OT: Ghostscript, won't install

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 13:13:41 -0700, Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid
wrote:

Joerg wrote:
Gents,

IC designers still seem to live in the Postscript world ... can't read
those dreaded files. Client said to install Ghostscript. So I downloaded
gs871w32.exe from U of Wisconsin.

No matter what I do, this here computation machine bucks and says "not a
valid Win32 application". Running XP. What gives? How can I dodge this
and make it install?

Well, guys, now I dunnit: Loaded a busy schematic from a client (came in
DXF format which I converted to PDF) into Foxit and Acrobat reader.

What? You did not DL any of the free DXF viewers? For shame. You
got what you deserved.

Foxit: Renders not super-great but very readable.

Acrobat Reader: Trundle, trundle, parts trickle onto screen, sloooowly
as if it were molasses, nets are still missing ... *KA-CRASH* ... "This
program is not responding".

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:14:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid> wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
[...]

... I have over 50 scanners at the moment, but I get the best
results from some of the oldest. My 11" * 17" scanner only wants to
install under 95. The best I have only workes with win 3.1, but I no
longer have a system set up to use it, and the propritary 8 bit ISA
card.

ISA bus mobos are very much alive an kicking. Industry has a great need
for that so they can be bought new, right off the shelf.
Not on $300 consumer machines.
No, but they aren't expensive. I had looked up some for John Larkin the
other day. AFAIR it starts somewhere around $500 if you buy in the US,
less in Asia.


Why would I spend half a month's income to use a 12 year old, $29
scanner?


I was merely pointing out that they can still be purchased. Of course
that won't make sense just to be able to run an old $29 scanner. Then
you need to obtain an old computer at little or no cost.

Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:14:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid> wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
[...]

... I have over 50 scanners at the moment, but I get the best
results from some of the oldest. My 11" * 17" scanner only wants to
install under 95. The best I have only workes with win 3.1, but I no
longer have a system set up to use it, and the propritary 8 bit ISA
card.

ISA bus mobos are very much alive an kicking. Industry has a great need
for that so they can be bought new, right off the shelf.
Not on $300 consumer machines.
No, but they aren't expensive. I had looked up some for John Larkin the
other day. AFAIR it starts somewhere around $500 if you buy in the US,
less in Asia.

Why would I spend half a month's income to use a 12 year old, $29
scanner?

I was merely pointing out that they can still be purchased. Of course
that won't make sense just to be able to run an old $29 scanner. Then
you need to obtain an old computer at little or no cost.



That was why I keep a working win ME computer around. I have dozens
of early USB scanners that work with it, and can network to the system.

I talked to an old freind in N. California a few days ago and he asked
if I knew how to scan out of print service manuals and convert them to
PDF for him.

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:14:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid> wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
[...]

... I have over 50 scanners at the moment, but I get the best
results from some of the oldest. My 11" * 17" scanner only wants to
install under 95. The best I have only workes with win 3.1, but I no
longer have a system set up to use it, and the propritary 8 bit ISA
card.

ISA bus mobos are very much alive an kicking. Industry has a great need
for that so they can be bought new, right off the shelf.
Not on $300 consumer machines.
No, but they aren't expensive. I had looked up some for John Larkin the
other day. AFAIR it starts somewhere around $500 if you buy in the US,
less in Asia.

Why would I spend half a month's income to use a 12 year old, $29
scanner?

I was merely pointing out that they can still be purchased. Of course
that won't make sense just to be able to run an old $29 scanner. Then
you need to obtain an old computer at little or no cost.



That was why I keep a working win ME computer around. I have dozens
of early USB scanners that work with it, and can network to the system.

Dozens? You are probably not married. My wife would have a hissy fit if
I kept that many ;-)

I talked to an old freind in N. California a few days ago and he asked
if I knew how to scan out of print service manuals and convert them to
PDF for him.


If they are book-bound that's a pain in the neck job. If loose sheets I
just put the stack on my sheet feeder. Although it won't do double
sided, I'd have to re-sort that later.

Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:14:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid> wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
[...]

... I have over 50 scanners at the moment, but I get the best
results from some of the oldest. My 11" * 17" scanner only wants to
install under 95. The best I have only workes with win 3.1, but I no
longer have a system set up to use it, and the propritary 8 bit ISA
card.

ISA bus mobos are very much alive an kicking. Industry has a great need
for that so they can be bought new, right off the shelf.
Not on $300 consumer machines.
No, but they aren't expensive. I had looked up some for John Larkin the
other day. AFAIR it starts somewhere around $500 if you buy in the US,
less in Asia.
Why would I spend half a month's income to use a 12 year old, $29
scanner?

I was merely pointing out that they can still be purchased. Of course
that won't make sense just to be able to run an old $29 scanner. Then
you need to obtain an old computer at little or no cost.


That was why I keep a working win ME computer around. I have dozens
of early USB scanners that work with it, and can network to the system.
Dozens? You are probably not married. My wife would have a hissy fit if
I kept that many ;-)

I talked to an old freind in N. California a few days ago and he asked
if I knew how to scan out of print service manuals and convert them to
PDF for him.

