gerry wrote on 2024-12-06, 08:58:
Jo22 wrote on 2024-12-05, 18:22:There were alternatives, though. […]
Show full quote
There were alternatives, though.
a) Get a Kodak Photo CD with your pictures and send the PCD files to your friends (or whole CD).
Photo CDs were available in ca. 1992, along with CD-i. Many Players and game consoles could read them.
b) Use a Polaroid camera, get an instant photo and use your handy scanner to read them.
My father had a handy scanner since 1988, running on a 286 PC with Hercules graphics. The scans are still on the backup floppies.
He had used a scanning application and Dr. Halo III, I think.
there were indeed other ways of doing it. VivienM explains better than i could about the costs, amazing how expensive "things" were back then really, something lost on many commentators about costs now.
Personally, I do intentionally ignore the cost factor, because I feel it's no use.
That's because my view on the matter is completely upside down to that of others.
From my point of view, paying a high price is no suffering. It's a privilege.
Especially if you're an early adopter of something.
It's just natural that a new technology isn't "cheap". How could it?
Also, why does it have to be all the time? Why must an 8 year old own a mainframe? 😉
When, say, the Compaq Deskpro 386 was released it did cost a small fortune - without making a relationship to something. $17,886 were $17,886, after all. Right?
(Edit: Source: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/12219240-198 … omputations-per)
Well, it depends to whom. If you had have worked in research, CAD/CAM or accounting, then a fast IBM PC for 17k was a cheap alternative and comfortable to a huge $80,000 minicomputer or SGI graphic workstation.
Alas, that's what man people don't see, I think.
They compare an 1986 high-end PC with Unix to their cheap 1994 386DX-40 PC running Windows 3.x and feel betrayed or being cheated.
They're angry why they couldn't afford a DeskPro 386 in 1986 for same 1994 price already.
Or other way round, They're angry because they had to pay that much money back then, while simultanously other people can buy a cheap 386 PC in 1994!
Either way, they think it's unfair.
That's why I do avoid such money thoughts all together. They do no good!
To me, there's the following that I think about:
a) Do I need that expensive technology or does it mean a lot to me?
b) Is the price fair and can I trust the seller (warranty etc)?
c) Can I afford it, what financial consequences does it have to me and family?
If these things are alright, then there's no issue.
When I look back in a few years, I won't think to myself "oh no! I paid too much! The poor money I lost!" but rather "Well done! You managed to afford it! You were an early adopter! You had been there when it was new!"
But that's just me. I've never been rich, rather contrary.
To me, money is a tool not something to hoard. I don’t want to be the richest on the graveyard.
If I need something, I save up my money and wait. Or I do consider payment by installments.
gerry wrote on 2024-12-06, 08:58:
I remember early digital cameras, one with a floppy disk in it!
Sony Mavica? 😃
gerry wrote on 2024-12-06, 08:58:
i also remember scanners back to the 1980's, the scanned image was generally a greyscale pixelated image like a hazy worn old photo, but it was still impressive (at the time). Or sometimes there was no actual grey scale, just larger and closer dots for "dark" and smaller more dispersed dots for "lighter"! I think their application better suited line drawings or at last where contrast was high. These were specialised expensive tools at the time, not genuinely without use as any budget smart phone with the most basic camera will not, if held still, take a better digital image of something - an no need to "scan"
Hi, I think that's because of use of dithering because most home computers and PCs didn't support grayscale very well.
VGA allowed 16 levels of gray with a custom palette, but the other standards?
CGA didn't, EGA neither. You'd have to use false colours and then somehow make the monitor switch to monochrome, I think.
Some EGA monitors had a knob to switch to green monitor mode, I think.
The C64 and Atari ST didn't support grayscale, either.
The C64 had a hi-res b/w mode that's worse than CGA's 4 colour mode.
The Atari ST had an 640x400 b/w mode with no grayscale.
That leaves the Amiga, which had been capable to display grayscale.
In HAM mode, it could display all 256 grey levels of a handy scanner, I think.
Entry class handy scanners were using 16 or 64 shades of gray, though.
gerry wrote on 2024-12-06, 08:58:
the only scanning application i see commonly still is in the multi function printers in offices, where its possible to scan images and letters on the rare occasions its needed (mostly sales people scanning receipts for expense claims! and even then they now just take photos and load/email direct )
And fax machines! These multi function printers with built-in phone do basically take the role of a fax machine, too.
Which is great, because there are movements to get rid of the fax machine everywhere. 😢
Being able to send a hand written letter or note over "phone line" is such a relief, though. Especially under time pressure.
Writing an e-mail via PC or mobile device is cumbersome by contrast.
You have to type in a long, cryptic e-mail address that's often misspelled.
So you have to wait for an e-mail about a delivery failure. It's so unnerving.
No, when it matters a physical fax machine is really nice.
Like picking up the handset on a landline phone.
"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel
//My video channel//
