If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
better Kodak reorganization
On 5/9/2013 4:11 PM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
PeterN wrote: On 5/8/2013 10:45 PM, Jean-David Beyer wrote: On 05/08/2013 04:49 PM, J. Clarke wrote: In article 79bf218c-4aab-4dce-8f0c- , says... On May 7, 12:48 pm, Bowser wrote: Bell was not done in by "change", it was done in by lawyers. The Bell System was "done in" by the major shifts in the economic model of the telecommunications business brought about by new technologies. Lawyers are merely the people who deal with the result of such problems, not the cause. (Incidentally, AT&T is renowned for their R&D scientists, but it is also true that they had some of the best legal minds available in corporate America.) In my opinion as a former employee of a Bell System subsidiary, the company was not done in by change, and lawyers may have helped do it in, but were not the primary cause. My perception is that the old timers from the time of Theodore Vail onward, who understood the business, had all died or retired, or were forced out by their age. An invalid premise. Going back that far doesn't even match the "understood the business" speculation. They were all wrangling to discover what did work at that time. Some survived, most did not, because nobody "understood" or knew what would work. For at least a couple of decades it was random chaos (aka Capitalism). By the 30's and 40's of course it settled into a regulated monopoly that was primarily executed as a very efficient system of administration, for both operations and the government regulation inherent in their monopoly status. And it is significant that the model under which Bell System management functioned did not exist elsewhere. It was necessarily a unique corporate culture because of that. (The only "business school" that taught how it worked was the Bell System school of hard knocks... coming up through the ranks.) By 1960 of course that meant even the most elder and highest levels of the executive management were born and raised within in that system, and rose to the top *because* of their ability to execute that system. They were replaced by business administration types whose principle achievements in college was their abilities on the football teams of second string leagues. They were all cheering, slogans (Ready, Fire, Aim was a pet peeve of mine) and win the next quarter. They did not understand the business, they had no vision beyond the next quarterly report. They wanted to boost the value of their stock options and they did not care what happened to the company afterwards. Après moi, le déluge. And that is what they got. It was so sad to see this over 100 year old institution destroyed by the rot from within. A tragedy. Not a tragedy, a fable. They understood the system, and they were as good as it gets! The problem was that the model which was appropriate in 1940, which is what they understood, didn't exist in 1960. A prime example of the inherent flaw of the B school game, taught in every B school. A prime example of cooking up a great sounding story to explain what is not understood. Typical of religious dogma... Please make a proer attribution. I did not post what your posting says I said. -- PeterN |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
better Kodak reorganization
PeterN wrote:
PeterN wrote: A prime example of the inherent flaw of the B school game, taught in every B school. .... Please make a proer attribution. I did not post what your posting says I said. Quoted again, above, is the only part that was attributed to you. You did in fact post it, in a message with these headers: From: PeterN Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 12:56:37 -0400 Message-ID: Perhaps you made a simple mistake in reading the message you cite, or perhaps *you* need to learn something about proper attributions. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
better Kodak reorganization
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:41:20 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:14:12 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: "J. Clarke" wrote: In article , says... Because all switching systems from the advent of the crossbar on were in fact computers. For a very loose definition of "computer". A crossbar switch is a mechanical computer. In the 1940's it was the most advanced computer in existence. Debatable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer We were talking about pre-WWII though. _YOU_ were talking about the 1940s. So was I. The question originally raised was about pre-WWII, and my statement was correct up through the early 1940's. My appologies for not limiting it enough for you. The No4 crossbar switch as a commercial product was first installed in 1943. The first prototype of the Colossus was demonstrated that same year. The point is that during the early development, when the first crossbar switches/computers were being produced for research purposes, there was nothing more advanced. Of course by the time the crossbar switch was a commercial product there was indeed a research computer that as should be expect was more advanced. The Colossus was far more than a research computer. People's lives were depending on it. It was just a prototype in 1943 at a time when the No4 Crossbar was a production product in commercial use. A functional working Colossus was produced in 1944 or 1945. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
better Kodak reorganization
On Mon, 06 May 2013 04:50:47 -0400, Dale wrote:
