Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #153024 > unrolled thread

[CM] Soviet PCs

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  [CM] Soviet PCs RS Wood  <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2015-10-17 05:50 +0000
    Re: [CM] Soviet PCs philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2015-10-17 10:22 -0500
    Re: [CM] Soviet PCs Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2015-10-17 23:00 -0300
      Re: [CM] Soviet PCs Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-17 21:14 -0700
        Re: [CM] Soviet PCs hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 19:17 -0800
      Re: [CM] Soviet PCs Greymaus <mausg@mail.com> - 2015-10-18 11:04 +0000
        Re: [CM] Soviet PCs Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2015-10-18 11:58 -0700
          Re: [CM] Soviet PCs Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2015-10-19 00:15 +0200
            Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2016-02-14 16:37 -0500
              Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 16:54 -0500
                Re: Early Unixes requirements. (Was: Soviet PCs) philo <philo@privacy.net> - 2016-02-14 17:58 -0600
                Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-15 21:27 +0000
                  Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-15 17:41 -0500
                    Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-15 23:08 +0000
                    Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 00:20 +0100
                      Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-16 04:46 -0800
                        Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-16 15:15 +0100
                          Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-17 11:42 -0800
                            Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-17 23:24 +0100
                              Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-18 10:42 +0000
                    Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-16 08:14 +0000
                      Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-16 11:42 +0000
                        Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-02-16 17:01 +0000
                          Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-17 01:32 +0000
                  Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-15 18:23 -0600
                    Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-16 00:50 +0000
                      Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-16 15:09 -0600
                        Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-17 03:42 +0000
                        Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-02-17 14:11 +0000
                Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) cmadams@cmadams.net (Chris Adams) - 2016-02-15 17:15 -0600
              Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-14 19:40 -0800
                Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-14 19:45 -0800
                Re: Early Unixes requirements. (Was: Soviet PCs) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-15 01:12 -0600
                  Re: Early Unixes requirements. (Was: Soviet PCs) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-15 06:09 -0800
                    Re: Early Unixes requirements. (Was: Soviet PCs) Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-15 13:37 -0600
                      Re: Early Unixes requirements. (Was: Soviet PCs) "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 16:16 -0500
                  Re: Early Unixes requirements. (Was: Soviet PCs) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 18:52 -0700
                    Re: Early Unixes requirements. (Was: Soviet PCs) Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-16 22:18 -0500
                Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-15 09:43 +0000
                Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> - 2016-02-15 15:27 -0500
                  Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-16 09:14 +0000
                Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-18 20:30 -0800
                  Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-19 19:48 +0000
                    Re: Early Unixes requirements. (Was: Soviet PCs) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-19 12:56 -0700
                    Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-19 20:15 -0600
                      Re: Early Unixes requirements. Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-03-09 11:51 -0500
                  Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-19 20:24 -0600
                    Re: Early Unixes requirements. Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-02-19 20:34 -0800
                    Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-20 19:56 +0000
                      Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-02-20 22:10 +0000
                        Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-20 16:12 -0600
                          Re: Early Unixes requirements. (Was: Soviet PCs) Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-20 18:15 -0700
                        Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-21 23:28 +0000
                          Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-02-22 16:24 -0600
                      Re: Early Unixes requirements.  (Was: Soviet PCs) Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-20 20:53 -0800
          Re: [CM] Soviet PCs Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-18 21:56 -0400
            Re: [CM] Soviet PCs Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2015-10-19 07:07 +0000
              Re: [CM] Soviet PCs Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-10-19 11:38 -0400
    Re: [CM] Soviet PCs Conceited Jerk <cj.speakeasy@AAARGHgmail.com> - 2015-10-18 11:34 -0500
    Re: [CM] Soviet PCs mentificium@gmail.com - 2015-10-18 11:32 -0700

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#159481 — Re: Early Unixes requirements. (Was: Soviet PCs)

On 2016-02-15, Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:

[snip]

> _The Computers Nobody Wanted: My Years at Xerox_, Paul A. Strassman, 2008.

Should have been called "The Computers Xerox Refused to Sell", IME.