If they are book-bound that's a pain in the neck job. If loose sheets I
just put the stack on my sheet feeder. Although it won't do double
sided, I'd have to re-sort that later.


No doubt that they are bound. Some are 60 years old.

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:14:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid> wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
[...]

... I have over 50 scanners at the moment, but I get the best
results from some of the oldest. My 11" * 17" scanner only wants to
install under 95. The best I have only workes with win 3.1, but I no
longer have a system set up to use it, and the propritary 8 bit ISA
card.

ISA bus mobos are very much alive an kicking. Industry has a great need
for that so they can be bought new, right off the shelf.
Not on $300 consumer machines.
No, but they aren't expensive. I had looked up some for John Larkin the
other day. AFAIR it starts somewhere around $500 if you buy in the US,
less in Asia.
Why would I spend half a month's income to use a 12 year old, $29
scanner?

I was merely pointing out that they can still be purchased. Of course
that won't make sense just to be able to run an old $29 scanner. Then
you need to obtain an old computer at little or no cost.


That was why I keep a working win ME computer around. I have dozens
of early USB scanners that work with it, and can network to the system.
Dozens? You are probably not married. My wife would have a hissy fit if
I kept that many ;-)

I talked to an old freind in N. California a few days ago and he asked
if I knew how to scan out of print service manuals and convert them to
PDF for him.

If they are book-bound that's a pain in the neck job. If loose sheets I
just put the stack on my sheet feeder. Although it won't do double
sided, I'd have to re-sort that later.


No doubt that they are bound. Some are 60 years old.


That's about the time they tend to become undone again

Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Joerg wrote:
krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:14:56 -0700, Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid> wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
[...]

... I have over 50 scanners at the moment, but I get the best
results from some of the oldest. My 11" * 17" scanner only wants to
install under 95. The best I have only workes with win 3.1, but I no
longer have a system set up to use it, and the propritary 8 bit ISA
card.

ISA bus mobos are very much alive an kicking. Industry has a great need
for that so they can be bought new, right off the shelf.
Not on $300 consumer machines.
No, but they aren't expensive. I had looked up some for John Larkin the
other day. AFAIR it starts somewhere around $500 if you buy in the US,
less in Asia.
Why would I spend half a month's income to use a 12 year old, $29
scanner?

I was merely pointing out that they can still be purchased. Of course
that won't make sense just to be able to run an old $29 scanner. Then
you need to obtain an old computer at little or no cost.

That was why I keep a working win ME computer around. I have dozens
of early USB scanners that work with it, and can network to the system.
Dozens? You are probably not married. My wife would have a hissy fit if
I kept that many ;-)

I talked to an old freind in N. California a few days ago and he asked
if I knew how to scan out of print service manuals and convert them to
PDF for him.

If they are book-bound that's a pain in the neck job. If loose sheets I
just put the stack on my sheet feeder. Although it won't do double
sided, I'd have to re-sort that later.

No doubt that they are bound. Some are 60 years old.

That's about the time they tend to become undone again ;-)


You have to be careful, because some are starting to crumble.

The worst are books where the paper was cheapo stuff with high sulfuric
remnants in there. 10 years ago it was ok and now you open it and the
pages crumble like thin starch wafers.

Hi Joseph,

"JosephKK" <quiettechblue_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:042b869s5lnagjm743duboj0j7itu68n7o_at_4ax.com...
More than once that has turned out the the manufacturing company
didn't own the IP (whose owners didn't have all that hot an idea qand
wanted big bux for licences) see RAMBUS memory for an example. Expect
similar results in the marketplace. USB X-terminals are certainly
possible, the protocols are public already.

I guess so...

BTW, I found a company selling USB to video adapters where they let you know
which of their models are supported in Linux... check out this one:
http://plugable.com/products/uga-2k-a/

---Joel

On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 13:30:11 -0700, Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 17:14:30 -0700, Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid> wrote:

1024*768 on a Trinitron CRT. I found that this resolution and "ye olde
tube" is best on my eyes during CAD marathons. Also for diagnosing
ultrasound noise and stuff, its dynamic range far exceeds any flatscreen
monitor. Of course one sunny day the flyback transformer might go bzzzt
... *PHUT* ... and it'll be over.

I found the opposite. I find CAD on an LCD to be *much* better than a tube.
The perfect geometry beats any other deficiencies hands-down. I'm lobbying
for bigger displays at work (they're cheap).


I have yet to find any geometric distortion on the CRT monitor here. No
idea how they dunnit, amazing.

No matter what the CRT screen my eyes never seemed to track parallel wires
correctly. The first time I used an LCD screen for schematics I was amazed at
the difference, even though it was a cheap laptop (non-TFT).

The only thing that happens is a minor wobble when my wife uses the tile
steam cleaner in the hallways. The cable for that circuit runs right
above me.

