Thinking of a scanner
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Iphoto 08 to iPhoto 09
Next: Apple Tech Support?
From: Geoff Berrow on 24 Feb 2010 05:55 On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:41:53 +0000, usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk (Woody) wrote: >> I don't use XML much and just grabbed a few examples from a tutorial. >> My point was not to post perfect XML but to show how it could be used >> to represent a logical structure of data in a human readable form. > >Oh I know. Sorry if that came over as ranty, it is just that XML is part >of my day job (XSL actually) so I have to spend considerable time >working round problems that would have been made easier if the people >making the data structures had thought about it a bit better. >Especially where those people are a committee who spend a year making >those data structures (or modifying them slightly). > >In reality, I guess it is fun to have the challenge! Well I'm a one man band and have similar issues with database normalisation but the only person to blame when I get it wrong is me! -- Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email) It's only Usenet, no one dies. My opinions, not the committee's, mine. Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
From: Peter Ceresole on 24 Feb 2010 06:04 After reading here, and seeing the (excellent) results from an Epson 4490, I've ordered a V500 from Amazon. Looks pretty good to me. Not the cheapest but seems to do all the things I need it to do, and Anne can set it usefully against tax, as she's buying it and it's going to be used largely for digitising her lecture slides. USB2 should be plenty fast enough. -- Peter
From: Richard Tobin on 24 Feb 2010 06:58 In article <hm15ss$247r$4(a)pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, I wrote: >Yes, but the extensions include lots of other things than that, such >as variants on the encoding suitable for particular kinds of data. (I >can't access the standard from here, but I could get a list tomorrow.) Here is part of the table of contents. I have no idea what most of it means. Annex A - Compressed data syntax, extension A.1 Extended capabilities A.2 Extensions to ITU-T Rec. T.800 | ISO/IEC 15444-1 marker segment parameters A.2.1 Image and tile size (SIZ), extended A.2.2 Start of tile-part (SOT) extended A.2.3 Coding style (COD, COC), extended A.2.4 Quantization (QCD, QCC), extended A.2.5 Region of interest (RGN), extended A.3 Extended marker segments A.3.1 Variable DC offset (DCO) A.3.2 Visual masking (VMS) A.3.3 Downsampling factor styles (DFS) A.3.4 Arbitrary decomposition styles (ADS) A.3.5 Arbitrary transformation kernels (ATK) A.3.6 Component bit depth definition (CBD) A.3.7 Multiple component transformation definition (MCT) A.3.8 Multiple component transform collection (MCC) A.3.9 Multiple component transform ordering (MCO) A.3.10 Non-linearity point transformation (NLT) A.3.11 Quantization default, precinct (QPD) A.3.12 Quantization precinct component (QPC) -- Richard -- Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
From: Andy Hewitt on 24 Feb 2010 16:50 Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote: > Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: > > > In my case, I could never stop OS 7.6 from crashing, or indeed OS 8.1, > > or especially 9.2. I have never looked back since I installed OS 10.1. > > I didn't find OS 8.1 to be *that* crashy (7 was horrid) and my > experience of 9.2 on a TonkaBook and a TiBook was better than 8.1. > 'Normal' programs were pretty solid. But yes, when they encountered > something on the Web that caused Netscape or IE, or finally Mozilla 3 to > lock up, then the machine wouldn't stay up much longer. And it was a > good idea to do regular sweeps with Norton to fix glitches which would > show up in the file system. Well, I started with a Performa 5200 and OS 7.5. That was absolutely awful. I did find OS 8.1 not too bad really. Then I got an iMac DV, which came with 9.04, and I spent the first two days trying to stop that crashing at startup. It did get better as OS 9 evolved, but it was never as stable as 8.1 was for me (I never got to 8.6). Almost immediately OS 10 was superior in many ways, and I only spent a few days trialling 10.1 before switching over. > But since 10.2, I've not looked back. Infinitely more robust, and the > file system has been completely solid. The applications have been more > competent too, the browsers especially. Better all round than the > Classic applications, with the possible single exception of WordPerfect > 3.5e, which I still miss a bit. But there are enough decent WPs for 10 > to make that not too serious. Yes, even Text Edit isn't too bad now, it has enough features to make basic WP needs possible. However, as I've said before, I *really* miss Protext. -- Andy Hewitt <http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: Peter Ceresole on 24 Feb 2010 17:57
Andy Hewitt <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote: > Well, I started with a Performa 5200 and OS 7.5. That was absolutely > awful. I did find OS 8.1 not too bad really. I started with a 6100/60 and OS 7.1.2, which was the first PPC-specific OS, and was rather solid. But it was kind of slow. 7.5.1 was smoother, but pretty damn unstable. And the 6100 was a slow machine anyway, whatever you did. I ran SpeedDoubler, which really did work well and did exactly what it claimed, but the first Mac I used that felt decently quick was a beige G3. That was a lovely machine, and with OS8.1, SpeedDoubler, RAMDoubler (mainly for its file handling which still hasn't been equalled for me in its total simplicity when doing incremental backups) and some extra RAM (can't remember how much) that Mac was beautifully quick and very stable, and lasted me several years until I got a TonkaBook running 9.2, which was pleasant and stable with SpeedDoubler and RAMDoubler. Then a TiBook that I started out by dual-booting into 9.2 or 10.2. Very quickly, I found myself preferring 10.2. > Yes, even Text Edit isn't too bad now, it has enough features to make > basic WP needs possible. The latest version of TextEdit is excellent, and can probably handle most people's WP needs in full- including simple Word files. > > However, as I've said before, I *really* miss Protext. Oh yes. I always will. I used it in Amsdos, on the CPC 6128, in CP/M on an 8256, in Amigados on a borrowed Amiga, for an article about Protext for an Amiga magazine (it was extremely quick on that machine, but I never quite got used to the ways of the file system) and then in MSDOS 5 and DESQView, which was honestly the best version; terrifically quick and full of genuinely useful features like the WYSIWYG graphical view. What a smashing text editor it was... This is not counting Protext in ROM on the NC200 which was one of the most practical writer's laptops I ever encountered. Mono dot matrix screen that was so much better outdoors than any more 'modern' display. Backlit at the press of a key. And on that slow ZX-81 machine, Protext was still fast. The machine was small and light enough to carry on my bike, cheap enough not to worry about losing it or breaking it. Battery life was extremly long- many many hours. I remember writing scripts and outlines on a bench in Hyde Park, in the sunshine. I wouldn't want to do that on Anne's MBP, for any number of reasons. Now I use Pages '09; I no longer do that much writing, as such, and that does me fine. -- Peter |