RE: Scanning question (Is destruction of old tech docs a moral crime?)
-Original Message-
From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-boun...@classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Guy Dunphy
via cctalk
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2019 11:00 PM
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: RE: Scanning question (Is destruction of old tech docs a moral
crime?)
I'm posting a private email (anonymized) and my reply because it's a
significant issue.
>{Note private reply}
>
>> When the scanning process involves destruction of the original work
>> ... But if it's a rare document, or even maybe so rare that it's the
>> last one, then destroying it now just to produce a digital copy
>> inadequate to the aims of cultural preservation - that's a crime.
>> One right up there with genocide
>
>While I agree that making a non-optimal digital copy in such cases, is,
>well, non-optimal (because for _many uses_, the basic information is still
>available, wheras for many important documents, not even that remains),
>there's no way it's "right up there with genocide" - and if you really
>think so, you definitely need to examine your sense of scale, because it's
>seriously defective.
>
> [name removed]
I agree that when historical documents are lost without even any kind of
digital copy made, that's the worst.
However I was pretty careful to preceded that quoted paragraph with
conditionals.
Specifically referring to a case where someone has a rare work, that isn't
in danger of falling apart, and there's no good reason why they couldn't
wait till better scanning methods became available, and they destroy it to
produce a crappy quality digital image. Thus ensuring there can never be
a high quality digital copy and the rare physical original is forever gone.
That's criminal. A high level crime against humankind. Where it's done in
bulk to entire collections, it _is_ the cultural equivalent of genocide.
I don't care if you disagree.
Could it be that you are upset because you do this (destroy docs), and don't
like to be accused of being a criminal?
I am sure that the future WON'T take your position on this. They are going
to be sooo pissed, that so many old works were destroyed and all they have
left is crappy quality horrible-looking two-tone scans.
This is _already_ the case with many electronics instrument manuals. There
are
so many people who think that the physical manuscript is unimportant, and
nothing
matters other than posting a minimally readable smallest-possible-file
online,
with the least effort and so it's OK to destroy the original for
convenience.
Private reply noted. Still going to repost on the list, as from anon.
Guy
-
If I may summarize/generalize, Guy, I think that your point is that there
are Technical Artifacts and there are Cultural Artifacts -- and the two sets
overlap to some degree. Where the overlap lies is subject to great debate,
IMO.
Most of us probably wouldn't destroy a Cultural Artifact (e.g., Taliban
destruction of Buddha of Bamiyan statue) but many might destroy a Technical
Artifact in the belief that its overt information content defines its value,
and that one that value has been captured digitally the Technical Artifact
effectively lives on in that form. The corpus is merely that ...
At what point do you believe that a "mere" Technical Artifact becomes a
Cultural one -- where the latter presumptively comes accompanied by a
Requirement to Preserve?
Being the "last known survivor" of a particular piece of hardcopy seems both
an inadequate basis for determination in general, and operationally it's a
pretty weak method since "last known" becomes dependent on a Registry of
sorts (and likely requires good provenance to preclude forgeries, else
expect a flood of ACTUAL TELETYPE REPORT OF APOLLO MOON LANDING ... :->).
In your perspective is Artistic Merit an important consideration in
determining Cultural value, and thus Requirement to Preserve? How does one
judge that?
As much as I like hardcopy Technical Artifacts for various reasons, I have
difficulty with the concept that all hardcopy, even the very last known
original, is worth (in the ROI sense, to include proper archiving and
maintenance) preserving.
