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

Groups > comp.os.linux.hardware > #835 > unrolled thread

Scanner recommendations?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.hardware

Contents

  Scanner recommendations? Anthony Campbell <ac@acampbell.org.uk> - 2011-11-22 09:28 +0000
    Re: Scanner recommendations? André Gillibert <MetaEntropy.removeThis@gmail.com> - 2011-11-22 13:53 +0100
      Re: Scanner recommendations? General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-22 13:46 +0000
        Re: Scanner recommendations? General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-22 13:58 +0000
          Re: Scanner recommendations? sctvguy1 <sctvguy1@invalid.net> - 2011-11-22 14:02 +0000
            Re: Scanner recommendations? Anthony Campbell <ac@acampbell.org.uk> - 2011-11-23 16:03 +0000
        Re: Scanner recommendations? André Gillibert <MetaEntropy.removeThis@gmail.com> - 2011-11-22 16:14 +0100
      Re: Scanner recommendations? Richard Kimber <richardkimber@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-22 08:49 -0600
      Re: Scanner recommendations? scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2011-11-22 17:44 +0000
      Re: Scanner recommendations? Anthony Campbell <ac@acampbell.org.uk> - 2011-11-23 13:19 +0000
        Re: Scanner recommendations? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2011-11-23 14:58 -0500
    Re: Scanner recommendations? notbob <notbob@nothome.com> - 2011-11-22 13:10 +0000
    Re: Scanner recommendations? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2011-11-22 22:07 -0500
      Re: Scanner recommendations? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-11-22 21:33 -0700
      Re: Scanner recommendations? Anthony Campbell <ac@acampbell.org.uk> - 2011-11-24 10:31 +0000
        Re: Scanner recommendations? General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-24 18:42 +0000
    Re: Scanner recommendations? Richard Corden <richard.corden@gmail.com> - 2011-11-27 12:21 +0100
      Re: Scanner recommendations? Anthony Campbell <ac@acampbell.org.uk> - 2011-11-29 09:13 +0000
        Re: Scanner recommendations? Not Disclosed <not_disclosed@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-22 02:50 +0000
          Re: Scanner recommendations? Norman Peelman <npeelmandog@cfl.rr.com> - 2011-12-22 08:54 -0500
          Re: Scanner recommendations? Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2011-12-22 19:50 -0500
            Re: Scanner recommendations? General Schvantzkoph <schvantzkoph@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-23 02:06 +0000
              Re: Scanner recommendations? ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid (Moe Trin) - 2011-12-23 13:47 -0600

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#926

On Wed, 22 Dec 2011, Not Disclosed wrote:

> What about the new Kodak all in ones?
>
Is Kodak a reliable company at the moment?

I saw something in the paper recently about how much the value of its 
stock has declined, because digital cameras have mostly replaced film 
cameras.  So no more cameras, no more film, no film developing network.

So at the moment, surely Kodak is trying to become something new (just 
like Polaroid), yet not have the old to keep it healthy while it finds its 
place.

At the point where Kodak is at the moment, many companies falter, relying 
on putting their well known brand on someone else's product.  It happened 
forty years ago when I got my first Hallicrafter's shortwave receiver, a 
cheap transistorized one that clearly was Hallicrafter's in name only. 
The company changes, and the only thing of value is the name, yet that 
name can't be that valuable if the company is no longer producing their 
own stuff.  It may work for a while, for the people who always buy by 
brand name, but once the products become similar to everyone else, the 
brand can't mean a thing.

Over a decade ago I bought an "RCA" CD player, but I had no illusion, I 
was buying cheap, and that's the name that was on it, I sure didn't go 
after some product because it had "RCA" on it, and I had no illusion that 
I was getting some superior product because of the name.

   Michael

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

#928

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:50:38 -0500, Michael Black wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Dec 2011, Not Disclosed wrote:
> 
>> What about the new Kodak all in ones?
>>
> Is Kodak a reliable company at the moment?
> 
> I saw something in the paper recently about how much the value of its
> stock has declined, because digital cameras have mostly replaced film
> cameras.  So no more cameras, no more film, no film developing network.
> 
> So at the moment, surely Kodak is trying to become something new (just
> like Polaroid), yet not have the old to keep it healthy while it finds
> its place.
> 
> At the point where Kodak is at the moment, many companies falter,
> relying on putting their well known brand on someone else's product.  It
> happened forty years ago when I got my first Hallicrafter's shortwave
> receiver, a cheap transistorized one that clearly was Hallicrafter's in
> name only. The company changes, and the only thing of value is the name,
> yet that name can't be that valuable if the company is no longer
> producing their own stuff.  It may work for a while, for the people who
> always buy by brand name, but once the products become similar to
> everyone else, the brand can't mean a thing.
> 
> Over a decade ago I bought an "RCA" CD player, but I had no illusion, I
> was buying cheap, and that's the name that was on it, I sure didn't go
> after some product because it had "RCA" on it, and I had no illusion
> that I was getting some superior product because of the name.
> 
>    Michael

Kodak was a sick company long before film died. When was the last time you 
owned a Kodak film camera? My parents had an Instamatic in the 1960s, 
that's the last Kodak camera that anyone in my family has owned. My film 
cameras were a Pentax, a Nikon and a Canon. I did use Kodak film, which 
was top rate. But their great films had been developed decades before, 
Kodachrome was introduced in the 1930s. There wasn't a lot of reason to 
introduce new films because the ones that were out there were as good as 
they needed to be. So Kodak wasn't prepared for the world of consumer 
electronics where everything is obsoleted in less than a year. It's not 
looking good for Kodak's survival which is unfortunate, I'd hate to see 
another iconic company disappear. But they are nearing the end of their 
resources and they haven't found a new market where they are competitive.