The other EE in the company has a couple of CRTs that he doesn't want to get
rid of. They're the ugliest things I've ever seen.

"krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 13:30:11 -0700, Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 17:14:30 -0700, Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid> wrote:

1024*768 on a Trinitron CRT. I found that this resolution and "ye olde
tube" is best on my eyes during CAD marathons. Also for diagnosing
ultrasound noise and stuff, its dynamic range far exceeds any flatscreen
monitor. Of course one sunny day the flyback transformer might go bzzzt
... *PHUT* ... and it'll be over.

I found the opposite. I find CAD on an LCD to be *much* better than a tube.
The perfect geometry beats any other deficiencies hands-down. I'm lobbying
for bigger displays at work (they're cheap).


I have yet to find any geometric distortion on the CRT monitor here. No
idea how they dunnit, amazing.

No matter what the CRT screen my eyes never seemed to track parallel wires
correctly. The first time I used an LCD screen for schematics I was amazed at
the difference, even though it was a cheap laptop (non-TFT).

The only thing that happens is a minor wobble when my wife uses the tile
steam cleaner in the hallways. The cable for that circuit runs right
above me.

The other EE in the company has a couple of CRTs that he doesn't want to get
rid of. They're the ugliest things I've ever seen.


He uses pictures of 'dimmie' for wallpaper?

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 09:28:37 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote:


"krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 13:30:11 -0700, Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 17:14:30 -0700, Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid> wrote:

1024*768 on a Trinitron CRT. I found that this resolution and "ye olde
tube" is best on my eyes during CAD marathons. Also for diagnosing
ultrasound noise and stuff, its dynamic range far exceeds any flatscreen
monitor. Of course one sunny day the flyback transformer might go bzzzt
... *PHUT* ... and it'll be over.

I found the opposite. I find CAD on an LCD to be *much* better than a tube.
The perfect geometry beats any other deficiencies hands-down. I'm lobbying
for bigger displays at work (they're cheap).


I have yet to find any geometric distortion on the CRT monitor here. No
idea how they dunnit, amazing.

No matter what the CRT screen my eyes never seemed to track parallel wires
correctly. The first time I used an LCD screen for schematics I was amazed at
the difference, even though it was a cheap laptop (non-TFT).

The only thing that happens is a minor wobble when my wife uses the tile
steam cleaner in the hallways. The cable for that circuit runs right
above me.

The other EE in the company has a couple of CRTs that he doesn't want to get
rid of. They're the ugliest things I've ever seen.


He uses pictures of 'dimmie' for wallpaper?

The difference is that they're washed *out*.

"krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 09:28:37 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell_at_earthlink.net> wrote:


"krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 13:30:11 -0700, Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid> wrote:

krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 17:14:30 -0700, Joerg <invalid_at_invalid.invalid> wrote:

1024*768 on a Trinitron CRT. I found that this resolution and "ye olde
tube" is best on my eyes during CAD marathons. Also for diagnosing
ultrasound noise and stuff, its dynamic range far exceeds any flatscreen
monitor. Of course one sunny day the flyback transformer might go bzzzt
... *PHUT* ... and it'll be over.

I found the opposite. I find CAD on an LCD to be *much* better than a tube.
The perfect geometry beats any other deficiencies hands-down. I'm lobbying
for bigger displays at work (they're cheap).


I have yet to find any geometric distortion on the CRT monitor here. No
idea how they dunnit, amazing.

No matter what the CRT screen my eyes never seemed to track parallel wires
correctly. The first time I used an LCD screen for schematics I was amazed at
the difference, even though it was a cheap laptop (non-TFT).

The only thing that happens is a minor wobble when my wife uses the tile
steam cleaner in the hallways. The cable for that circuit runs right
above me.

The other EE in the company has a couple of CRTs that he doesn't want to get
rid of. They're the ugliest things I've ever seen.


He uses pictures of 'dimmie' for wallpaper?

The difference is that they're washed *out*.


Then he needs to recalibrate them, or move them so the room lighting
doesn't affect the images.

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

The difference is that they're washed *out*.

Then he needs to recalibrate them, or move them so the room lighting
doesn't affect the images.

Done that. They're old and tired.

"krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"krw_at_att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

The difference is that they're washed *out*.

Then he needs to recalibrate them, or move them so the room lighting
doesn't affect the images.

Done that. They're old and tired.


What size are they? I think I have several 21" they still look
good. They're too big for my the computer desk in my bedroom, and it
will be a while before I finish making a larger bedroom handicap
accessible. I would give them to someone who appreciates a decent
monitor. Right now I'm using a 19" Proview LCD monitor that will need a
new set of CCFL tubes before long. I have the brightness all the way
down, and it has a pink vertical band for the first few minutes when
it's turned on, but it fits on the desk.

One thing to consider: There is a small electrolytic across the
filament. If they are failing, the filament voltage drops a little,
making the CRT appear to be bad. If they open completely, you'll see
shading across the screen, but before that, it just gives a poor image.