: I read that Kodak is going to focus on printing, packaging and software : : I read they are selling their film business but keeping their motion : picture business : : what the strategic planners their should do is : : 1) map out ALL the imaging workflows : 2) indicate all participations, systems or products : 3) identify customers and partners : 4) build business cases : : : and don't forget : : 5) ask why there aren't participations : 6) keep up with changes in workflows : 7) central system offerings are best to vie : 8) create better workflows I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing. But if it's that they should develop and market a competitor for Photoshop, I'll bet that would take more money than Kodak could get their hands on. Bob |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
better Kodak reorganization
On Sat, 11 May 2013 04:00:15 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:41:20 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:14:12 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: "J. Clarke" wrote: In article , says... Because all switching systems from the advent of the crossbar on were in fact computers. For a very loose definition of "computer". A crossbar switch is a mechanical computer. In the 1940's it was the most advanced computer in existence. Debatable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer We were talking about pre-WWII though. _YOU_ were talking about the 1940s. So was I. The question originally raised was about pre-WWII, and my statement was correct up through the early 1940's. My appologies for not limiting it enough for you. The No4 crossbar switch as a commercial product was first installed in 1943. The first prototype of the Colossus was demonstrated that same year. The point is that during the early development, when the first crossbar switches/computers were being produced for research purposes, there was nothing more advanced. Of course by the time the crossbar switch was a commercial product there was indeed a research computer that as should be expect was more advanced. The Colossus was far more than a research computer. People's lives were depending on it. It was just a prototype in 1943 at a time when the No4 Crossbar was a production product in commercial use. A functional working Colossus was produced in 1944 or 1945. From the URL I have already given: "The prototype, Colossus Mark 1, was shown to be working in December 1943 and was operational at Bletchley Park by 5 February 1944.[1] An improved Colossus Mark 2 first worked on 1 June 1944,[2] just in time for the Normandy Landings. Ten Colossus computers were in use by the end of the war." The history of crossbar switches is given in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbar_switch from which it appears that it's invention was not that of an earth-shattering device emerging from Bell labs. The duty of a No4 crossbar switch is described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_4_telephone_switch from which it appears the term applies not to a particular device (or device family) but to what ever 'toll switch' device might be used to connect two No5 crossbar devices. It could even be applied to a bunch of human operators. No matter what the arrangement of No4 and No5 crossbar devices may have been, they don't seem to have represented the same level of advance as the Colossus. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
better Kodak reorganization
On 05/11/2013 07:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 04:00:15 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:41:20 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:14:12 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: "J. Clarke" wrote: In article , says... Because all switching systems from the advent of the crossbar on were in fact computers. For a very loose definition of "computer". A crossbar switch is a mechanical computer. In the 1940's it was the most advanced computer in existence. Debatable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer We were talking about pre-WWII though. _YOU_ were talking about the 1940s. So was I. The question originally raised was about pre-WWII, and my statement was correct up through the early 1940's. My appologies for not limiting it enough for you. The No4 crossbar switch as a commercial product was first installed in 1943. The first prototype of the Colossus was demonstrated that same year. The point is that during the early development, when the first crossbar switches/computers were being produced for research purposes, there was nothing more advanced. Of course by the time the crossbar switch was a commercial product there was indeed a research computer that as should be expect was more advanced. The Colossus was far more than a research computer. People's lives were depending on it. It was just a prototype in 1943 at a time when the No4 Crossbar was a production product in commercial use. A functional working Colossus was produced in 1944 or 1945. From the URL I have already given: "The prototype, Colossus Mark 1, was shown to be working in December 1943 and was operational at Bletchley Park by 5 February 1944.[1] An improved Colossus Mark 2 first worked on 1 June 1944,[2] just in time for the Normandy Landings. Ten Colossus computers were in use by the end of the war." The history of crossbar switches is given in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbar_switch from which it appears that it's invention was not that of an earth-shattering device emerging from Bell labs. The duty of a No4 crossbar switch is described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_4_telephone_switch from which it appears the term applies not to a particular device (or device family) but to what ever 'toll switch' device might be used to connect two No5 crossbar devices. It could even be applied to a bunch of human operators. No matter what the arrangement of No4 and No5 crossbar devices may have been, they don't seem to have represented the same level of advance as the Colossus. Bear in mind that the Bell Labs Model 1 relay computer was in use before the Colossus. "The company agreed to finance construction of a large experimental model of Stibitz's invention. Stibitz completed the designs in February, 1938, and the construction of the machine began in April, 1939, by Samuel Williams, a switching engineer in Bell. The final product was ready in October and was first put into operation on January 8, 1940, and remained in service until 1949." http://history-computer.com/ModernCo...s/Stibitz.html |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
