Images of Kodak

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:08:19 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:
: On Jan 19, 7:15*am, Bruce wrote:
: Bruce wrote:
: This week, Kodak has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. *As
: a tribute to the company, the Guardian newspaper (UK) has published
: an online gallery of images illustrating Kodak's history. *Enjoy!
:
: http://preview.tinyurl.com/8yp6j7z
: or:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/gallery/2012/jan/19/eastman-kodak-...
:
: (now cross posted to 3 newsgroups)
:
: The seeds of their destruction were in those photos. Profitless,
: cheap camera bodies. That's mostly what killed them.

Maybe, but for most of their existence it wasn't a stupid strategy. They made
most of their money from the sale of film. Cheap camera bodies made sense as a
marketing tool. Allocation of the resulting profit and loss is an accounting
fiction.

Bob

On 1/26/2012 8:49 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:08:19 -0800 (PST), wrote:
: On Jan 19, 7:15 am, wrote:
: wrote:
: This week, Kodak has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. As
: a tribute to the company, the Guardian newspaper (UK) has published
: an online gallery of images illustrating Kodak's history. Enjoy!
:
: http://preview.tinyurl.com/8yp6j7z
: or:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/gallery/2012/jan/19/eastman-kodak-...
:
: (now cross posted to 3 newsgroups)
:
: The seeds of their destruction were in those photos. Profitless,
: cheap camera bodies. That's mostly what killed them.

Maybe, but for most of their existence it wasn't a stupid strategy. They made
most of their money from the sale of film. Cheap camera bodies made sense as a
marketing tool. Allocation of the resulting profit and loss is an accounting
fiction.

Bob
Does RichA mean that Kodak was killed like Gillette? Cheap razors,
expensive blades?
Allen

On 27/01/2012 02:49, Robert Coe wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:08:19 -0800 (PST), wrote:
: On Jan 19, 7:15 am, wrote:
: wrote:
: This week, Kodak has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. As
: a tribute to the company, the Guardian newspaper (UK) has published
: an online gallery of images illustrating Kodak's history. Enjoy!
:
: http://preview.tinyurl.com/8yp6j7z
: or:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/gallery/2012/jan/19/eastman-kodak-...
:
: (now cross posted to 3 newsgroups)
:
: The seeds of their destruction were in those photos. Profitless,
: cheap camera bodies. That's mostly what killed them.

Maybe, but for most of their existence it wasn't a stupid strategy. They made
most of their money from the sale of film. Cheap camera bodies made sense as a
marketing tool. Allocation of the resulting profit and loss is an accounting
fiction.

Bob
Yes, its the razor versus razor blade model, also that used in the
inkjet printer market. Works best if you can lock in your customers by
patenting the commodity to prevent third-party competition.

Apple are making it work both ways: expensive platform products and
lock-in to content supply.

On 28/01/2012 1:48 AM, Bruce wrote:
wrote:
On 27/01/2012 02:49, Robert Coe wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:08:19 -0800 (PST), wrote:
: On Jan 19, 7:15 am, wrote:
: wrote:
: This week, Kodak has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. As
: a tribute to the company, the Guardian newspaper (UK) has published
: an online gallery of images illustrating Kodak's history. Enjoy!
:
: http://preview.tinyurl.com/8yp6j7z
: or:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/gallery/2012/jan/19/eastman-kodak-...
:
: (now cross posted to 3 newsgroups)
:
: The seeds of their destruction were in those photos. Profitless,
: cheap camera bodies. That's mostly what killed them.

Maybe, but for most of their existence it wasn't a stupid strategy. They made
most of their money from the sale of film. Cheap camera bodies made sense as a
marketing tool. Allocation of the resulting profit and loss is an accounting
fiction.

Bob
Yes, its the razor versus razor blade model, also that used in the
inkjet printer market. Works best if you can lock in your customers by
patenting the commodity to prevent third-party competition.


Your point is well made. However, Kodak has rejected that model for
its own line of inkjet printers by offering "the cheapest branded ink
on the market" and selling printers whose prices are not as heavily
subsidised as comparable branded printers. Indeed, they may not be
subsidised at all.