I'm reminded a bit of "A Canticle for Leibowitz"!
paul
Re: Scanning Results
I wish I knew why ISO and Adobe never updated PDF to include PNG images. The pdf format supports png just fine. A modified version of Eric Smith's tumble accepts png as input. The Tektronix color catalog scans on bitsavers were scanned as pngs
Re: Scanning Results
At 11:41 PM 19/07/2019 -0600, you wrote: >OK. I've done the first of the manuals I have. Thanks for all the helpful >hints. > >I took apart the Rainbow User's Manual's metal spiral spine. I scanned it >with scansnap and ran it through the indexing function. I think I tweaked >the settings in a reasonable way. > >The results look good to my eye, but I'm not 100% sure, so I thought I'd >post it here for feedback: > >https://people.freebsd.org/~imp/EK-P100E-OM-001_Rainbow_100_Owner's_Manual-Nov-1982.pdf Congratulations, that is nicely done. I like the way you took the trouble to keep the purple ink on some page's LED diagrams, and the cover images. I'm not fond of that two-tone encoding of B text, but that is an artifact of PDF. (Unless you go to ridiculous bits/pixel formats, ie large file sizes.) Since PDF does not allow inclusion of images encoded as PNG. And PNG does the best B text image compression, in run-length encoded 4 bits/pixel grayscale. Which preserves character and line edges very nicely, while still achieving better file compression. I wish I knew why ISO and Adobe never updated PDF to include PNG images. It's one of the worst failings in PDF. Just that one alone makes PDF unacceptable. :) Maybe because trying to type the right one (PDF vs PNG) is really error prone? When you scanned the pages, what was the raw save format? (If any.) If it was any format like RGB/24, or indexed 256 color, did you keep the raw files? >Second, how do I submit this to bitkeepers? I've looked around and don't >see how. maybe I'm just being blind... http://www.bitsavers.org/bitkeepers is something else. The site's contact email is right down the bottom of the front page. Visual, to stop spambots. Also Al posts here in cctalk. Guy
RE: Scanning question (Is destruction of old tech docs a moral crime?)
I'm posting a private email (anonymized) and my reply because it's a
significant issue.
>{Note private reply}
>
>> When the scanning process involves destruction of the original work
>> ... But if it's a rare document, or even maybe so rare that it's the
>> last one, then destroying it now just to produce a digital copy
>> inadequate to the aims of cultural preservation - that's a crime.
>> One right up there with genocide
>
>While I agree that making a non-optimal digital copy in such cases, is,
>well, non-optimal (because for _many uses_, the basic information is still
>available, wheras for many important documents, not even that remains),
>there's no way it's "right up there with genocide" - and if you really
>think so, you definitely need to examine your sense of scale, because it's
>seriously defective.
>
> [name removed]
I agree that when historical documents are lost without even any kind of
digital copy made, that's the worst.
However I was pretty careful to preceded that quoted paragraph with
conditionals.
Specifically referring to a case where someone has a rare work, that isn't
in danger of falling apart, and there's no good reason why they couldn't
wait till better scanning methods became available, and they destroy it to
produce a crappy quality digital image. Thus ensuring there can never be
a high quality digital copy and the rare physical original is forever gone.
That's criminal. A high level crime against humankind. Where it's done in
bulk to entire collections, it _is_ the cultural equivalent of genocide.
I don't care if you disagree.
Could it be that you are upset because you do this (destroy docs), and don't
like to be accused of being a criminal?
I am sure that the future WON'T take your position on this. They are going
to be sooo pissed, that so many old works were destroyed and all they have
left is crappy quality horrible-looking two-tone scans.
This is _already_ the case with many electronics instrument manuals. There are
so many people who think that the physical manuscript is unimportant, and
nothing
matters other than posting a minimally readable smallest-possible-file online,
with the least effort and so it's OK to destroy the original for convenience.
Private reply noted. Still going to repost on the list, as from anon.
Guy
Re: Computer Reset shop, liquidation. (USA)
Wish you would have told me. There are several that I could have told you where to find. Cindy On 7/20/19 7:54 PM, John Herron via cctalk wrote: Sigh. I searched for retro and vintage computer shops in Dallas as I was there the last two weeks. This place I think did come up but with no real pictures or info I couldn't tell if it was legit. Oh well. Maybe I'll make my way back before they close if they open doors for looking around. I went to Perot museum looking for their vintage computers but didn't see any and I think most staff members are too young to remember the museum having any. (bust). However the national gaming museum wasn't bad. Smallish but they did a great job having systems up and running for folks to touch and play on. Kudos to them for supporting the interactive experience.