-- 
I don't have an attitude problem.  If you have a problem with my
              attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159758 — Re: Early Unixes requirements. (Was: Soviet PCs)

On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 10:40:47 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:

> I knew that many companies got a license to make Unix, and I knew Xerox made 
> computers (twice! ... first as XDS, then with the Alto and the 820)... and 
> Polaroid now makes tablets. But I didn't know Kodak was a computer company, 
> although I knew it made photocopiers for a while.

I'm not sure of today's "Polaroid" is the same company, or a new company
that just bought the name.

The library had a great book on the history of Edwin Land and Polaroid.
He was a genius and workaholic and revolutionized the world with his
invention of instant photography*.  Unfortunately, he stuck with the
chemical process too long and digital replaced it.  He ended up being
kicked out of the company he founded, but Polaroid fell into hard times.

By the way, the common consumer models of Polaroid cameras, such as
those where the picture popped out and developed itself without peeling
or pods, gave prints of pretty lousy quality.  The older method of Polaroid
gave much higher quality, and continued in production for commercial users.
I have one Polaroid b&w 4x6" print from circa 1965 and the image is very
sharp and still in good shape.

Professional photographers using a high end camera with a removable back,
such as a Hassleblad, also owned a Polaroid back for the camera.  At a
job, they'd take some test shots first with the Polaroid back to ensure
their lighting and set up were working properly.


* Schools and industry often used a Polaroid supplied ID-card maker kit
where an instant picture was made of the person and sealed and laminated
on a pre-printed ID card.

(Years ago a staff member of an H/R department would put on a fake DOB
and make up ID cards for friends so they could drink.  Of course, years
ago I would get an ID card from an employer, put it away, and never have
to show it again.  Years ago we had a lot more open doors than now.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159844 — Re: Early Unixes requirements. (Was: Soviet PCs)

On 2016-02-19, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> The library had a great book on the history of Edwin Land and Polaroid.
> He was a genius and workaholic and revolutionized the world with his
> invention of instant photography*.  Unfortunately, he stuck with the
> chemical process too long and digital replaced it.  He ended up being
> kicked out of the company he founded, but Polaroid fell into hard times.

I heard that the company was taken over by the Japanese, who produced
a camera called the Hemorrhoid.  It took piles of shitty pictures.

> By the way, the common consumer models of Polaroid cameras, such as
> those where the picture popped out and developed itself without peeling
> or pods, gave prints of pretty lousy quality.  The older method of Polaroid
> gave much higher quality, and continued in production for commercial users.
> I have one Polaroid b&w 4x6" print from circa 1965 and the image is very
> sharp and still in good shape.

I remember those.  They smelled a bit strong, but worked well.  (Wasn't
there some sort of preservative that you were supposed to wipe onto
the prints?)

IIRC the contrast on the new-style Polaroids wasn't as good.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159848 — Re: Early Unixes requirements. (Was: Soviet PCs)

Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2016-02-19, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> 
>> The library had a great book on the history of Edwin Land and Polaroid.
>> He was a genius and workaholic and revolutionized the world with his
>> invention of instant photography*.  Unfortunately, he stuck with the
>> chemical process too long and digital replaced it.  He ended up being
>> kicked out of the company he founded, but Polaroid fell into hard times.
> 
> I heard that the company was taken over by the Japanese, who produced
> a camera called the Hemorrhoid.  It took piles of shitty pictures.
> 
>> By the way, the common consumer models of Polaroid cameras, such as
>> those where the picture popped out and developed itself without peeling
>> or pods, gave prints of pretty lousy quality.  The older method of Polaroid
>> gave much higher quality, and continued in production for commercial users.
>> I have one Polaroid b&w 4x6" print from circa 1965 and the image is very
>> sharp and still in good shape.
> 
> I remember those.  They smelled a bit strong, but worked well.  (Wasn't
> there some sort of preservative that you were supposed to wipe onto
> the prints?)
> 
> IIRC the contrast on the new-style Polaroids wasn't as good.
> 

I'm disappointed  by how the colors have faded from the old Polaroids, even
when kept out of the light. Photoshop can help some, but not completely.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159881 — Re: Early Unixes requirements. (Was: Soviet PCs)