Whether this will work or not is moot. But Kodak's plan for a
post-Chapter 11 future is apparently based on their very different
model for selling printers and ink as a key component of the business.
You can understand why; Kodak prints are what most people (but not
most photographers) remember the company for.

The problem is that there are more than two printer/ink models. There
is the model adopted by most manufacturers (excluding Kodak) with
subsidised printers and expensive ink. Then there is the Kodak model
with unsubsidised printers and cheaper ink. But there is a third
model, of people buying subsidised printers from HP, Canon, Epson,
Lexmark etc. then re-filling them with cheap off-brand ink.

I can see how people would find Kodak's model attractive against most
manufacturers' model using manufacturers' ink. However, most
off-brand ink is not only cheaper than most manufacturers' branded
ink, it is also cheaper than Kodak branded ink. So how can Kodak's
model pay off?

Kodak also needs to face up to the fact that fewer people are printing
images at all. They shoot them, store them on hard drives, upload
them to social networking sites and some even upload them to sites
like Flickr. But they don't print them.

I have seen a market analysis that looks at the future of photo
printing as a business, and the prognosis isn't good. In the early
days of digital photography, people printed images because that was
the best way to share them. But with rapidly rising ownership of home
computers, they began to share them by email and sites like Flickr,
and the demand for printing slowed. The along came Facebook, a
game-changer if ever there was one, and everyone could share photos
with ease.

The demand for printing has reduced substantially. I wonder where
Kodak is getting its projections from, because any business trying to
take a dramatically increased share of a sinking market faces an
uphill struggle.


Your data or source of information is either flawed or missing the
vertical growth market emerging in the in photo printing industry.
I've been big on questions for customers for years. "Where did you hear
about us?" helps define wasted advertising dollars but rewarding
customers for filling in a questionnaire can (and does) produce
returning business and recommended business. What has this to do with
Kodak, you might ask?

I've been a seriously big customer of Kodak for close on 18 years. In
the good times I processed 250 films a day and spent wildly on a
specialised enlargement facility that is the only part of my processing
business to survive (and grow) now.

I don't recall a single survey sent to us from Kodak. Their Reps were so
under informed about market trends they still, nearing the end, pushed
Kodak disks as the road to profitability. Reinventing the wheel is
probably the fastest road to Bankruptcy any company can take. Kodak made
an art-form out of that practice.

Kodak need to go broke to clear out the incompetent board of directors
and from the ashes, build a new generation imaging company that
recognises the needs of society. Kodak faltered because they made too
much profit, too easily and failed to recognise that "Innovation results
in success, Imitation leads to disaster".

They certainly made a massive new product with their film process.
"Martha, quickly bring the Kodak, the children are in the pool".
Probably immortalised Kodak and what they represented. What have they
done of note in the past 30 years? Oh yes... They got rid of poorly
designed 3mm cameras you couldn't focus with. That was a smart move.
What happened to the idiots who approved inventing them?

Chapter 11 only prevents them being sued into oblivion while they
re-group and attack the market in a different way. One can only hope
they bother to define what that market actually is before losing that
protection.

On 2012-01-27 01:26:35 -0800, Nemo said:

On 27/01/2012 02:49, Robert Coe wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:08:19 -0800 (PST), wrote:
: On Jan 19, 7:15 am, wrote:
: wrote:
: This week, Kodak has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. As
: a tribute to the company, the Guardian newspaper (UK) has published
: an online gallery of images illustrating Kodak's history. Enjoy!
:
: http://preview.tinyurl.com/8yp6j7z
: or:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/gallery/2012/jan/19/eastman-kodak-...
:
: (now cross posted to 3 newsgroups)
:
: The seeds of their destruction were in those photos. Profitless,
: cheap camera bodies. That's mostly what killed them.

Maybe, but for most of their existence it wasn't a stupid strategy. They made
most of their money from the sale of film. Cheap camera bodies made sense as a
marketing tool. Allocation of the resulting profit and loss is an accounting
fiction.

