Let's try to keep this in perspective, Sam. When there's a text file format
which will display the exploded view drawings in these service documents on
your (Apple ][, Commodore 64, Atari x00, TI 99/4a, TRS-80 Model x, Heathkit
Hx, OSI Challenger x, IMSAI 8080, Altair
>8800, etc) then you may have a valid point. For that matter, aside from
the last three on the list, there's not one likely to need this
documentation, nor is it likely that anyone unable to afford disk space
enough to hold a complete PDF file of one of these relatively short
documents when a 10GB disk drive costs less than $200, will be able to
afford one of the "antique" devices to which they apply.
Aside from all that, I'd speculate that there are more Windows users who die
every day than there are users of computer systems desiring but inherently
unable to view PDF files in the world. Having said that, however, I submit
that the majority should not dictate to the extent that the needs of the
minority are ignored. If you can come up with a format common to both
illustrations and text for the implementation of which a single and
easy-to-use tool set is in the hands of someone(s) willing to process this
set of documents within a reasonable time frame into an appropriately
formatted archive suitable to the yet-to-be-determined provider of web-site
space, it will receive appropriate consideration. Take solace in the fact
that I will not likely be among those making these choices. Since I have
the documents, my preference, at least with respect to them is not
particularly relevant.
Take a look at the "unofficial CP/M web site," whatever the URL is, and
you'll see the document files offered in several formats, though I'd
speculate that none of the systems you listed in your comments, "(Apple ][,
Commodore 64, Atari x00, TI 99/4a, TRS-80 Model x, Heathkit Hx, OSI
Challenger x, IMSAI 8080, Altair 8800, etc)" can view any of those files.
Perhaps you can offer a positive construct rather than simply wringing your
hands and being a naysayer.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Sellam Ismail <dastar_at_ncal.verio.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
Date: Sunday, June 06, 1999 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: Disk Drive Documents
>On Sun, 6 Jun 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
>> >Well, I definitely agree with Tony on this.
>>
>> On which point, Sam?
>
>On the point that the archive should be made accessible to as many people
>as possible, and that means using formats and data that just about anyone
>can read.
>
>> Well, I don't, and for the reason that lowest common denominator means
the
>> lowest efficiency for the most people. I want to make it easy and
>> accessible to as many people as possible. Based on statistics, that
means
>> that the only OS that really matters is . . . now say it along with me .
.
>
>Bullshit. There are more tools for viewing ASCII data than any other
>format under every OS. This includes tools that allow you to search and
>edit them. Just because most of the planet is stuck with a Microsoft OS
>doesn't mean that all those people can also use a PDF viewer. I'm on a
>Pentium 133 system and viewing PDF files is a pain in the ass.
>
>It is also the most efficient format in terms of taking up the least
>amount of storage space. I can download a textfile in a few seconds. I
>can even view it with my web browser, and search it. I can cut parts out
>and paste them elsewhere.
>
>Making a
>"public" archive in the sense that everyone should be able to view it
>means catering to the lowest common denominator.
>
>
>> I don't anticipate getting complete agreement from everyone. What has to
be
>> considered is (1) What do the owners of the data have to say? (2) What
are
>> the people willing to do the work willing to do? (3) Where are these
>> documents to be stored and presented to the public and how much space
will
>> they allow for this purpose? (4) What will satisfy the needs and
preferences
>> of MOST of the people having access to the documents? The weight
assigned
>> to the answers will probably be in about this order as well.
>
>What good is putting in all the effort when not many people will be able
>to benefit from that effort? Contrary to what you think, the PDF format
>is not that widespread. Sure there are viewers, and the format is
>documented, but how many people have that plug-in or the stand-alone on
>their computer? Now ask yourself, how many people have a text editor on
>their computer?
>
>> As far as I'm concerned, what's most important is that the documents be
>> stored as complete, separate, and single files. They should not be
broken
>> up into pages or chapters or text in one part and graphics in another in
the
>> stupid, Stupid, STUPID way much of the LINUX documentation is published.
>
>Not everyone with a Linux box has a SVGA monitor with gigabytes of hard
>drive space and oodles of RAM. The developers of the Linux documentation
>were smart enough to realize that. It allows you to get only what you
>need, and not end up with a bunch of dead data taking up precious space on
>your hard drive.
>
>> Further, while GIF format is probably OK for your vacation pictures or
the
>> latest centerfold, I don't find it particularly advantageous for
presenting
>> line-art drawings because common viewers don't have a standard
presentation
>> format for them. They come in a size matched to some raster image and if
>> your display matches it, great, else too bad. Again I prefer the PDF,
not
>> only because it is what most people can get and use for free, but because
it
>> is a single format useable in common for both text and graphics.
>
>I can't view a PDF file with my (Apple ][, Commodore 64, Atari x00, TI
>99/4a, TRS-80 Model x, Heathkit Hx, OSI Challenger x, IMSAI 8080, Altair
>8800, etc).
>
>Sellam Alternate e-mail:
dastar_at_siconic.com
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
>Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.
>
> Coming this October 2-3: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0!
> See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
> [Last web site update: 05/25/99]
>
Received on Mon Jun 07 1999 - 00:07:25 BST