"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
news:na7rj902vsu@news4.newsguy.com...
> On 2016-02-19, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>
>           [snip...]                      [snip...] 
> [snip...]
>
>> By the way, the common consumer models of Polaroid cameras, such as
>> those where the picture popped out and developed itself without peeling
>> or pods, gave prints of pretty lousy quality.  The older method of 
>> Polaroid
>> gave much higher quality, and continued in production for commercial 
>> users.
>> I have one Polaroid b&w 4x6" print from circa 1965 and the image is very
>> sharp and still in good shape.
>
> I remember those.  They smelled a bit strong, but worked well.  (Wasn't
> there some sort of preservative that you were supposed to wipe onto
> the prints?)
>

The "preservative" that you wiped across the black and white Polaroid 
picture... was a "fixative".  When you develope regular B&W film, you have 
to put the print throught a "fixative bath".

For those of you who have Netflix streaming, there is a documentary on 
Polaroid and on the new people who have taken over the company.  They are 
trying to make a similar Polaroid film that will work in the SX-70 style 
cameras.  (My mother had a Polaroid 600, which is the same as an SX-70... 
but the film is a different size format.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_Corporation

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160737 — Re: Early Unixes requirements.

"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:

> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message
> news:na7rj902vsu@news4.newsguy.com...
>> On 2016-02-19, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>
>>           [snip...]                      [snip...] [snip...]
>>
>>> By the way, the common consumer models of Polaroid cameras, such as
>>> those where the picture popped out and developed itself without peeling
>>> or pods, gave prints of pretty lousy quality.  The older method of
>>> Polaroid
>>> gave much higher quality, and continued in production for
>>> commercial users.
>>> I have one Polaroid b&w 4x6" print from circa 1965 and the image is very
>>> sharp and still in good shape.
>>
>> I remember those.  They smelled a bit strong, but worked well.  (Wasn't
>> there some sort of preservative that you were supposed to wipe onto
>> the prints?)
>>
>
> The "preservative" that you wiped across the black and white Polaroid
> picture... was a "fixative".  When you develope regular B&W film, you
> have to put the print throught a "fixative bath".

I remember those very well. The wipers came in a small plastic tube, and
I think it was a black tube with a white cap.

I was really sad when they stopped making Polaroid roll film. There were
a ton of old roll film Land cameras that had quite good lenses. I had
several different models. (2 or 3 different 110 models and a 120.)

My father had a back for his Graphics that used Polaroid film. I know
the cameras were 4 x 5, but don't remember if the film was that size or
slightly smaller.


>
> For those of you who have Netflix streaming, there is a documentary on
> Polaroid and on the new people who have taken over the company.  They
> are trying to make a similar Polaroid film that will work in the SX-70
> style cameras.  (My mother had a Polaroid 600, which is the same as an
> SX-70... but the film is a different size format.)

Yes, I remember the 600 as well. I don't remember it folding up like an
SX-70 did though.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159883 — Re: Early Unixes requirements. (Was: Soviet PCs)

<hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message 
news:6140029a-21ba-41a7-9be0-901fab1bdf87@googlegroups.com...
> On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 10:40:47 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> I knew that many companies got a license to make Unix, and I knew Xerox 
>> made
>> computers (twice! ... first as XDS, then with the Alto and the 820)... 
>> and
>> Polaroid now makes tablets. But I didn't know Kodak was a computer 
>> company,
>> although I knew it made photocopiers for a while.
>
> I'm not sure of today's "Polaroid" is the same company, or a new company
> that just bought the name.
>

There is a documentary on Netflix streaming that will explain a lot...

> The library had a great book on the history of Edwin Land and Polaroid.
> He was a genius and workaholic and revolutionized the world with his
> invention of instant photography*.  Unfortunately, he stuck with the
> chemical process too long and digital replaced it.  He ended up being
> kicked out of the company he founded, but Polaroid fell into hard times.
>

Edwin Land was a genius and a great manager.  He was able to obtain lots of 
disparate parts and substances needed to create his SX-70 film packs, and 
some substances today would be "unobtainium".  When there was an effort to 
re-create SX-70 film, a new formulation had to be designed.