Bob
Yes, its the razor versus razor blade model, also that used in the
inkjet printer market. Works best if you can lock in your customers by
patenting the commodity to prevent third-party competition.

Apple are making it work both ways: expensive platform products and
lock-in to content supply.

With all this talk of fading technology and single purpose
corporations, I am reminded of Addressograph-Multigraph which became AM
International. In the 50's, 60's, & even into the 70's, I can remember
cabinets filled with thousands of those Addressograph plates. They were
used in large, and some not so large mailrooms, and distribution
systems. Along with the simple addressing machines they had automatic
envelope address writing systems.
They made most of the credit card embossing machines, and many other
embossing/date-stamp machines. (you don't see many of those today.)
They also had a DoD contract for supplying "dog tag" embossers, which
are probably still working.

They were outpaced by progress, and like the buggy-whip manufacturers,
were never able to reinvent themselves.
http://ech.case.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=AII

....and here are a few other office equipment items which travelled the
same road.
http://www.earlyofficemuseum.com/mail_machines.htm


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 1/29/12 4:47 PM, in article
2012012914475211272-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
wrote:

On 2012-01-27 01:26:35 -0800, Nemo said:

On 27/01/2012 02:49, Robert Coe wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:08:19 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
: On Jan 19, 7:15 am, wrote:
: wrote:
: This week, Kodak has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. As
: a tribute to the company, the Guardian newspaper (UK) has published
: an online gallery of images illustrating Kodak's history. Enjoy!
:
: http://preview.tinyurl.com/8yp6j7z
: or:
:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/gallery/2012/jan/19/eastman-kodak-...
:
: (now cross posted to 3 newsgroups)
:
: The seeds of their destruction were in those photos. Profitless,
: cheap camera bodies. That's mostly what killed them.

Maybe, but for most of their existence it wasn't a stupid strategy. They
made
most of their money from the sale of film. Cheap camera bodies made sense as
a
marketing tool. Allocation of the resulting profit and loss is an accounting
fiction.

Bob
Yes, its the razor versus razor blade model, also that used in the
inkjet printer market. Works best if you can lock in your customers by
patenting the commodity to prevent third-party competition.

Apple are making it work both ways: expensive platform products and
lock-in to content supply.

With all this talk of fading technology and single purpose
corporations, I am reminded of Addressograph-Multigraph which became AM
International. In the 50's, 60's, & even into the 70's, I can remember
cabinets filled with thousands of those Addressograph plates. They were
used in large, and some not so large mailrooms, and distribution
systems. Along with the simple addressing machines they had automatic
envelope address writing systems.
They made most of the credit card embossing machines, and many other
embossing/date-stamp machines. (you don't see many of those today.)
They also had a DoD contract for supplying "dog tag" embossers, which
are probably still working.

They were outpaced by progress, and like the buggy-whip manufacturers,
were never able to reinvent themselves.
http://ech.case.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=AII

...and here are a few other office equipment items which travelled the

same road.
http://www.earlyofficemuseum.com/mail_machines.htm


Microfish comes to mind...

On 2012-01-29 17:03:55 -0800, George Kerby said:




On 1/29/12 4:47 PM, in article
2012012914475211272-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
wrote:

On 2012-01-27 01:26:35 -0800, Nemo said:

On 27/01/2012 02:49, Robert Coe wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:08:19 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
: On Jan 19, 7:15 am, wrote:
: wrote:
: This week, Kodak has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. As
: a tribute to the company, the Guardian newspaper (UK) has published
: an online gallery of images illustrating Kodak's history. Enjoy!
:
: http://preview.tinyurl.com/8yp6j7z
: or:
:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/gallery/2012/jan/19/eastman-kodak-...
:
: (now cross posted to 3 newsgroups)
:
: The seeds of their destruction were in those photos. Profitless,
: cheap camera bodies. That's mostly what killed them.

Maybe, but for most of their existence it wasn't a stupid strategy. They
made
most of their money from the sale of film. Cheap camera bodies made sense as
a
marketing tool. Allocation of the resulting profit and loss is an accounting
fiction.