Re: Computer Reset shop, liquidation. (USA)
Sigh. I searched for retro and vintage computer shops in Dallas as I was there the last two weeks. This place I think did come up but with no real pictures or info I couldn't tell if it was legit. Oh well. Maybe I'll make my way back before they close if they open doors for looking around. I went to Perot museum looking for their vintage computers but didn't see any and I think most staff members are too young to remember the museum having any. (bust). However the national gaming museum wasn't bad. Smallish but they did a great job having systems up and running for folks to touch and play on. Kudos to them for supporting the interactive experience.
Re: dBase IV for VAX/VMS (was WordPerfect 5.1+ for VMS)
On 7/20/19 2:37 PM, Nigel Johnson via cctalk wrote: I never could figure out why would anybody need dbase IV when RMS was built into the VAX file system? Compatibility with other dbase files from other platforms that didn't have RMS? -- Grant. . . . unix || die
RE: Scanning question
>> Have a look at >> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/aura-speeds-simplifies-all-your- >> scanning-needs#/ >> >> Carl Claunch pointed me at this, he has one and I am sure he can >> comment >> further. I have ordered one. > >You can actually get them off of Amazon and they run specials on them quite >often. However, I have spoken to a few guys who own one and they are less >than impressed > >-Ali Do you have links to anything they wrote about that? If not can you ask them to email me? I'd be very interested to hear their comments. I have a strong interest in the progress of scanning tech. I too have a considerable library of stuff that should be scanned. I do a few small ones now and then, but mainly as experiments in refining technique, and making myself think about data structure of the output. I don't consider (my) current scanning capabilities good enough to be worth dedicating the time required to scan large or critical works. Overall, the 'whole page at a time via a camera shot' technique has (so far) too many issues to be acceptable for my purposes. Image non-linearity due to paper curve and wrinkles, illumination variations, and px/inch resolution limitations plus that the effective px/inch varies after software correction of page arching. Also all of the above mean you can't stitch partial images of larger sheets, which you can with flatbed scanner images due to the precise pixel grid. Since lots of tech docs have huge foldouts... The underlying motivation with the photo method is 'speed in use'. But I have found that achieving visual consistency with the original publisher's creative intent, requires careful, slow proof examination and touchup of every single page. There are just so many variables, and I've yet to see any automated process that doesn't screw up in some circumstances. Maybe it's possible, I just have doubts, given that even the human eye can have difficulties sometimes. An important point, is that there are two very different objectives/viewpoints with scanning: One is the 'information user' viewpoint. Someone who just needs the content of a manual while fixing some piece of old tech gear. A visually accurate and clean copy, good photo capture etc, is nice, but not essential. I'm sympathetic to this case, since I use scanned manuals like this a lot too. A fairly crappy copy is still usable. The other viewpoint is the archivist/historian/cultural preservator. In this case much more that mere readability is important. The basic aim is to preserve the creative quality and spirit of the work, as well as its data content. Ideally the capture technology and file format should be capable of supporting reprinting (given ideal print technology) physical copies indistinguishable from the original (to the human eye and touch.) Think about it from the viewpoint of someone 500 or a 1000 years in the future. Do you want those descendents to think all the manuals from the 1900-2000s were crappy looking fax mode B jaggy garbage? That there were no such things as the visually beautiful service manuals, that people put so much effort into producing? Have you ever held a fat HP/Tektronix/Sony service manual in your hands, and marvelled at the beautiful high-resolution massive