A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

better Kodak reorganization



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old May 11th 13, 02:30 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 703
Default better Kodak reorganization

On 5/9/2013 4:11 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 5/8/2013 10:45 PM, Jean-David Beyer wrote:
On 05/08/2013 04:49 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article 79bf218c-4aab-4dce-8f0c-
, says...

On May 7, 12:48 pm, Bowser wrote:

Bell was not done in by "change", it was done in by lawyers.


The Bell System was "done in" by the major shifts in the
economic model of the telecommunications business
brought about by new technologies.

Lawyers are merely the people who deal with the result
of such problems, not the cause.

(Incidentally, AT&T is renowned for their R&D scientists,
but it is also true that they had some of the best legal
minds available in corporate America.)

In my opinion as a former employee of a Bell System subsidiary, the
company was not done in by change, and lawyers may have helped do it in,
but were not the primary cause.

My perception is that the old timers from the time of Theodore Vail
onward, who understood the business, had all died or retired, or were
forced out by their age.


An invalid premise. Going back that far doesn't even
match the "understood the business" speculation. They
were all wrangling to discover what did work at that
time. Some survived, most did not, because nobody
"understood" or knew what would work. For at least a
couple of decades it was random chaos (aka Capitalism).

By the 30's and 40's of course it settled into a
regulated monopoly that was primarily executed as a very
efficient system of administration, for both operations
and the government regulation inherent in their monopoly
status. And it is significant that the model under
which Bell System management functioned did not exist
elsewhere. It was necessarily a unique corporate
culture because of that. (The only "business school"
that taught how it worked was the Bell System school
of hard knocks... coming up through the ranks.)

By 1960 of course that meant even the most elder and
highest levels of the executive management were born and
raised within in that system, and rose to the top
*because* of their ability to execute that system.

They were replaced by business administration
types whose principle achievements in college was their abilities on the
football teams of second string leagues. They were all cheering, slogans
(Ready, Fire, Aim was a pet peeve of mine) and win the next quarter.
They did not understand the business, they had no vision beyond the next
quarterly report. They wanted to boost the value of their stock options
and they did not care what happened to the company afterwards. Après
moi, le déluge. And that is what they got. It was so sad to see this
over 100 year old institution destroyed by the rot from within. A tragedy.


Not a tragedy, a fable. They understood the system, and
they were as good as it gets! The problem was that the
model which was appropriate in 1940, which is what they
understood, didn't exist in 1960.

A prime example of the inherent flaw of the B school
game, taught in every B school.


A prime example of cooking up a great sounding story to
explain what is not understood. Typical of religious
dogma...



Please make a proer attribution. I did not post what your posting says I
said.

--
PeterN
  #52  
Old May 11th 13, 07:46 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default better Kodak reorganization

PeterN wrote:
PeterN wrote:
A prime example of the inherent flaw of the B school
game, taught in every B school.


....

Please make a proer attribution. I did not post what
your posting says I said.


Quoted again, above, is the only part that was
attributed to you. You did in fact post it, in a
message with these headers:

From: PeterN
Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 12:56:37 -0400
Message-ID:

Perhaps you made a simple mistake in reading the message
you cite, or perhaps *you* need to learn something about
proper attributions.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #53  
Old May 11th 13, 09:52 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default better Kodak reorganization

On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:41:20 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:14:12 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...

Because all switching systems from the advent of the crossbar on
were in fact computers.

For a very loose definition of "computer".

A crossbar switch is a mechanical computer. In the
1940's it was the most advanced computer in existence.


Debatable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer


We were talking about pre-WWII though.


_YOU_ were talking about the 1940s. So was I.


The No4 crossbar switch as a commercial product was
first installed in 1943. The first prototype of the
Colossus was demonstrated that same year.

The point is that during the early development, when the
first crossbar switches/computers were being produced
for research purposes, there was nothing more advanced.

Of course by the time the crossbar switch was a
commercial product there was indeed a research computer
that as should be expect was more advanced.