Bob
Yes, its the razor versus razor blade model, also that used in the
inkjet printer market. Works best if you can lock in your customers by
patenting the commodity to prevent third-party competition.

Apple are making it work both ways: expensive platform products and
lock-in to content supply.

With all this talk of fading technology and single purpose
corporations, I am reminded of Addressograph-Multigraph which became AM
International. In the 50's, 60's, & even into the 70's, I can remember
cabinets filled with thousands of those Addressograph plates. They were
used in large, and some not so large mailrooms, and distribution
systems. Along with the simple addressing machines they had automatic
envelope address writing systems.
They made most of the credit card embossing machines, and many other
embossing/date-stamp machines. (you don't see many of those today.)
They also had a DoD contract for supplying "dog tag" embossers, which
are probably still working.

They were outpaced by progress, and like the buggy-whip manufacturers,
were never able to reinvent themselves.
http://ech.case.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=AII

...and here are a few other office equipment items which travelled the

same road.
http://www.earlyofficemuseum.com/mail_machines.htm


Microfish comes to mind...

Damn!
We were still using those for some archived case files in 2009, some 4
years after a State computer archiving project was initiated. For all I
know, after I retired, that work still might not be complete and the
readers still in use. There were still two microfiche readers in my
offices in daily use when I retired at the end of February 2009.

Some of the microfiche pages were so badly scanned as to be almost
illegible. So when the computer project got underway, they just used
the same badly scanned microfiche images as no hard copies existed.
Where hardcopies existed, decent scans were made. Entries made into
various computer software such as Word, Excel, and Access made the
transition reasonably well.
Now there are several dedicated integrated report systems for
incidents, crime reports, and criminal data which also access the
archives. There are the usual compatibility issues when dealing with
different jurisdictions even within the State. Very little is done on
paper today, at the State level in California anyway.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 1/29/12 7:45 PM, in article
2012012917452827544-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
wrote:

On 2012-01-29 17:03:55 -0800, George Kerby said:




On 1/29/12 4:47 PM, in article
2012012914475211272-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
wrote:

On 2012-01-27 01:26:35 -0800, Nemo said:

On 27/01/2012 02:49, Robert Coe wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:08:19 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
: On Jan 19, 7:15 am, wrote:
: wrote:
: This week, Kodak has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. As
: a tribute to the company, the Guardian newspaper (UK) has published
: an online gallery of images illustrating Kodak's history. Enjoy!
:
: http://preview.tinyurl.com/8yp6j7z
: or:
:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/gallery/2012/jan/19/eastman-kodak-...

:
: (now cross posted to 3 newsgroups)
:
: The seeds of their destruction were in those photos. Profitless,
: cheap camera bodies. That's mostly what killed them.

Maybe, but for most of their existence it wasn't a stupid strategy. They
made
most of their money from the sale of film. Cheap camera bodies made sense
as
a
marketing tool. Allocation of the resulting profit and loss is an
accounting
fiction.

Bob
Yes, its the razor versus razor blade model, also that used in the
inkjet printer market. Works best if you can lock in your customers by
patenting the commodity to prevent third-party competition.

Apple are making it work both ways: expensive platform products and
lock-in to content supply.

With all this talk of fading technology and single purpose
corporations, I am reminded of Addressograph-Multigraph which became AM
International. In the 50's, 60's, & even into the 70's, I can remember
cabinets filled with thousands of those Addressograph plates. They were
used in large, and some not so large mailrooms, and distribution
systems. Along with the simple addressing machines they had automatic
envelope address writing systems.
They made most of the credit card embossing machines, and many other
embossing/date-stamp machines. (you don't see many of those today.)
They also had a DoD contract for supplying "dog tag" embossers, which
are probably still working.

They were outpaced by progress, and like the buggy-whip manufacturers,
were never able to reinvent themselves.
http://ech.case.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=AII

...and here are a few other office equipment items which travelled the

same road.
http://www.earlyofficemuseum.com/mail_machines.htm


Microfish comes to mind...

