better Kodak reorganization

On Sun, 12 May 2013 19:38:37 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-05-12 18:20:37 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

On Sun, 12 May 2013 16:26:11 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Le Snip

There is no point it going farther with
that discussion.

If you don't think a 4A Crossbar switch was a
computer... fine. But that's a very silly stand to
take.

You are changing the subject again. It started off with the No4 of
1943. Now you are trying to discuss the No4a of 1953.

While you two have been engaged it the usual Floyd/Eric vortex of
esoterica, I have been doing some snooping around of my own and I found
the following. Make of it what you will. I am not going to join this
debate as my computing days started long after the age of the No 4
Crossbar or Colossus, with FORTRAN on an NCR 304. However, I will just
toss this into the arena for you guys to tear apart.

It seems not even Bell Labs or AT&T called the No4 Crossbar a
"computer". Certainly one could argue that an automated telephone
switching device could be thought of as a computer, but it seems AT&T
didn't see it that way.
http://www.corp.att.com/history/neth...switching.html
http://www.phworld.org/switch/4xb.htm

Conversely, at the same time Colossus was undoubtably being used as a
serious problem solving computer at Bletchley Park.
http://history-computer.com/ModernCo.../Colossus.html

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.
See http://history-computer.com/ModernCo...s/Stibitz.html
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
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ex..._3404ph07.html

#2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICT_1301

#3 http://oldcomputers.net/pics/cromemc...hree-right.jpg

#4 http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZLwd32muHwM/0.jpg

.... and I forget what came after that.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2013 19:38:37 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-05-12 18:20:37 -0700, Eric Stevens said:
It seems not even Bell Labs or AT&T called the No4 Crossbar a
"computer". Certainly one could argue that an automated telephone
switching device could be thought of as a computer, but it seems AT&T
didn't see it that way.
http://www.corp.att.com/history/neth...switching.html
http://www.phworld.org/switch/4xb.htm

Conversely, at the same time Colossus was undoubtably being used as a
serious problem solving computer at Bletchley Park.
http://history-computer.com/ModernCo.../Colossus.html

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

Great logic... but not valid.

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.
See http://history-computer.com/ModernCo...s/Stibitz.html
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
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ex..._3404ph07.html

#2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICT_1301

#3 http://oldcomputers.net/pics/cromemc...hree-right.jpg

#4 http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZLwd32muHwM/0.jpg

Your cited URL's do not support you claims.

... and I forget what came after that.

So nothing that came before any picture you post is a
computer???

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_computer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...uting_hardware

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 http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On Sun, 12 May 2013 19:32:32 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-05-12 18:20:37 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

It seems not even Bell Labs or AT&T called the No4
Crossbar a "computer". Certainly one could argue that an
automated telephone switching device could be thought of
as a computer,

And indeed that is because those devices are in fact computers.

but it seems AT&T didn't see it that way.
http://www.corp.att.com/history/neth...switching.html

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

http://www.phworld.org/switch/4xb.htm

This cite didn't use the word 'computer' at all.


Nothing in your two cited articles says otherwise, so
what is your point?

Nor do the support the claim that the No4 or No4a crossbars were
computers. 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.

That should tell you something. How does that support your argument?

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.

Except the non-WECO/Lucent quote above.

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
luck!

But that would only be slightly more ridiculous than
saying that 4-wire crossbar switching systems were not
computers.

Now you are changing the subject again (to "4-wire crossbar switching
systems").

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 12 May 2013 21:55:34 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2013 19:38:37 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-05-12 18:20:37 -0700, Eric Stevens said:
It seems not even Bell Labs or AT&T called the No4 Crossbar a
"computer". Certainly one could argue that an automated telephone
switching device could be thought of as a computer, but it seems AT&T
didn't see it that way.
http://www.corp.att.com/history/neth...switching.html
http://www.phworld.org/switch/4xb.htm

Conversely, at the same time Colossus was undoubtably being used as a
serious problem solving computer at Bletchley Park.
http://history-computer.com/ModernCo.../Colossus.html

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

They didn't say they weren't a three-ring circus either.

