better Kodak reorganization

Discussion in 'Darkroom Developing and Printing' started by Dale, May 6, 2013.

  1. And indeed that is because those devices are in fact computers.
    Nothing in your two cited articles says otherwise, so
    what is your point?

    Fairly meaningless. As late as the 1990's not one
    manufacturer that I am aware of was willing to call any
    toll switch a computer. Not one.

    The major reason was that for the 15 years from 1975
    through 1990 the most significant marketing aspect of a
    digital switching system was "maintenance free". Not
    "low maintenance"...

    Even the hint that a telephone switch was a computer, or
    that peripheral computers could or would be useful in
    conjunction with a telephone switch, was not part of any
    marketing plan for large switching systems.

    So you won't find where Nortel or Bell Northern Research
    was calling their DMS switching system a computer and
    you won't find where WECO or Lucent was calling their
    ESS switches computers either.

    Now, if you would like to argue that either the DMS-100
    or the 4ESS, the two switches which replaced the #4A
    Crossbar switches, were also not computers... good

    But that would only be slightly more ridiculous than
    saying that 4-wire crossbar switching systems were not
    Floyd L. Davidson, May 13, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  2. Dale

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Somewere about the late 1940s to the 1950s the meaning of the word
    'computer' changed. The original name referred to a machine which
    computed. These included devices such as the mechanical desk
    calculator and devices such as the Stibitz complex number computor.
    As with a desk calculator, one entered a complex number calculation
    into the Stibitz machine via a keyboard and then pressed the go
    button. The machine then whirred, buzzed and gave off a smell of ozone
    for about 45 seconds and then spat out a result.

    These machines were computers in the sense that they computed. But in
    no way were they modern computers with provision for running stored
    programs etc.

    The argument with Floyd arises from regarding machines called
    'computers' in the old sense as though they were early examples of the
    machines we now call computers. They were not.

    FWIW #1




    .... and I forget what came after that.
    Eric Stevens, May 13, 2013
    1. Advertisements

  3. Lets see, neither of those URL's says that a crossbar switch is not
    a computer.

    Great logic... but not valid.
    Your cited URL's do not support you claims.
    So nothing that came before any picture you post is a

    There were no mechanical computers? There were no
    analog computers?

    You are grossly confused is where the problem lies! A
    general purpose electronic digital computer is not and
    never has been the definition of a computer.

    This is as funny as J. Clarke claiming that Jean-David
    Beyer didn't really know the difference between a
    computer and a calculator. In fact Intel didn't either!
    The 4004 was not a computer. Neither was the 8080. Nor
    was the 8086, the 80186 or the 80286. Everyone else
    thought they were, and proceeded to build and sell
    "computers" using those chips, but Intel didn't relent
    until the 80386 came along.

    Personally I spent a lot of time working on Nortel
    DMS-200 switching systems from the early 80's
    through the middle 90's, and virtually *nobody* I knew
    in the telecom industry says they were a computer.

    But that was a joke between the folks in Nortel's "Dump
    and Restore" section in Raleigh, NC and myself. They
    wrote the software, and installed it on customer's
    switching systems. They were the one's who explained to
    me why Nortel would not tell telecom management that it
    was a computer. Of course they used to tell me about
    the latest things being developed (such as when the
    SuperNode started using 68020 cpu's) and about the
    computer games they had running on their "development"
    switching systems.
    Floyd L. Davidson, May 13, 2013
  4. Dale

    Eric Stevens Guest

    This cite didn't use the word 'computer' in conjunction with a No4
    switch until the emergence of the No4ESS in 1977.

    This cite didn't use the word 'computer' at all.
    Nor do the support the claim that the No4 or No4a crossbars were
    computers. So what is your point?
    That should tell you something. How does that support your argument?
    Except the non-WECO/Lucent quote above.
    Now you are changing the subject again (to "4-wire crossbar switching

    The point at issue is whether or not the No4 crossbar switch was a
    computer. So far, you are the only person I have encountereed who says
    it is.
    Eric Stevens, May 13, 2013
  5. Dale

    Eric Stevens Guest

    They didn't say they weren't a three-ring circus either.
    I was responding to Savageduck and indicating my early computer
    history. Incidentally the IBM1620 was in 1961.
    I should have used my earlier experience with mechanical anti-aircraft
    You are grossly confused also. I never gave that definition.
    Eric Stevens, May 13, 2013
  6. And then it only used the word one time, and in fact
    what it said was, "The 4ESS was simultaneously the
    worlds first digital electronic switch and a powerful

    That in no way denies that the crossbar switches were
    computers. It does not say it was the first switch that
    was a computer, because that would not be correct. The
    only firsts were "digital", "electronic" and to some
    degree the term "powerful" might also be related by that
    And it doesn't say that they were not mechanical
    The point is that you are citing articles that have
    absolutely no bearing at all on what you claim! That's
    ridiculously faulty logic.
    There is 1) no question but that every digital switch
    ever produced is a computer; and if 2) none of the
    manufacturers or the telco's were calling them that up
    until at least well into the 90's; then we can draw the
    conclusion that how telco's and switch manufacturers
    tend to describe telephone switching systems is not
    definitive as to whether they are "computers" or not.