Damn!
We were still using those for some archived case files in 2009, some 4
years after a State computer archiving project was initiated. For all I
know, after I retired, that work still might not be complete and the
readers still in use. There were still two microfiche readers in my
offices in daily use when I retired at the end of February 2009.

Some of the microfiche pages were so badly scanned as to be almost
illegible. So when the computer project got underway, they just used
the same badly scanned microfiche images as no hard copies existed.
Where hardcopies existed, decent scans were made. Entries made into
various computer software such as Word, Excel, and Access made the
transition reasonably well.
Now there are several dedicated integrated report systems for
incidents, crime reports, and criminal data which also access the
archives. There are the usual compatibility issues when dealing with
different jurisdictions even within the State. Very little is done on
paper today, at the State level in California anyway.

Sorry for my misspelling. But glad that it stimulated your mind. You are one
of the few here who really have an excellent input with really interesting
subject matter. Thank you for that, Duck. You are a gem in a sea of silt.

CUDOS, Sir!

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:36:50 -0600, George Kerby
wrote:
:
:
:
: On 1/29/12 7:45 PM, in article
: 2012012917452827544-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
: wrote:
:
: On 2012-01-29 17:03:55 -0800, George Kerby said:
:
:
:
:
: On 1/29/12 4:47 PM, in article
: 2012012914475211272-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
: wrote:
:
: On 2012-01-27 01:26:35 -0800, Nemo said:
:
: On 27/01/2012 02:49, Robert Coe wrote:
: On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:08:19 -0800 (PST),
: wrote:
: : On Jan 19, 7:15 am, wrote:
: : wrote:
: : This week, Kodak has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. As
: : a tribute to the company, the Guardian newspaper (UK) has published
: : an online gallery of images illustrating Kodak's history. Enjoy!
: :
: : http://preview.tinyurl.com/8yp6j7z
: : or:
: :
:
: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/gallery/2012/jan/19/eastman-kodak-...
:
: :
: : (now cross posted to 3 newsgroups)
: :
: : The seeds of their destruction were in those photos. Profitless,
: : cheap camera bodies. That's mostly what killed them.
:
: Maybe, but for most of their existence it wasn't a stupid strategy. They
: made
: most of their money from the sale of film. Cheap camera bodies made sense
: as
: a
: marketing tool. Allocation of the resulting profit and loss is an
: accounting
: fiction.
:
: Bob
: Yes, its the razor versus razor blade model, also that used in the
: inkjet printer market. Works best if you can lock in your customers by
: patenting the commodity to prevent third-party competition.
:
: Apple are making it work both ways: expensive platform products and
: lock-in to content supply.
:
: With all this talk of fading technology and single purpose
: corporations, I am reminded of Addressograph-Multigraph which became AM
: International. In the 50's, 60's, & even into the 70's, I can remember
: cabinets filled with thousands of those Addressograph plates. They were
: used in large, and some not so large mailrooms, and distribution
: systems. Along with the simple addressing machines they had automatic
: envelope address writing systems.
: They made most of the credit card embossing machines, and many other
: embossing/date-stamp machines. (you don't see many of those today.)
: They also had a DoD contract for supplying "dog tag" embossers, which
: are probably still working.
:
: They were outpaced by progress, and like the buggy-whip manufacturers,
: were never able to reinvent themselves.
: http://ech.case.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=AII
:
: ...and here are a few other office equipment items which travelled the
:
: same road.
: http://www.earlyofficemuseum.com/mail_machines.htm
:
:
: Microfish comes to mind...
:
: Damn!
: We were still using those for some archived case files in 2009, some 4
: years after a State computer archiving project was initiated. For all I
: know, after I retired, that work still might not be complete and the
: readers still in use. There were still two microfiche readers in my
: offices in daily use when I retired at the end of February 2009.
:
: Some of the microfiche pages were so badly scanned as to be almost
: illegible. So when the computer project got underway, they just used
: the same badly scanned microfiche images as no hard copies existed.
: Where hardcopies existed, decent scans were made. Entries made into
: various computer software such as Word, Excel, and Access made the
: transition reasonably well.
: Now there are several dedicated integrated report systems for
: incidents, crime reports, and criminal data which also access the
: archives. There are the usual compatibility issues when dealing with
: different jurisdictions even within the State. Very little is done on
: paper today, at the State level in California anyway.
:
: Sorry for my misspelling. But glad that it stimulated your mind. You are one
: of the few here who really have an excellent input with really interesting
: subject matter. Thank you for that, Duck. You are a gem in a sea of silt.
:
: CUDOS, Sir!