foldouts? Don't you want anyone to have that experience in the far future? I take the second position. I think almost all of the current scanning efforts, even massive ones like bitsavers (and the PDF format) are seriously inadequate in a technical sense. With people putting in that effort, that's fine. It does produce 'usable' copies online, and that's good. Especially if the process is non-destructive. It can just be done again later when better tech is available. When the scanning process involves destruction of the original work... if a common document, ho hum. But if it's a rare document, or even maybe so rare that it's the last one, then destroying it now just to produce a digital copy inadequate to the aims of cultural preservation - that's a crime. One right up there with genocide, contamination of entire countries with DU munitions, destruction of libraries and museums, ecological mass destruction, etc. I'm totally in favor of people scanning whatever they have. Only please, start with the common works, for practice. If you have rare documents, only experiment on them with non-destructive methods. Be patient. If you are having physical storage space problems, give the precious old documents to someone who can continue to preserve them. Scanning technology continues to improve. Unless a document is falling apart due to age, acid paper etc, it can wait. Relevant: http://everist.org/NobLog/20190223_full_spectrum.htm#golden Guy
Re: dBase IV for VAX/VMS (was WordPerfect 5.1+ for VMS)
Wordperfect is still available for the PC at least: https://www.wordperfect.com/en/product/office-suite/?_ga=2.94896540.164217.1563661496-220557285.1563661496&_gac=1.10602368.1563661496.EAIaIQobChMIrcuv_MTE4wIVRL7ACh0YpQXAEAAYAiAAEgLrn_D_BwE cheers, Nigel On 20/07/2019 18:23, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: On Jul 20, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Antonio Carlini via cctalk wrote: Lotus 1-2-3 had AL-IN-1 integration (at least that's what the announcement of it's retirement suggests. It sounds like Lotus developed and sold it and Digital just advertised it. The retirement happened in 1995. It definitely had ALL-IN-1 integration. The rest of that sounds right, I think it was released around 1990. Does anyone remember when IBM bought Lotus? That likely had something to do with the retirement, I know that by ’95 IBM had owned them for a while. It also had Rdb integration. Back in 1991, all three were available on the VAXstation 4000 VLC: "VAXstation 4000 VLC The VAXstation 4000 VLC workstation is the first workstation in the industry to break the $3,500 price barrier. Offering 6.2 SPECmarks (6 VUPs) of processing power, this system is twice as powerful as the previous entry- level VAXstation 3100 Model 30 system. This low price and DEC SoftPC V3.0 software (Digital's PC emulator) or native applications, such as Lotus 1-2-3, dBASE IV, or WordPerfect, make the VAXstation 4000 VLC system a desirable alternative to PCs in the VMS environment. For more information regarding DEC SoftPC software, see the related article in this issue of Digital's Customer Update." I don't see a price anywhere so I can't tell how "low" it really was :-) That would explain why the VLC I have, had both Wordperfect and Lotus 1-2-3. Both reminded me of the DOS versions. Unfortunately I have no idea on what the original prices were. It would definitely be interesting to know. I need to get organized. I’m honestly not sure where a lot of the DEC documentation I still have is. SoftPC sounds like it would be interesting to play with. I’m not sure when WordPerfect ceased to be available. I’m pretty sure you could still buy 7.1 in 2000, as I considered finding out what it would cost at that time. Here is some info on pricing of Lotus 1-2-3… https://www.cbronline.com/news/lotus_launches_vms_1_2_3_/ "Prices for 1-2-3 for VAX/VMS range from $800 for single-user VAXstation 3100 systems to $67,473 for VAX 9000 systems; 1-2-3 for All-In-1 prices range from $1,197 to $94,462 on the same machines.” Also pricing info for WordPerfect v4.2: https://www.cbronline.com/news/wordperfect_to_give_wordperfect_42_its_european_debut/ "Wordperfect 4.2 for DEC VAX/VMS its European debut: the pack – UKP850 on a VAXstation to UKP23,570 for the VAX 8978" It