The Colossus was far more than a research computer. People's lives
were depending on it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #54  
Old May 11th 13, 01:00 PM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default better Kodak reorganization

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:41:20 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:14:12 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...

Because all switching systems from the advent of the crossbar on
were in fact computers.

For a very loose definition of "computer".

A crossbar switch is a mechanical computer. In the
1940's it was the most advanced computer in existence.

Debatable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer


We were talking about pre-WWII though.


_YOU_ were talking about the 1940s. So was I.


The question originally raised was about pre-WWII, and my statement
was correct up through the early 1940's. My appologies for not
limiting it enough for you.

The No4 crossbar switch as a commercial product was
first installed in 1943. The first prototype of the
Colossus was demonstrated that same year.

The point is that during the early development, when the
first crossbar switches/computers were being produced
for research purposes, there was nothing more advanced.

Of course by the time the crossbar switch was a
commercial product there was indeed a research computer
that as should be expect was more advanced.


The Colossus was far more than a research computer. People's lives
were depending on it.


It was just a prototype in 1943 at a time when the No4
Crossbar was a production product in commercial use. A
functional working Colossus was produced in 1944 or
1945.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #55  
Old May 11th 13, 05:51 PM posted to comp.soft-sys.matlab,sci.engr.color,sci.image.processing,rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital
Robert Coe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,901
Default better Kodak reorganization

On Mon, 06 May 2013 04:50:47 -0400, Dale wrote:
: I read that Kodak is going to focus on printing, packaging and software
:
: I read they are selling their film business but keeping their motion
: picture business
:
: what the strategic planners their should do is
:
: 1) map out ALL the imaging workflows
: 2) indicate all participations, systems or products
: 3) identify customers and partners
: 4) build business cases
:
:
: and don't forget
:
: 5) ask why there aren't participations
: 6) keep up with changes in workflows
: 7) central system offerings are best to vie
: 8) create better workflows

I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing. But if it's that they should
develop and market a competitor for Photoshop, I'll bet that would take more
money than Kodak could get their hands on.

Bob
  #56  
Old May 12th 13, 12:09 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default better Kodak reorganization

On Sat, 11 May 2013 04:00:15 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:41:20 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:14:12 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...

Because all switching systems from the advent of the crossbar on
were in fact computers.

For a very loose definition of "computer".

A crossbar switch is a mechanical computer. In the
1940's it was the most advanced computer in existence.

Debatable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer

We were talking about pre-WWII though.


_YOU_ were talking about the 1940s. So was I.


The question originally raised was about pre-WWII, and my statement
was correct up through the early 1940's. My appologies for not
limiting it enough for you.

The No4 crossbar switch as a commercial product was
first installed in 1943. The first prototype of the
Colossus was demonstrated that same year.

The point is that during the early development, when the
first crossbar switches/computers were being produced
for research purposes, there was nothing more advanced.

Of course by the time the crossbar switch was a
commercial product there was indeed a research computer
that as should be expect was more advanced.


The Colossus was far more than a research computer. People's lives
were depending on it.


It was just a prototype in 1943 at a time when the No4
Crossbar was a production product in commercial use. A
functional working Colossus was produced in 1944 or
1945.


From the URL I have already given:

"The prototype, Colossus Mark 1, was shown to be working in December
1943 and was operational at Bletchley Park by 5 February 1944.[1]
An improved Colossus Mark 2 first worked on 1 June 1944,[2] just in
time for the Normandy Landings. Ten Colossus computers were in use
by the end of the war."

The history of crossbar switches is given in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbar_switch from which it appears
that it's invention was not that of an earth-shattering device
emerging from Bell labs.

The duty of a No4 crossbar switch is described in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_4_telephone_switch from which it
appears the term applies not to a particular device (or device family)
but to what ever 'toll switch' device might be used to connect two No5
crossbar devices. It could even be applied to a bunch of human
operators. No matter what the arrangement of No4 and No5 crossbar
devices may have been, they don't seem to have represented the same
level of advance as the Colossus.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #57  
Old May 12th 13, 12:36 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital
Jean-David Beyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 247
Default better Kodak reorganization

On 05/11/2013 07:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 04:00:15 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:41:20 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:14:12 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...