    Which is to say, your evidence above was worthless on
    its face. And that should have been obvious even to you.
    Which is not from that era, and is from the current
    version of AT&T.

    You're missing the point still. There was very little
    significance to the idea that a crossbar switch was a
    mechanical computer. There is great significance to the
    fact that a modern digital switch is in fact a very
    powerful electronic computer. Even then, they are not
    describing it well either. A typical sized toll switch
    today will have at least 300 hundred or so
    microprocessors, and many will have far more than that.
    A switch is a huge distributed computing system.

    And with the SS7 version of CCIS, in fact the Public
    Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) is in fact itself a
    huge distributed computing system.
    That doesn't change the subject. What do you think a
    No4 XB toll switch is??? You don't have enough
    understanding of this topic to even realize what these
    things do and how they do them, much less what they are
    and are not. Every time I use a slightly different
    description of exactly the same thing you jump up and
    say it something different! It's hilarious...

    All of the No4, the NoA4A, and the No4A switches are in
    fact "4-wire crossbar switching systems". There are
    several other, non-WECO, tandem switches that also fit
    that description.
    You've had more than one person point you at Bell Labs
    work with the crossbar switching systems where it was
    described as a mechanical computer.

    You also are not going to find anyone who has worked
    with a crossbar switch who has a serious background in
    computers that will tell you it was not a mechanical
    Floyd L. Davidson, May 13, 2013
  7. So you do understand how invalid you logic is!
    Which is a non-sequitur.
    Then you are fully aware that mechanical computers did exist, and
    still do.
    That is in essence just exactly what you did say! A bit
    pointless to deny it now... Why not just admit that was
    wrong and move on.
    Floyd L. Davidson, May 13, 2013
  8. Dale

    Dale Guest

    no choices is not a good idea either, Gimp, for free, is really getting
    Dale, Jun 3, 2013
  9. Dale

    Guest Guest

    now it's only 10 years behind the times rather than 15 years.

    it *still* lacks adjustment layers, smart objects and so much more.

    even the $60 photoshop elements does more than the gimp does.
    Guest, Jun 3, 2013
  10. Considering that Adobe "accidently" released CS/2 to the world, that seems
    the better choice.

    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jun 3, 2013
  11. Dale

    Guest Guest

    consider that it's for legitimate cs2 owners only.
    Guest, Jun 3, 2013
  12. Dale

    Savageduck Guest

    Adobe is not giving CS2 away.
    ....and for Mac users out there, CS2 will not run on Intel Macs, only
    G4, or G5 Macs. That was my reason for upgrading at that time.
    < >
    Savageduck, Jun 3, 2013
  13. They made no attempt at all to limit it to legitimate cs2 owners.

    When it was announced, before the direct download links were published, you
    could go to their website, and sign up for their free downloads, which
    included CS2.

    The "it was only for licensed users" was published in a blog, not on the
    official website.

    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jun 4, 2013
  14. Probably 99% of the people that downloaded it are Windows users, and it
    runs perfectly well under Windows 7 and in an XP virtual machine under

    Since you posted the link, I suggest that people go to it and read the

    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jun 4, 2013
  15. Dale

    Guest Guest

    they didn't accidentally release cs2 to the world. it's for legitimate
    cs2 owners.

    it is *not* a free ticket for anyone to download a copy and run it.
    that's piracy.
    Guest, Jun 4, 2013
  16. Dale

    Dale Guest

    Kodak and others should consider using open system solutions to their
    workflows until they can develop proprietary ones

    gimp might not be totally there yet, but its GNU licensed and can be

    same thing with ghostscript and inkscape

    I don't think postscript will survive SVG
    Dale, Jun 7, 2013
  17. Dale

    Dale Guest

    if the CCD is encoded with something other than plain RGB then it might
    be the scanner

    some CCD filtration prioritizes green
    Dale, Jun 7, 2013
  18. Dale

    Dale Guest

    look at the way Sun and now Oracle use openoffice to develop Star
    Office, this is a model of how proprietary companies can develop open
    system solutions
    Dale, Jul 1, 2013
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.