looks like dBase IV must have been released for VAX/VMS between July of 1990 and 1991, since it looks like Borland acquired them in July of ’91, and announced continued support for VAX/VMS. For those that don’t remember that time period, Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect for DOS both cost several hundred dollars. Zane -- Nigel Johnson MSc., MIEEE VE3ID/G4AJQ/VA3MCU Amateur Radio, the origin of the open-source concept! You can reach me by voice on Skype: TILBURY2591 If time travel ever will be possible, it already is. Ask me again yesterday This e-mail is not and cannot, by its nature, be confidential. En route from me to you, it will pass across the public Internet, easily readable by any number of system administrators along the way. Nigel Johnson Please consider the environment when deciding if you really need to print this message
Re: dBase IV for VAX/VMS (was WordPerfect 5.1+ for VMS)
> On Jul 20, 2019, at 10:20 AM, Antonio Carlini via cctalk > wrote: > > Lotus 1-2-3 had AL-IN-1 integration (at least that's what the announcement of > it's retirement suggests. It sounds like Lotus developed and sold it and > Digital just advertised it. The retirement happened in 1995. It definitely had ALL-IN-1 integration. The rest of that sounds right, I think it was released around 1990. Does anyone remember when IBM bought Lotus? That likely had something to do with the retirement, I know that by ’95 IBM had owned them for a while. It also had Rdb integration. > Back in 1991, all three were available on the VAXstation 4000 VLC: > > > "VAXstation 4000 VLC > > The VAXstation 4000 VLC workstation is the first workstation in the industry > to break the $3,500 price barrier. Offering 6.2 SPECmarks (6 VUPs) of > processing power, this system is twice as powerful as the previous entry- > level VAXstation 3100 Model 30 system. This low price and DEC SoftPC V3.0 > software (Digital's PC emulator) or native applications, such as Lotus > 1-2-3, dBASE IV, or WordPerfect, make the VAXstation 4000 VLC system a > desirable alternative to PCs in the VMS environment. For more information > regarding DEC SoftPC software, see the related article in this issue of > Digital's Customer Update." > > > I don't see a price anywhere so I can't tell how "low" it really was :-) That would explain why the VLC I have, had both Wordperfect and Lotus 1-2-3. Both reminded me of the DOS versions. Unfortunately I have no idea on what the original prices were. It would definitely be interesting to know. I need to get organized. I’m honestly not sure where a lot of the DEC documentation I still have is. SoftPC sounds like it would be interesting to play with. I’m not sure when WordPerfect ceased to be available. I’m pretty sure you could still buy 7.1 in 2000, as I considered finding out what it would cost at that time. Here is some info on pricing of Lotus 1-2-3… https://www.cbronline.com/news/lotus_launches_vms_1_2_3_/ "Prices for 1-2-3 for VAX/VMS range from $800 for single-user VAXstation 3100 systems to $67,473 for VAX 9000 systems; 1-2-3 for All-In-1 prices range from $1,197 to $94,462 on the same machines.” Also pricing info for WordPerfect v4.2: https://www.cbronline.com/news/wordperfect_to_give_wordperfect_42_its_european_debut/ "Wordperfect 4.2 for DEC VAX/VMS its European debut: the pack – UKP850 on a VAXstation to UKP23,570 for the VAX 8978" It looks like dBase IV must have been released for VAX/VMS between July of 1990 and 1991, since it looks like Borland acquired them in July of ’91, and announced continued support for VAX/VMS. For those that don’t remember that time period, Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect for DOS both cost several hundred dollars. Zane
Re: dBase IV for VAX/VMS (was WordPerfect 5.1+ for VMS)