Because all switching systems from the advent of the crossbar on
were in fact computers.

For a very loose definition of "computer".

A crossbar switch is a mechanical computer. In the
1940's it was the most advanced computer in existence.

Debatable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer

We were talking about pre-WWII though.

_YOU_ were talking about the 1940s. So was I.


The question originally raised was about pre-WWII, and my statement
was correct up through the early 1940's. My appologies for not
limiting it enough for you.

The No4 crossbar switch as a commercial product was
first installed in 1943. The first prototype of the
Colossus was demonstrated that same year.

The point is that during the early development, when the
first crossbar switches/computers were being produced
for research purposes, there was nothing more advanced.

Of course by the time the crossbar switch was a
commercial product there was indeed a research computer
that as should be expect was more advanced.

The Colossus was far more than a research computer. People's lives
were depending on it.


It was just a prototype in 1943 at a time when the No4
Crossbar was a production product in commercial use. A
functional working Colossus was produced in 1944 or
1945.


From the URL I have already given:

"The prototype, Colossus Mark 1, was shown to be working in December
1943 and was operational at Bletchley Park by 5 February 1944.[1]
An improved Colossus Mark 2 first worked on 1 June 1944,[2] just in
time for the Normandy Landings. Ten Colossus computers were in use
by the end of the war."

The history of crossbar switches is given in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbar_switch from which it appears
that it's invention was not that of an earth-shattering device
emerging from Bell labs.

The duty of a No4 crossbar switch is described in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_4_telephone_switch from which it
appears the term applies not to a particular device (or device family)
but to what ever 'toll switch' device might be used to connect two No5
crossbar devices. It could even be applied to a bunch of human
operators. No matter what the arrangement of No4 and No5 crossbar
devices may have been, they don't seem to have represented the same
level of advance as the Colossus.


Bear in mind that the Bell Labs Model 1 relay computer was in use before
the Colossus.

"The company agreed to finance construction of a large experimental
model of Stibitz's invention. Stibitz completed the designs in February,
1938, and the construction of the machine began in April, 1939, by
Samuel Williams, a switching engineer in Bell. The final product was
ready in October and was first put into operation on January 8, 1940,
and remained in service until 1949."

http://history-computer.com/ModernCo...s/Stibitz.html
  #58  
Old May 12th 13, 02:22 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital
Floyd L. Davidson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,138
Default better Kodak reorganization

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 04:00:15 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:41:20 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:14:12 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...

Because all switching systems from the advent of the crossbar on
were in fact computers.

For a very loose definition of "computer".

A crossbar switch is a mechanical computer. In the
1940's it was the most advanced computer in existence.

Debatable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer

We were talking about pre-WWII though.

_YOU_ were talking about the 1940s. So was I.


The question originally raised was about pre-WWII, and my statement
was correct up through the early 1940's. My appologies for not
limiting it enough for you.

The No4 crossbar switch as a commercial product was
first installed in 1943. The first prototype of the
Colossus was demonstrated that same year.

The point is that during the early development, when the
first crossbar switches/computers were being produced
for research purposes, there was nothing more advanced.

Of course by the time the crossbar switch was a
commercial product there was indeed a research computer
that as should be expect was more advanced.

The Colossus was far more than a research computer. People's lives
were depending on it.


It was just a prototype in 1943 at a time when the No4
Crossbar was a production product in commercial use. A
functional working Colossus was produced in 1944 or
1945.


From the URL I have already given:

"The prototype, Colossus Mark 1, was shown to be working in December
1943 and was operational at Bletchley Park by 5 February 1944.[1]
An improved Colossus Mark 2 first worked on 1 June 1944,[2] just in
time for the Normandy Landings. Ten Colossus computers were in use
by the end of the war."

The history of crossbar switches is given in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbar_switch from which it appears
that it's invention was not that of an earth-shattering device
emerging from Bell labs.

