ard.p850ug1 at gmail.com
Mon Jul 22 06:56:22 CDT 2019
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:23 AM Christian Corti via cctalk
<cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2019, Guy Dunphy wrote:
> > http://www.bitsavers.org/ bitkeepers is something else.
> > The site's contact email is right down the bottom of the front page. Visual, to stop spambots.
> > Also Al posts here in cctalk.
> Speaking of this, I suggest to rethink the method of submitting scans to
> bitsavers. I did successfully transfer stuff there in the past, but my
> last attempts (putting the scans available for downloading, naming them
> in bitsavers-type file name syntax and writing an email to aek) resulted
> in nothing. No answer, no uploads to bitsavers, nothing. I did that a
> couple of times in different intervals, each attempt was futile.
> I highly appreciate and support bitsavers, I just can't contribute
> anything. For example, I would think that scans of original HP 98x0
> desktop calculator blueprints would be something of interest.
> So for the moment, I have to keep all my scans local (but accessible).
I would agree. A couple of years ago I scanned the manuals for the Trend
UDR and HSR500 paper tape readers (these being 'real' manuals with parts
lists, schematics, adjustment information, etc). I offered them here, I was
ignored. I suspect the scans were not up to 'bitsavers' standards, but I did
check they were readable (particularly the schematics).
This is in sharp contrast to several other (technical, but not computer) groups
I deal with who have attitude that any information is better than nothing. If a
better scan turns up, or more information turns up, or.. they update things. But
they are glad of any information on the grounds that even one section from a
manual (or jsut the schematics pages or..) can be useful.
So essentially I no longer offer stuff here.
More information about the cctech