You should check out Edwin Land's articles in the "Scientific American" 
magazine.

Land was a hero of Steve Jobs.  ISTM that Steve actually got to sit next to 
Land at a special group dinner somewhere.

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159905 — Re: Early Unixes requirements.

"Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> writes:
> Edwin Land was a genius and a great manager.  He was able to obtain
> lots of disparate parts and substances needed to create his SX-70 film
> packs, and some substances today would be "unobtainium".  When there
> was an effort to re-create SX-70 film, a new formulation had to be
> designed.
>
> You should check out Edwin Land's articles in the "Scientific
> American" magazine.
>
> Land was a hero of Steve Jobs.  ISTM that Steve actually got to sit
> next to Land at a special group dinner somewhere.

trivia ... our offices on 4th flr 545 tech sq ... overlooked Land's 2nd
flr balcony in the two story bldg in the center of tech sq. once he was
doing a demo on the balcony of what turned out to be the sx70 (before it
was announced).
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#545tech

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159978 — Re: Early Unixes requirements. (Was: Soviet PCs)

On 2016-02-20, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:

> Edwin Land was a genius and a great manager.  He was able to obtain lots of 
> disparate parts and substances needed to create his SX-70 film packs, and 
> some substances today would be "unobtainium".  When there was an effort to 
> re-create SX-70 film, a new formulation had to be designed.
>
> You should check out Edwin Land's articles in the "Scientific American" 
> magazine.

I remember reading an article in Analog Science Fiction/Fact in the '60s
about a discovery Land made that enabled you to see full colour using only
2 colours.

<google, google...>

http://www.greatreality.com/Color2Color.htm

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159985 — Re: Early Unixes requirements. (Was: Soviet PCs)

On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:56:14 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2016-02-20, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> 
>> Edwin Land was a genius and a great manager.  He was able to obtain
>> lots of disparate parts and substances needed to create his SX-70 film
>> packs, and some substances today would be "unobtainium".  When there
>> was an effort to re-create SX-70 film, a new formulation had to be
>> designed.
>>
>> You should check out Edwin Land's articles in the "Scientific American"
>> magazine.
> 
> I remember reading an article in Analog Science Fiction/Fact in the '60s
> about a discovery Land made that enabled you to see full colour using
> only 2 colours.
> 
> <google, google...>
> 
> http://www.greatreality.com/Color2Color.htm

If it was in Analog, I'll have it on the shelf. My collection goes back 
to 1943!




-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159986 — Re: Early Unixes requirements. (Was: Soviet PCs)

"Bob Eager" wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:56:14 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> 
>> On 2016-02-20, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Edwin Land was a genius and a great manager.  He was able to obtain
>>> lots of disparate parts and substances needed to create his SX-70 film
>>> packs, and some substances today would be "unobtainium".  When there
>>> was an effort to re-create SX-70 film, a new formulation had to be
>>> designed.
>>>
>>> You should check out Edwin Land's articles in the "Scientific American"
>>> magazine.
>> 
>> I remember reading an article in Analog Science Fiction/Fact in the '60s
>> about a discovery Land made that enabled you to see full colour using
>> only 2 colours.
>> 
>> <google, google...>
>> 
>> http://www.greatreality.com/Color2Color.htm
> 
> If it was in Analog, I'll have it on the shelf. My collection goes back 
> to 1943!

