap? (Yes, I know the answer is "most free bitmap
viewers suck".)
Tim.
10:40 a.m.
Randy McLaughlin <randy(a)s100-manuals.com> wrote:
Actually, I think there should be a special place in Hades for those who
_only_ supply documentation in 'electronic' format. I would be happy to
pay for a printed version, but far too many companies won't supply it.
They tend not to get my business. Those who only supply documentation in
some proprietary format (even worse than pdf!) lose my friends' business
as well!
- 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
Actually, I do have manhines with graphical displays, but AFAIK acrobat
is not available for any of them. I've certainly never seen if for the
PERQ, or for a PDP11 + I2S display, or whatever!
The thing that _really_ annoys me is people who use the pdf format when a
better idea would be to use plain text (i.e. the font and the exact
formatting are not important).
-tony
12:09 p.m.
On Fri, 28 Jan 05 18:30:52 GMT
msokolov(a)ivan.Harhan.ORG (Michael Sokolov) wrote:
Randy McLaughlin <randy(a)s100-manuals.com>
wrote:
Just a suggestion of a workaround that I have sometimes used.
If you have a machine capable of running Linux or a NetBSD you can run
the X11 program Xpdf. I'm not merely saying use Xpdf to read the
document. You can also load the PDF file up in Xpdf and use Xpdf's
print function to print it out as a Postscript file (use the
print-to-file rather than print-to-postscript-printer option).
I use NetBSD to do this, which means you can do it on quite a bit of
vintage hardware, and definitely in a PeeCee-free environment. It
usually works well as a way of 'recovering the source' for information
that some people fear has had the Postscript-formatted version 'lost
forever.' It's also a way of 'stripping out restrictions' that people
lock PDF files in (print to postscript, then convert back to a new PDF,)
so long as they at least allow you to print the PDF file.
-Scott
- 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
29 Jan
29 Jan
9:23 a.m.
Just a suggestion of a workaround that I have
sometimes used.
If you have a machine capable of running Linux or a NetBSD you can run
the X11 program Xpdf. I'm not merely saying use Xpdf to read the
Not necessarily. What you mean is 'If you have a machine capable of
running Linux or NetBSD _and X11_, you can run Xpdf'. It is quite
possible to run Linux (and I assume MetBSD) on a machine without a
graphical display -- I am doing so right now.
OK, I suppose you could argue you can link up an X-terminal via ethernet
or something, but...
-tony
30 Jan
30 Jan
1:02 a.m.
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:23:10 +0000 (GMT)
ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote:
OK, I suppose you could argue you can link up an
X-terminal via
ethernet or something, but...
Hmmm. A DEC VXT2000 [1] is a nice, classic
X-terminal.
Should be compatible even with Mr. Sokolov. ;-)
[1] Or a VAXstation 3100m[34][08] GPX. AFAIK this machines can run the
same software image as a VXT2000.
--
tsch??,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
10:23 p.m.
On 31/01/2005, at 2:02 AM, Jochen Kunz wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:23:10 +0000 (GMT)
ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk (Tony Duell) wrote:
How about a VAXstation-100? Old, rare, slow, heavy :-)
Huw Davies | e-mail: Huw.Davies(a)kerberos.davies.net.au
Melbourne | "If soccer was meant to be played in the
Australia | air, the sky would be painted green"
OK, I suppose you could argue you can link up an
X-terminal via
ethernet or something, but...
Hmmm. A DEC VXT2000 [1] is a nice, classic
X-terminal.
Should be compatible even with Mr. Sokolov. ;-)
31 Jan
31 Jan
2:23 a.m.
New subject: VAXstation-100 (was: Re: Many things)
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 23:23:30 +1100
Huw Davies <huw.davies(a)kerberos.davies.net.au> wrote:
VAXstation-100
Whatsthat? I know the VAXstation
I, but not 100.
--
tsch??,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
3:31 a.m.
New subject: VAXstation-100 (was: Re: Many things)
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:23:23 +0100, Jochen Kunz
<jkunz(a)unixag-kl.fh-kl.de> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 23:23:30 +1100
Huw Davies <huw.davies(a)kerberos.davies.net.au> wrote:
I think this was similar to an x-terminal but for dec windows. I never
seen one though
Dan
VAXstation-100
Whatsthat? I know the
VAXstation I, but not 100.
--
tsch??,
Jochen
Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/
7265
days inactive
7268
days old
29 comments
16 participants
participants (16)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
chenmel＠earthlink.net -
healyzh＠aracnet.com -
huw.davies＠kerberos.davies.net.au -
jkunz＠unixag-kl.fh-kl.de -
julesrichardsonuk＠yahoo.co.uk -
jwest＠classiccmp.org -
mouse＠Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA -
msokolov＠ivan.Harhan.ORG -
news＠computercollector.com -
randy＠s100-manuals.com -
shoppa_classiccmp＠trailing-edge.com -
spectre＠floodgap.com -
teoz＠neo.rr.com -
wacarder＠usit.net -
williams.dan＠gmail.com