The duty of a No4 crossbar switch is described in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_4_telephone_switch from which it
appears the term applies not to a particular device (or device family)
but to what ever 'toll switch' device might be used to connect two No5
crossbar devices. It could even be applied to a bunch of human
operators. No matter what the arrangement of No4 and No5 crossbar
devices may have been, they don't seem to have represented the same
level of advance as the Colossus.


Eric your imagination runs wild, but is not at all
significant to the discussion. The No4 Crossbar is a
very specific model of what is correctly described as a
Class 4 switch. It was replaced by the 4A Crossbar
switch. Today a "Class 4" switch would be represented
by a 4ESS switch (which is not a Crossbar).

You are still missing the point. The discussion was
whether AT&T made computers pre-WWII. Since they had a
production Crossbar switch in 1943 there can be little
doubt that Bell Labs was working with computers prior to
the war. The fact is that going into the 1940's a
crossbar mechanical computer was as advanced at it got.

And Jean-David Beyer has cited references to the
specific R&D crossbar computer projects that preceeded
production of the No4 Crossbar. End of the story...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
  #59  
Old May 12th 13, 03:09 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default better Kodak reorganization

On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:36:33 -0400, Jean-David Beyer
wrote:

On 05/11/2013 07:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 04:00:15 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:41:20 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:14:12 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...

Because all switching systems from the advent of the crossbar on
were in fact computers.

For a very loose definition of "computer".

A crossbar switch is a mechanical computer. In the
1940's it was the most advanced computer in existence.

Debatable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer

We were talking about pre-WWII though.

_YOU_ were talking about the 1940s. So was I.

The question originally raised was about pre-WWII, and my statement
was correct up through the early 1940's. My appologies for not
limiting it enough for you.

The No4 crossbar switch as a commercial product was
first installed in 1943. The first prototype of the
Colossus was demonstrated that same year.

The point is that during the early development, when the
first crossbar switches/computers were being produced
for research purposes, there was nothing more advanced.

Of course by the time the crossbar switch was a
commercial product there was indeed a research computer
that as should be expect was more advanced.

The Colossus was far more than a research computer. People's lives
were depending on it.

It was just a prototype in 1943 at a time when the No4
Crossbar was a production product in commercial use. A
functional working Colossus was produced in 1944 or
1945.


From the URL I have already given:

"The prototype, Colossus Mark 1, was shown to be working in December
1943 and was operational at Bletchley Park by 5 February 1944.[1]
An improved Colossus Mark 2 first worked on 1 June 1944,[2] just in
time for the Normandy Landings. Ten Colossus computers were in use
by the end of the war."

The history of crossbar switches is given in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbar_switch from which it appears
that it's invention was not that of an earth-shattering device
emerging from Bell labs.

The duty of a No4 crossbar switch is described in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_4_telephone_switch from which it
appears the term applies not to a particular device (or device family)
but to what ever 'toll switch' device might be used to connect two No5
crossbar devices. It could even be applied to a bunch of human
operators. No matter what the arrangement of No4 and No5 crossbar
devices may have been, they don't seem to have represented the same
level of advance as the Colossus.


Bear in mind that the Bell Labs Model 1 relay computer was in use before
the Colossus.

"The company agreed to finance construction of a large experimental
model of Stibitz's invention. Stibitz completed the designs in February,
1938, and the construction of the machine began in April, 1939, by
Samuel Williams, a switching engineer in Bell. The final product was
ready in October and was first put into operation on January 8, 1940,
and remained in service until 1949."

http://history-computer.com/ModernCo...s/Stibitz.html


That site specifically states "The Complex Number Computer was not
programmable". (The Complex Number Computer was not called the Mk 1
until later). It goes on to say "the Models III and N were the first
of the Bell Labs digital calculators to have some degree of general
programmability, although neither was a fully general-purpose
calculator".
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #60  
Old May 12th 13, 03:35 AM posted to rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default better Kodak reorganization

On Sat, 11 May 2013 17:22:16 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 04:00:15 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:41:20 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:14:12 -0800,
(Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote:
In article ,
says...

Because all switching systems from the advent of the crossbar on
were in fact computers.