That's a lotta pulp!!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160005 — Re: Early Unixes requirements. (Was: Soviet PCs)

Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Bob Eager" wrote:
> 
>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:56:14 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2016-02-20, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Edwin Land was a genius and a great manager.  He was able to obtain
>>>> lots of disparate parts and substances needed to create his SX-70 film
>>>> packs, and some substances today would be "unobtainium".  When there
>>>> was an effort to re-create SX-70 film, a new formulation had to be
>>>> designed.
>>>> 
>>>> You should check out Edwin Land's articles in the "Scientific American"
>>>> magazine.
>>> 
>>> I remember reading an article in Analog Science Fiction/Fact in the '60s
>>> about a discovery Land made that enabled you to see full colour using
>>> only 2 colours.
>>> 
>>> <google, google...>
>>> 
>>> http://www.greatreality.com/Color2Color.htm
>> 
>> If it was in Analog, I'll have it on the shelf. My collection goes back 
>> to 1943!
> 
> That's a lotta pulp!!
> 

Yes, mine only goes back to the last couple of issues of Astounding, and I
sold a bunch last year.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160075 — Re: Early Unixes requirements. (Was: Soviet PCs)

On 2016-02-20, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:56:14 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2016-02-20, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Edwin Land was a genius and a great manager.  He was able to obtain
>>> lots of disparate parts and substances needed to create his SX-70 film
>>> packs, and some substances today would be "unobtainium".  When there
>>> was an effort to re-create SX-70 film, a new formulation had to be
>>> designed.
>>>
>>> You should check out Edwin Land's articles in the "Scientific American"
>>> magazine.
>> 
>> I remember reading an article in Analog Science Fiction/Fact in the '60s
>> about a discovery Land made that enabled you to see full colour using
>> only 2 colours.
>> 
>> <google, google...>
>> 
>> http://www.greatreality.com/Color2Color.htm
>
> If it was in Analog, I'll have it on the shelf. My collection goes back 
> to 1943!

I found it in my collection - unusually quickly for a wild-assed guess.
It's in the February 1960 issue.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160137 — Re: Early Unixes requirements. (Was: Soviet PCs)

"Charlie Gibbs" <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote in message 
news:nadh6m21tt2@news3.newsguy.com...
> On 2016-02-20, Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 19:56:14 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-02-20, Charles Richmond <numerist@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Edwin Land was a genius and a great manager.  He was able to obtain
>>>> lots of disparate parts and substances needed to create his SX-70 film
>>>> packs, and some substances today would be "unobtainium".  When there
>>>> was an effort to re-create SX-70 film, a new formulation had to be
>>>> designed.
>>>>
>>>> You should check out Edwin Land's articles in the "Scientific American"
>>>> magazine.
>>>
>>> I remember reading an article in Analog Science Fiction/Fact in the '60s
>>> about a discovery Land made that enabled you to see full colour using
>>> only 2 colours.
>>>
>>> <google, google...>
>>>
>>> http://www.greatreality.com/Color2Color.htm
>>
>> If it was in Analog, I'll have it on the shelf. My collection goes back
>> to 1943!
>
> I found it in my collection - unusually quickly for a wild-assed guess.
> It's in the February 1960 issue.
>

This is explained in one of the articles that Edwin Land wrote for 
"Scientific American" magazine:

"Experiments in Color Vision", Scientific American, May, 1959

-- 

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160017 — Re: Early Unixes requirements. (Was: Soviet PCs)

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 12:56:28 PM UTC-7, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> I remember reading an article in Analog Science Fiction/Fact in the '60s
> about a discovery Land made that enabled you to see full colour using only
> 2 colours.
> 
> <google, google...>
> 
> http://www.greatreality.com/Color2Color.htm

That was how Technicolor started out. However, while it sort of works due to 
contrast effects, it still wasn't _really_ good enough.

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153059

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015, Quadibloc wrote:

> On Sunday, October 18, 2015 at 5:04:22 AM UTC-6, Greymaus wrote:
>
>> IMHO, Apple ][ would suffice for most peoples purposes still, Again, I
>> suppose that the Internet would be out (which would stop people
>> surfing for porn)
>
> Well, E-mail and the Web _are_ most people's purposes, so that lets the Apple
> ][ out right there.
>
I can still telnet to my ISP and run Pine and lynx there.

Time was, that's how people accessed the internet, run a terminal emulator 
on your computer and then the actual sfotware run at the university (or 
later at the ISP).  People are still using the Apple II that way, though 
often they use it as a terminal to a computer at their home running Linux.