Great logic... but not valid.

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.
See http://history-computer.com/ModernCo...s/Stibitz.html
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
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ex..._3404ph07.html

#2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICT_1301

#3 http://oldcomputers.net/pics/cromemc...hree-right.jpg

#4 http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZLwd32muHwM/0.jpg

Your cited URL's do not support you claims.

... and I forget what came after that.

So nothing that came before any picture you post is a
computer???

I was responding to Savageduck and indicating my early computer
history. Incidentally the IBM1620 was in 1961.

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

I should have used my earlier experience with mechanical anti-aircraft
predictors.

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.

You are grossly confused also. I never gave that definition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_computer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...uting_hardware

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.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2013 19:32:32 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-05-12 18:20:37 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

It seems not even Bell Labs or AT&T called the No4
Crossbar a "computer". Certainly one could argue that an
automated telephone switching device could be thought of
as a computer,

And indeed that is because those devices are in fact computers.

but it seems AT&T didn't see it that way.
http://www.corp.att.com/history/neth...switching.html

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

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
computer."

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
context.

http://www.phworld.org/switch/4xb.htm

This cite didn't use the word 'computer' at all.

And it doesn't say that they were not mechanical
computers.

Nothing in your two cited articles says otherwise, so
what is your point?

Nor do the support the claim that the No4 or No4a crossbars were
computers. So what is your point?

The point is that you are citing articles that have
absolutely no bearing at all on what you claim! That's
ridiculously faulty logic.

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.

That should tell you something. How does that support your argument?

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.

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.

Except the non-WECO/Lucent quote above.

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.

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
luck!

But that would only be slightly more ridiculous than
saying that 4-wire crossbar switching systems were not
computers.

Now you are changing the subject again (to "4-wire crossbar switching
systems").

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.

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.

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
computer.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2013 21:55:34 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 12 May 2013 19:38:37 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2013-05-12 18:20:37 -0700, Eric Stevens said:
It seems not even Bell Labs or AT&T called the No4 Crossbar a
"computer". Certainly one could argue that an automated telephone
switching device could be thought of as a computer, but it seems AT&T
didn't see it that way.
http://www.corp.att.com/history/neth...switching.html
http://www.phworld.org/switch/4xb.htm

Conversely, at the same time Colossus was undoubtably being used as a
serious problem solving computer at Bletchley Park.
http://history-computer.com/ModernCo.../Colossus.html

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

They didn't say they weren't a three-ring circus either.

So you do understand how invalid you logic is!

Great logic... but not valid.

....
http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ex..._3404ph07.html

#2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICT_1301

#3 http://oldcomputers.net/pics/cromemc...hree-right.jpg

#4 http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZLwd32muHwM/0.jpg

Your cited URL's do not support you claims.

... and I forget what came after that.

So nothing that came before any picture you post is a
computer???

I was responding to Savageduck and indicating my early computer
history. Incidentally the IBM1620 was in 1961.

Which is a non-sequitur.

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

I should have used my earlier experience with mechanical anti-aircraft
predictors.

Then you are fully aware that mechanical computers did exist, and
still do.

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.

You are grossly confused also. I never gave that definition.

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 http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 05/11/2013 12:51 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
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.

no choices is not a good idea either, Gimp, for free, is really getting
there

--
Dale

In article , Dale
wrote:

no choices is not a good idea either, Gimp, for free, is really getting
there

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.

nospam wrote:
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.

Considering that Adobe "accidently" released CS/2 to the world, that seems
the better choice.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM/KBUH7245/KBUW5379
It's Spring here in Jerusalem!!!

In article , Geoffrey S.
Mendelson wrote:

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.

Considering that Adobe "accidently" released CS/2 to the world, that seems
the better choice.

consider that it's for legitimate cs2 owners only.