On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 8:23 AM Christian Corti via cctalk <cctalk@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. -tony > Christian