For a very loose definition of "computer".

A crossbar switch is a mechanical computer. In the
1940's it was the most advanced computer in existence.

Debatable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer

We were talking about pre-WWII though.

_YOU_ were talking about the 1940s. So was I.

The question originally raised was about pre-WWII, and my statement
was correct up through the early 1940's. My appologies for not
limiting it enough for you.

The No4 crossbar switch as a commercial product was
first installed in 1943. The first prototype of the
Colossus was demonstrated that same year.

The point is that during the early development, when the
first crossbar switches/computers were being produced
for research purposes, there was nothing more advanced.

Of course by the time the crossbar switch was a
commercial product there was indeed a research computer
that as should be expect was more advanced.

The Colossus was far more than a research computer. People's lives
were depending on it.

It was just a prototype in 1943 at a time when the No4
Crossbar was a production product in commercial use. A
functional working Colossus was produced in 1944 or
1945.


From the URL I have already given:

"The prototype, Colossus Mark 1, was shown to be working in December
1943 and was operational at Bletchley Park by 5 February 1944.[1]
An improved Colossus Mark 2 first worked on 1 June 1944,[2] just in
time for the Normandy Landings. Ten Colossus computers were in use
by the end of the war."

The history of crossbar switches is given in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbar_switch from which it appears
that it's invention was not that of an earth-shattering device
emerging from Bell labs.

The duty of a No4 crossbar switch is described in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_4_telephone_switch from which it
appears the term applies not to a particular device (or device family)
but to what ever 'toll switch' device might be used to connect two No5
crossbar devices. It could even be applied to a bunch of human
operators. No matter what the arrangement of No4 and No5 crossbar
devices may have been, they don't seem to have represented the same
level of advance as the Colossus.


Eric your imagination runs wild, but is not at all
significant to the discussion. The No4 Crossbar is a
very specific model of what is correctly described as a
Class 4 switch. It was replaced by the 4A Crossbar
switch. Today a "Class 4" switch would be represented
by a 4ESS switch (which is not a Crossbar).


What you describe as "your imagination" is in fact Wikipedia. You
should write to them and connect their errors.

There is very little information on the Internet about the No4
Crossbar but http://www.corp.att.com/history/neth...switching.html
tells us something:

"1940s & 1950s: Automated switching

Automation came to long distance switching when AT&T installed the
first No. 4 crossbar switch in Philadelphia in 1943. Now a single
operator built up the needed circuit by dialing a series of routing
codes to instruct this automatic electromechanical switch. Dialed
routing codes soon gave way to the familiar area codes, which the
switch itself could translate into the needed routing information.
AT&T soon modified the switch to handle customer-dialed long
distance calls; the modified design became the No. 4A crossbar
switch. No. 4A crossbar switches and direct-distance dialing spread
to subscribers across the country during through the 1950s.
Call-completion time dropped to 10-20 seconds."

The No 4 Crossbar switch appears to be nothing more than a manually
set crossbar, with the setting controlled by the operator via a dial
on their desk. It was no more programmable than an ordinary telephone
of the period.

There is nothing in the above to say when the No 4 Crossbar was
supplanted by the No 4A but http://tinyurl.com/cmk89j5 says:

"Direct distance dialing ("DDD") started in the United States in
1953"

That's a fairly specific statement which sounds like it refers to the
introduction of the No4a Crossbar.

You are still missing the point. The discussion was
whether AT&T made computers pre-WWII. Since they had a
production Crossbar switch in 1943 there can be little
doubt that Bell Labs was working with computers prior to
the war. The fact is that going into the 1940's a
crossbar mechanical computer was as advanced at it got.

And Jean-David Beyer has cited references to the
specific R&D crossbar computer projects that preceeded
production of the No4 Crossbar. End of the story...

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kodak reorganization Dale[_2_] In The Darkroom 3 May 6th 13 09:54 AM
Reorganization CFV James Silverton Digital Photography 2 October 9th 04 11:12 PM
Vote *NO* on reorganization Robert McClenon Digital Photography 26 September 13th 04 04:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.