On 20/07/2019 21:15, Dave Wade wrote: -Original Message- From: cctalk On Behalf Of Antonio Carlini via cctalk "VAXstation 4000 VLC The VAXstation 4000 VLC workstation is the first workstation in the industry to break the $3,500 price barrier. Offering 6.2 SPECmarks (6 VUPs) of processing power, this system is twice as powerful as the previous entry- level VAXstation 3100 Model 30 system. This low price and DEC SoftPC V3.0 software (Digital's PC emulator) or native applications, such as Lotus 1-2-3, dBASE IV, or WordPerfect, make the VAXstation 4000 VLC system a desirable alternative to PCs in the VMS environment. For more information regarding DEC SoftPC software, see the related article in this issue of Digital's Customer Update." I don't see a price anywhere so I can't tell how "low" it really was :-) Antonio Well given what you say above I would guess $3,499! I really meant for any of that software. Remember, the software was just there to sell the hardware :-) Antonio -- Antonio Carlini anto...@acarlini.com
Re: dBase IV for VAX/VMS (was WordPerfect 5.1+ for VMS)
I never could figure out why would anybody need dbase IV when RMS was built into the VAX file system? I once did a media conversion from Vax to PC where the programmers said the uVax II was as slow as molasses, then I found that they had the data stored as a flat ASCII file ! On 20/07/2019 16:15, Dave Wade via cctalk wrote: -Original Message- From: cctalk On Behalf Of Antonio Carlini via cctalk Sent: 20 July 2019 18:20 To: Bill Gunshannon via cctalk Subject: Re: dBase IV for VAX/VMS (was WordPerfect 5.1+ for VMS) On 20/07/2019 00:15, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: On 7/19/19 4:04 PM, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: On Jul 18, 2019, at 8:58 PM, Eric Dittman via cctalk wrote: On 7/18/2019 12:26 AM, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: On a related note, was there ever a copy of dBase III or dBase IV for VAX/VMS? I know there was a version of Lotus 1-2-3. I don't know about the earlier versions but I have a copy of dBase IV for VAX/VMS that's still in the shrink-wrap. -- Eric Dittman Interesting, so my vague memory was correct. That means they had WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, and dBase IV available. Was there All-IN-1 integration? I think both WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 offered that. There seems to be almost no info online on it. I just looked and none of the three were included in the VAX Software Source Book. Lotus 1-2-3 had AL-IN-1 integration (at least that's what the announcement of it's retirement suggests. It sounds like Lotus developed and sold it and Digital just advertised it. The retirement happened in 1995. Back in 1991, all three were available on the VAXstation 4000 VLC: "VAXstation 4000 VLC The VAXstation 4000 VLC workstation is the first workstation in the industry to break the $3,500 price barrier. Offering 6.2 SPECmarks (6 VUPs) of processing power, this system is twice as powerful as the previous entry- level VAXstation 3100 Model 30 system. This low price and DEC SoftPC V3.0 software (Digital's PC emulator) or native applications, such as Lotus 1-2-3, dBASE IV, or WordPerfect, make the VAXstation 4000 VLC system a desirable alternative to PCs in the VMS environment. For more information regarding DEC SoftPC software, see the related article in this issue of Digital's Customer Update." I don't see a price anywhere so I can't tell how "low" it really was :-) Antonio Well given what you say above I would guess $3,499! Does any one know if its possible to buy traded 123 , WP, DBASE or SoftPC for the VLC? It would be real fun to see how slow they were on the VLC although it does seem to run the software I have installed very smoothly Dave -- Antonio Carlini anto...@acarlini.com -- Nigel Johnson MSc., MIEEE VE3ID/G4AJQ/VA3MCU Amateur Radio, the origin of the open-source concept! You can reach me by voice on Skype: TILBURY2591 If time travel ever will be possible, it already is. Ask me again yesterday This e-mail is not and cannot, by its nature, be confidential. En route from me to you, it will pass across the public Internet, easily readable by any number of system administrators along the way. Nigel Johnson Please consider the environment when deciding if you really need to print this message
RE: dBase IV for VAX/VMS (was WordPerfect 5.1+ for VMS)