I'll bet the Duck even knows how to spell "kudos". ;^)

Bob

On 2012-01-29 18:36:50 -0800, George Kerby said:




On 1/29/12 7:45 PM, in article
2012012917452827544-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
wrote:

On 2012-01-29 17:03:55 -0800, George Kerby said:




On 1/29/12 4:47 PM, in article
2012012914475211272-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
wrote:

On 2012-01-27 01:26:35 -0800, Nemo said:

On 27/01/2012 02:49, Robert Coe wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:08:19 -0800 (PST),
wrote:
: On Jan 19, 7:15 am, wrote:
: wrote:
: This week, Kodak has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. As
: a tribute to the company, the Guardian newspaper (UK) has published
: an online gallery of images illustrating Kodak's history. Enjoy!
:
: http://preview.tinyurl.com/8yp6j7z
: or:
:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/gallery/2012/jan/19/eastman-kodak-...

:
: (now cross posted to 3 newsgroups)
:
: The seeds of their destruction were in those photos. Profitless,
: cheap camera bodies. That's mostly what killed them.

Maybe, but for most of their existence it wasn't a stupid strategy. They
made
most of their money from the sale of film. Cheap camera bodies made sense
as
a
marketing tool. Allocation of the resulting profit and loss is an
accounting
fiction.

Bob
Yes, its the razor versus razor blade model, also that used in the
inkjet printer market. Works best if you can lock in your customers by
patenting the commodity to prevent third-party competition.

Apple are making it work both ways: expensive platform products and
lock-in to content supply.

With all this talk of fading technology and single purpose
corporations, I am reminded of Addressograph-Multigraph which became AM
International. In the 50's, 60's, & even into the 70's, I can remember
cabinets filled with thousands of those Addressograph plates. They were
used in large, and some not so large mailrooms, and distribution
systems. Along with the simple addressing machines they had automatic
envelope address writing systems.
They made most of the credit card embossing machines, and many other
embossing/date-stamp machines. (you don't see many of those today.)
They also had a DoD contract for supplying "dog tag" embossers, which
are probably still working.

They were outpaced by progress, and like the buggy-whip manufacturers,
were never able to reinvent themselves.
http://ech.case.edu/ech-cgi/article.pl?id=AII

...and here are a few other office equipment items which travelled the

same road.
http://www.earlyofficemuseum.com/mail_machines.htm


Microfish comes to mind...

Damn!
We were still using those for some archived case files in 2009, some 4
years after a State computer archiving project was initiated. For all I
know, after I retired, that work still might not be complete and the
readers still in use. There were still two microfiche readers in my
offices in daily use when I retired at the end of February 2009.

Some of the microfiche pages were so badly scanned as to be almost
illegible. So when the computer project got underway, they just used
the same badly scanned microfiche images as no hard copies existed.
Where hardcopies existed, decent scans were made. Entries made into
various computer software such as Word, Excel, and Access made the
transition reasonably well.
Now there are several dedicated integrated report systems for
incidents, crime reports, and criminal data which also access the
archives. There are the usual compatibility issues when dealing with
different jurisdictions even within the State. Very little is done on
paper today, at the State level in California anyway.

Sorry for my misspelling. But glad that it stimulated your mind. You are one
of the few here who really have an excellent input with really interesting
subject matter. Thank you for that, Duck. You are a gem in a sea of silt.

CUDOS, Sir!

I am glad to see some of what I add from time to time is appreciated.
That said I add my fair share to the OT sludge. However good footwear
will always allow you to wade through most of the muck!

--
Regards,

Savageduck