Yes, it's harder and harder each year, websites not liking Lynx outright, 
or being too fancy for lynx to work well.  But I did it for years, 1996 to 
1999, when my previous ISP turned off the shell "because it was the reason 
we were 'hacked'", but then when they turned it back on about six weeks 
later, I went back to using a terminal to access the shell, until I moved 
to Linux in mid-2001.  I still use Pine, and still use lynx for much of my 
browsing, though running on this computer.

> In fact, though, if one wants a minimal computer to satisfy most people's
> purposes, it should _at least_ be able to do word processing. So one would have
> to move up to the Apple //e, which, unlike the Apple ][, at least had a
> keyboard with *lower case* on it.
>
You could add a bit of ram and modify something so you had the effect of 
lowercase.


> But I think we would have to hold out for a *modern* computer. Say an early
> 386-based PC clone, running DOS 5.0 and Windows 3.1?
>
> But if you want to watch videos on your computer, you will need to move even
> further into the modern era - like a Pentium II with Windows 98. Now *that* _can_ do just about anything today's computers can do.
>
And I never watched videos until I had a computer (or actuall a tablet) 
capable enough.  I didnt' feel something was missing, I just didn't look 
at videos.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153062

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:56:31 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
> Yes, it's harder and harder each year, websites not liking Lynx outright, 
> or being too fancy for lynx to work well. 

On my text-only machine I mostly use Links2 which at least understands
frames.  I can't get it to handle jpegs as ascii correctly, it upsets
the screen layout :-(  

-- 
Stan Barr     plan.b@bluesomatic.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153073

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015, Stan Barr wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:56:31 -0400, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, it's harder and harder each year, websites not liking Lynx outright,
>> or being too fancy for lynx to work well.
>
> On my text-only machine I mostly use Links2 which at least understands
> frames.  I can't get it to handle jpegs as ascii correctly, it upsets
> the screen layout :-(
>
Frames have never bothered me, lynx displays a page where you can choose 
between which frame.  Maybe not as handy as a "proper" page, but it works.

But I've hit pages where the server software has rejected me. It gives an 
error, I think it was "406", and displays the main page, but won't go 
beyond that.  If it was a subpage, there's a 404 error, if I recall 
properly.  It's checking the user agent header, and specifically rejecting 
lynx for some reason.

Then there are the webpages that tell me to go away until I get a 
different browser.  Those seemed more common some years back, as if now 
nobody is thinking about lynx.  But the pages often worked with lynx, with 
some limitations, the rejection page was a construct of the webpage 
designer.

There's always been some level of trouble with using lynx, but nothing too 
serious.

I've never worked out how to leave comments on a page with lynx, it ends 
up with weird formatting.  Actually, the problem there is not having place 
to test and figure out the problem, rather than an outright problem. 
Using lynx, my comments appeared fine, it was only with another browser 
that I saw the problem.

I think one of the things that's happened is that after I got a tablet 
about 3 years ago, I used that quite a bit, and for the first time was 
routinely using a graphic browser.  That's gotten me more used to seeing 
graphic pages, so I'm less likely to accomodate lynx if I come across some 
trouble, so i just switch to the graphic browser.  Previously, I'd live 
with any problems.

For five years, 1996 to 2001, I didnt' have a good enough computer to run 
a graphic browser, so the choice wasn't there.

  Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153045

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 05:50:30 +0000 (UTC), RS Wood belched forth:

> From the «Cold War» department:
> Title: Soviet PCs
> Author:
> Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 17:36:12 -0400
> Link: http://rbth.co.uk/multimedia/pictures/2014/04/07/before_the_internet_top_11_soviet_pcs_35711
> 
> Comments[1]
> 
> Links:
> [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10402150 (link)

Didn't they also use/clone the MSX as well?  Believe I read something to
that effect somewhere...

-CJ
-- 
Am I really conceited?  No, but I have every right to be!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#153051

There is a Russian artificial intelligence at 

http://www.nlg-wiki.org/systems/Dushka 

and the User Manual in Russian is at 

http://code.google.com/p/mindforth/wiki/RussMan 

See also 

http://books.google.ru/books/about/Ai4U.html?id=HqQrdlFcNmsC 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web