> -Original Message- > From: cctalk On Behalf Of Antonio Carlini > via cctalk > Sent: 20 July 2019 18:20 > To: Bill Gunshannon via cctalk > Subject: Re: dBase IV for VAX/VMS (was WordPerfect 5.1+ for VMS) > > On 20/07/2019 00:15, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: > > On 7/19/19 4:04 PM, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: > >>> On Jul 18, 2019, at 8:58 PM, Eric Dittman via cctalk > wrote: > >>> > >>> On 7/18/2019 12:26 AM, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: > On a related note, was there ever a copy of dBase III or dBase IV for > VAX/VMS? I know there was a version of Lotus 1-2-3. > >>> I don't know about the earlier versions but I have a copy of dBase > >>> IV for VAX/VMS that's still in the shrink-wrap. > >>> -- > >>> Eric Dittman > >> Interesting, so my vague memory was correct. That means they had > WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, and dBase IV available. Was there All-IN-1 > integration? I think both WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 offered that. > >> > >> There seems to be almost no info online on it. > >> > > I just looked and none of the three were included in the VAX Software > > Source Book. > > > Lotus 1-2-3 had AL-IN-1 integration (at least that's what the announcement > of it's retirement suggests. It sounds like Lotus developed and sold it and > Digital just advertised it. The retirement happened in 1995. > > Back in 1991, all three were available on the VAXstation 4000 VLC: > > > "VAXstation 4000 VLC > > The VAXstation 4000 VLC workstation is the first workstation in the industry > to break the $3,500 price barrier. Offering 6.2 SPECmarks (6 VUPs) of > processing power, this system is twice as powerful as the previous entry- > level VAXstation 3100 Model 30 system. This low price and DEC SoftPC V3.0 > software (Digital's PC emulator) or native applications, such as Lotus 1-2-3, > dBASE IV, or WordPerfect, make the VAXstation 4000 VLC system a desirable > alternative to PCs in the VMS environment. For more information regarding > DEC SoftPC software, see the related article in this issue of Digital's > Customer > Update." > > > I don't see a price anywhere so I can't tell how "low" it really was :-) > > > Antonio Well given what you say above I would guess $3,499! Does any one know if its possible to buy traded 123 , WP, DBASE or SoftPC for the VLC? It would be real fun to see how slow they were on the VLC although it does seem to run the software I have installed very smoothly Dave > > > -- > Antonio Carlini > anto...@acarlini.com
Re: Scotch 777 "blue label" tape blues confirmed
On 7/20/19 10:18 AM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote: > >> On Jul 20, 2019, at 9:38 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk >> wrote: >> >> your cleaning machine > > I do not have a cleaning machine. Do you suppose a cyclomethicone applicator > fabricobbled into the tape path of a tape drive might work? > > I haven't encountered these sorts of issues in 9-track tapes yet, but I've > certainly been frustrated with binder bleed and/or sticky shed when I tried > to mess with a TK50 drive. I don't think that would be a problem. The stuff is inert and somewhat volatile (somewhere around the volatility of water), so it will evaporate eventually. It leaves no residue. Just don't spill it on the floor or you'll have your own private slip'n'slide right there in your shop. I've even used the stuff to recover data from those dreadful 5.25" Wabash floppies. --Chuck
Re: dBase IV for VAX/VMS (was WordPerfect 5.1+ for VMS)
On 20/07/2019 00:15, Bill Gunshannon via cctalk wrote: On 7/19/19 4:04 PM, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: On Jul 18, 2019, at 8:58 PM, Eric Dittman via cctalk wrote: On 7/18/2019 12:26 AM, Zane Healy via cctalk wrote: On a related note, was there ever a copy of dBase III or dBase IV for VAX/VMS? I know there was a version of Lotus 1-2-3. I don't know about the earlier versions but I have a copy of dBase IV for VAX/VMS that's still in the shrink-wrap. -- Eric Dittman Interesting, so my vague memory was correct. That means they had WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, and dBase IV available. Was there All-IN-1 integration? I think both WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 offered that. There seems to be almost no info online on it. I just looked and none of the three were included in the VAX Software Source Book. Lotus 1-2-3 had AL-IN-1 integration (at least that's what the announcement of it's retirement suggests. It sounds like Lotus developed and sold it and Digital just advertised it. The retirement happened