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

#931

On 23 Dec 2011, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.hardware, in article
<9li61bF3omU1@mid.individual.net>, General Schvantzkoph wrote:

>Michael Black wrote:

>> Not Disclosed wrote:

>>> What about the new Kodak all in ones?

No data.  As they're quite new on the market, I doubt you'll find much.

>> Is Kodak a reliable company at the moment?

Probably a better reputation than "Best Buy" at the moment     ;-)

>> I saw something in the paper recently about how much the value of
>> its stock has declined, because digital cameras have mostly replaced
>> film cameras.

You'd have to look at their "Securities and Exchange Commission" filings,
but it's probably premature to say they're dying.

>> So no more cameras, no more film, no film developing network.

That's not their only business.  Yes, they have closed their film
developing facilities, but that business was under stiff competition
for a long time before - I don't recall getting any film developed by
them in...  at least 40 years.  Local competition, and equal results.

>> So at the moment, surely Kodak is trying to become something new
>> (just like Polaroid), yet not have the old to keep it healthy while
>> it finds its place.

I think you'll find that started a while ago.  The workers who used to
be building cameras, or running the film developers/printers fifteen
years ago haven't been setting on their ass doing nothing since then.

>> At the point where Kodak is at the moment, many companies falter,
>> relying on putting their well known brand on someone else's product.

That has also been going on for decades - one needs only look at the
the automotive trade or a lot of consumer electronics products.

>> It happened forty years ago when I got my first Hallicrafter's
>> shortwave receiver, a cheap transistorized one that clearly was
>> Hallicrafter's in name only.

Hmmm... wonder where my S-38D is (0.53 to 30 MHz in four bands - using
the "All-American five" miniature tubes with a series filament string)
that I bought in 1958?   For that matter, where is my Zenith "Trans-
Oceanic III" (about half the size of the tubed TransOceanic version)
bought in 1966 or so?

>> Over a decade ago I bought an "RCA" CD player, but I had no illusion,
>> I was buying cheap, and that's the name that was on it, I sure didn't
>> go after some product because it had "RCA" on it, and I had no
>> illusion that I was getting some superior product because of the name.

The TransOceanic has been functionally replaced by a Magnavox that's
even smaller and cost a sixth of the price of the Zenith (even allowing
for inflation).  Magnavox used to be a significant US brand.  Now?

The consumer wants quality (or what passes for that now) but also
demands a very low price.  To compete, the manufacturers are buying the
product overseas where it's built on an assembly line where the workers
are happy about getting the inflated wage of _three_ bananas a day (ten
years ago, two bananas a day got very highly skilled labor - inflation
is everywhere).  The two actual employees of the named manufacturer are
there just to see that the right label goes on the product, and that it
and right version of the ``manual'' (full of legal warnings not to use
the product in the bath tub and other common mis-uses, but significantly
lacking in instructions to use the product) go into the right box.  This
also means that a third of the competition is doing the same thing in
the same factory, another third is two streets over where a slightly
different product is built using identical assemblies (the case is a
different color), and the other third are in the town twenty miles up
the coast.    Like the flat panel display on your TV or monitor?  It's
built at one of two factories.    There are (apparently) just three
companies building the guts of all CD and DVD players.

>When was the last time you owned a Kodak film camera? My parents had
>an Instamatic in the 1960s, that's the last Kodak camera that anyone
>in my family has owned.

I think we bought an Instamatic in the early 1980s.  Other than that,
I don't believe I ever owned a Kodak - though I borrowed the family
Brownie for the senior class trip in the early 1950s.

>My film cameras were a Pentax, a Nikon and a Canon.

Also had an Edixa (similar to the Pentax, bought in 1956).

>I did use Kodak film, which was top rate. But their great films had
>been developed decades before, Kodachrome was introduced in the 1930s.
>There wasn't a lot of reason to introduce new films because the ones
>that were out there were as good as they needed to be. 

Kodak films were modernized/reformulated over the years.  I switched
to FujiColor/FujiChrome in the 1970s, first actual Fuji in the green
boxes, then various store brands which were re-boxed Fuji.  The 35 mm
color film you buy today as (example) Walgreens store brand is Fuji.

>So Kodak wasn't prepared for the world of consumer electronics where
>everything is obsoleted in less than a year.

Yeah, their printers were more commercial units than consumer, but
they've been in the business for a while.  One need only look at the
Linux Hardware-HOWTO and Printing-HOWTO

-rw-rw-r-- 1 gferg    ldp     1078686 May 23  2007 Hardware-HOWTO
-rw-rw-r-- 1 gferg    ldp      258831 Aug  4  2003 Printing-HOWTO

and you'll find supported stuff from Kodak, though I don't recall any
scanners listed.

        Old guy

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.hardware

csiph-web