On 12/3/19 8:15 PM, Fred Cisin via cctech wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, Bill Gunshannon via cctech wrote:
>> Along this line I have solved one problem. I mentioned INIT in
>> RSX180 printing gibberish on the screen when trying to init a
>> hard disk partition where it had worked on a floppy. Probl
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, Bill Gunshannon via cctech wrote:
Along this line I have solved one problem. I mentioned INIT in
RSX180 printing gibberish on the screen when trying to init a
hard disk partition where it had worked on a floppy. Problem
was the size of the partitions. I had tried just makin
On 12/3/19 7:51 PM, Craig Ruff via cctech wrote:
> Just in case someone else hasn't already responded, the P112 does not use DOS
> style fdisk partitioning for a hard disk. It is done in the BIOS image, and
> then the logical disks have to be initialized. This is described in the "P112
> GIDE Co
Just in case someone else hasn't already responded, the P112 does not use DOS
style fdisk partitioning for a hard disk. It is done in the BIOS image, and
then the logical disks have to be initialized. This is described in the "P112
GIDE Construction.pdf" document.
I've only used 3.5" floppies,
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 8:35 PM Jim Brain via cctalk
wrote:
>
> That said, I went out to eBay to see if I could source a 2-8 line
> something to help, and got smacked around with my lack of telephone
> system knowledge.
>
> So, any ideas (or links to eBay auctions) of brands/models/etc. I should
>
On 12/3/19 9:35 PM, Jim Brain via cctalk wrote:
So, any ideas (or links to eBay auctions) of brands/models/etc. I should
focus on?
I would purchase a Partner system from AT&T / Lucent / Avaya. I think
they are both analog and digital. The analog will work for modems. You
will likely need a
To continue validating modem functionality, I think it makes sense to
set up a closed loop phone system in my lab that will function well
enough to allow modems to connect to each other (dial tone, ringing,
busy signal, etc.).
I know I can probably whip something up with a 9 v battery and a pi
On 03/12/2019 20:22, Fred Cisin via cctalk wrote:
Watch out. PDF with OCR can show you a clear and crisp [possibly
wrong] interpretation of the scan, not what the actual scan looked like.
The OCR may well say "0" where the printing says "8" but what your eyes
will see will be the represe
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
The trouble (for both of these) is that many of the
users don't know the limitations and blindly use the wrong tools.
"To the man who has a hammer, the whole world looks like a thumb."
(which is an idictment about misuse, not an indictment of h
> JBIG2 .. introduces so many actual factual errors (typically
> substituted letters and numbers)
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019, Noel Chiappa via cctalk wrote:
It's probably worth noting that there are often errors _in the original
documents_, too - so even a perfect image doesn't guarantee no errors
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 10:59 AM Paul Berger via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> Is there any way to know what compression was used in a pdf file?
>
There's not necessarily only one. Every object in a PDF file can have its
own selection of compression algorithm.
I don't know of any user-
> On Dec 3, 2019, at 12:59 PM, Paul Berger via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> ...
> Would TIFF G4 still be preferable to JPEG2000? It would seem I can control
> the compression used by selecting the pdf compatibility level.
JPEG2000 apparently has a lossless mode (says Wikipedia). If so, it would be
On 2019-12-02 4:57 p.m., Eric Smith via cctalk wrote:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 8:51 PM Jay Jaeger via cctalk
wrote:
When I corresponded with Al Kossow about format several years ago, he
indicated that CCITT Group 4 lossless compression was their standard.
There are newer bilevel encodings t
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 7:43 PM William Sudbrink via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> Other interesting things about the Sol include that it has an 80/64 video
> modification
> (with patches all over):
> http://wsudbrink.dyndns.org:8080/images/fixed_sol/20191125_202606.jpg
>
Cool!
Here's
On 12/3/19 10:30 AM, Eric Smith via cctalk wrote:
PDF was never _intended_ for documents that should undergo any further
processing.
Okay.
Fair rebuttal.
The few things that have been hacked onto it for interactive use are
actually the worst thing about PDF.
My opinion
Okay.
I don't hav
> On Dec 2, 2019, at 11:12 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> On 12/2/19 9:06 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk wrote:
>> In my opinion, PDFs are the last place that computer usable data goes.
>> Because getting anything out of a PDF as a data source is next to impossible.
>> Sure, you, a hu
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 9:06 PM Grant Taylor via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> My problem with PDFs starts where most people stop using them.
>
> Take the average PDF of text, try to copy and paste the text into a text
> file. (That may work.)
>
Sure. Now try thing same thing with a TI
On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 1:50 AM Christian Corti via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> *NEVER* use JBIG2! I hope you know about the Xerox JBIG2 bug (e.g. making
>
That's _LOSSY_ JBIG2.
YOU DON"T HAVE TO USE LOSSY MODE!
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 7:08 PM Grant Taylor via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> I *HATE* doing anything with PDFs other than reading them.
PDF was never _intended_ for documents that should undergo any further
processing. The few things that have been hacked onto it for interactive
use
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 5:34 PM Guy Dunphy via cctalk
wrote:
> Mentioning JBIG2 (or any of its predecessors) without noting that it is
> completely unacceptable as a scanned document compression scheme,
> demonstrates
> a lack of awareness of the defects it introduces in encoded documents.
>
Perh
> From: Guy Dunphy
> JBIG2 .. introduces so many actual factual errors (typically
> substituted letters and numbers)
It's probably worth noting that there are often errors _in the original
documents_, too - so even a perfect image doesn't guarantee no errors.
The most recent one (of
At 01:20 AM 3/12/2019 -0200, you wrote:
>I cannot understand your problems with PDF files.
>I've created lots and lots of PDFs, with treated and untreated scanned
>material. All of them are very readable and in use for years. Of course,
>garbage in, garbage out. I take the utmost care in my scans t
actually we scan to pdf with back ocr also text also tiff also jpegwith
the slooowww hp 11x17 scan fax print thing i can scan entite document then
save 1 save2 save3 save 4 without rescanning each time ed at smecc
In a message dated 12/3/2019 2:16:01 AM US Mountain Standard Time,
ccta
very nice file
yep, we prefer pdf with ocr back stuff ed smecc,orgIn a message dated
12/2/2019 8:20:36 PM US Mountain Standard Time, cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:
I cannot understand your problems with PDF files.
I've created lots and lots of PDFs, with treated and untreated scanned
mate
Hi!
On Tue, 2019-12-03 11:34:06 +1100, Guy Dunphy via cctalk
wrote:
> At 01:57 PM 2/12/2019 -0700, you wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 8:51 PM Jay Jaeger via cctalk
> >wrote:
> >
> > > When I corresponded with Al Kossow about format several years ago, he
> > > indicated that CCITT Group 4 loss
On Mon, 2 Dec 2019, Eric Smith wrote:
There are newer bilevel encodings that are somewhat more efficient than G4
(ITU-T T.6), such as JBIG (T.82) and JBIG2 (T.88), but they are not as
widely supported, and AFAIK JBIG2 is still patent encumbered. As a result,
*NEVER* use JBIG2! I hope you know a
26 matches
Mail list logo