in 1995. Back in 1991, all three were available on the VAXstation 4000 VLC: "VAXstation 4000 VLC The VAXstation 4000 VLC workstation is the first workstation in the industry to break the $3,500 price barrier. Offering 6.2 SPECmarks (6 VUPs) of processing power, this system is twice as powerful as the previous entry- level VAXstation 3100 Model 30 system. This low price and DEC SoftPC V3.0 software (Digital's PC emulator) or native applications, such as Lotus 1-2-3, dBASE IV, or WordPerfect, make the VAXstation 4000 VLC system a desirable alternative to PCs in the VMS environment. For more information regarding DEC SoftPC software, see the related article in this issue of Digital's Customer Update." I don't see a price anywhere so I can't tell how "low" it really was :-) Antonio -- Antonio Carlini anto...@acarlini.com
Re: Scotch 777 "blue label" tape blues confirmed
> On Jul 20, 2019, at 9:38 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk > wrote: > > your cleaning machine I do not have a cleaning machine. Do you suppose a cyclomethicone applicator fabricobbled into the tape path of a tape drive might work? I haven't encountered these sorts of issues in 9-track tapes yet, but I've certainly been frustrated with binder bleed and/or sticky shed when I tried to mess with a TK50 drive. -- Mark J. Blair, NF6X http://www.nf6x.net/
Re: Scotch 777 "blue label" tape blues confirmed
On 7/20/19 9:24 AM, Dennis Boone via cctalk wrote: > > Coating the tape with a film of cyclomethicone allowed it to be > > successfully read. > > I'm curious what mechanism you use for the coating? A thick (1/4") felt strip glued to a large PVC pipe cap with a few small (#60) holes drilled in it to dispense the lubricant. Just put this in the tape path of your cleaning machine on the rewind cycle. --Chuck
Re: Scotch 777 "blue label" tape blues confirmed
> Coating the tape with a film of cyclomethicone allowed it to be > successfully read. I'm curious what mechanism you use for the coating? De
Re: Decision Data Keyboard for sale
Andrew Luke Nesbit says: > Does anybody have recommendations for RSS readers? I recommend Inoreader. Best replacement for Google Reader I know of.
Re: Scanning question
This shows the scanner and process that I use. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niwLAbgRpDE The plans for the scanner as well as links to all the software I use is in the video description. With the exception of the cameras and lighting system, it's basically the same as the Archive scanners that the Internet Archive uses for non-destructive book scanning. At some point I'm going to pick up a Visioneer Patriot H60 for doing loose duplex scanning. It's got a reasonable (120 page) ADF and isn't outrageously expensive. g. -- Proud owner of F-15C 80-0007 http://www.f15sim.com - The only one of its kind. http://www.diy-cockpits.org/coll - Go Collimated or Go Home. Some people collect things for a hobby. Geeks collect hobbies. ScarletDME - The red hot Data Management Environment A Multi-Value database for the masses, not the classes. http://scarlet.deltasoft.com - Get it _today_!
Re: Scanning question
On 2019-07-19 4:36 p.m., Ethan O'Toole via cctalk wrote: >> Carl Claunch pointed me at this, he has one and I am sure he can comment >> further. I have ordered one. > > What about the setups where it's a cube with with digital cameras > mounted facing opposite plexiglass panels? You sit it down in the book > and the cameras shoot both pages at once. http://diybookscanner.org > > - Ethan > >
Re: Scotch 777 "blue label" tape blues confirmed
On 7/19/19 8:59 PM, Adrian Stoness wrote: > same as sticky shed syndrome? No, not exactly--it's more like binder bleed-through. The oxide remains firmly attached to the base, but there is a film of either gummified lubricant or binder that fouls up things. Normally, if it's sticky-shed, the tape sticks to itself, but that isn't the case--the tape despools and spools quite easily on its own, but leaves deposits on any stationary surfaces that it glides over--and adheres to those. Isopropanol seems to clean deposits from heads and guides; no oxide is left behind. So a coating of cyclomethicone renders the tape non-sticky for a time. It's bizarre and seems to be related to this particular type of tape. --Chuck