better Kodak reorganization
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 11 May 2013 04:00:15 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:41:20 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:14:12 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: "J. Clarke" wrote: In article , says... Because all switching systems from the advent of the crossbar on were in fact computers. For a very loose definition of "computer". A crossbar switch is a mechanical computer. In the 1940's it was the most advanced computer in existence. Debatable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer We were talking about pre-WWII though. _YOU_ were talking about the 1940s. So was I. The question originally raised was about pre-WWII, and my statement was correct up through the early 1940's. My appologies for not limiting it enough for you. The No4 crossbar switch as a commercial product was first installed in 1943. The first prototype of the Colossus was demonstrated that same year. The point is that during the early development, when the first crossbar switches/computers were being produced for research purposes, there was nothing more advanced. Of course by the time the crossbar switch was a commercial product there was indeed a research computer that as should be expect was more advanced. The Colossus was far more than a research computer. People's lives were depending on it. It was just a prototype in 1943 at a time when the No4 Crossbar was a production product in commercial use. A functional working Colossus was produced in 1944 or 1945. From the URL I have already given: "The prototype, Colossus Mark 1, was shown to be working in December 1943 and was operational at Bletchley Park by 5 February 1944.[1] An improved Colossus Mark 2 first worked on 1 June 1944,[2] just in time for the Normandy Landings. Ten Colossus computers were in use by the end of the war." The history of crossbar switches is given in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbar_switch from which it appears that it's invention was not that of an earth-shattering device emerging from Bell labs. The duty of a No4 crossbar switch is described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_4_telephone_switch from which it appears the term applies not to a particular device (or device family) but to what ever 'toll switch' device might be used to connect two No5 crossbar devices. It could even be applied to a bunch of human operators. No matter what the arrangement of No4 and No5 crossbar devices may have been, they don't seem to have represented the same level of advance as the Colossus. Eric your imagination runs wild, but is not at all significant to the discussion. The No4 Crossbar is a very specific model of what is correctly described as a Class 4 switch. It was replaced by the 4A Crossbar switch. Today a "Class 4" switch would be represented by a 4ESS switch (which is not a Crossbar). You are still missing the point. The discussion was whether AT&T made computers pre-WWII. Since they had a production Crossbar switch in 1943 there can be little doubt that Bell Labs was working with computers prior to the war. The fact is that going into the 1940's a crossbar mechanical computer was as advanced at it got. And Jean-David Beyer has cited references to the specific R&D crossbar computer projects that preceeded production of the No4 Crossbar. End of the story... -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
better Kodak reorganization
On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:36:33 -0400, Jean-David Beyer
wrote: On 05/11/2013 07:09 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 11 May 2013 04:00:15 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:41:20 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:14:12 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: "J. Clarke" wrote: In article , says... Because all switching systems from the advent of the crossbar on were in fact computers. For a very loose definition of "computer". A crossbar switch is a mechanical computer. In the 1940's it was the most advanced computer in existence. Debatable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer We were talking about pre-WWII though. _YOU_ were talking about the 1940s. So was I. The question originally raised was about pre-WWII, and my statement was correct up through the early 1940's. My appologies for not limiting it enough for you. The No4 crossbar switch as a commercial product was first installed in 1943. The first prototype of the Colossus was demonstrated that same year. The point is that during the early development, when the first crossbar switches/computers were being produced for research purposes, there was nothing more advanced. Of course by the time the crossbar switch was a commercial product there was indeed a research computer that as should be expect was more advanced. The Colossus was far more than a research computer. People's lives were depending on it. It was just a prototype in 1943 at a time when the No4 Crossbar was a production product in commercial use. A functional working Colossus was produced in 1944 or 1945. From the URL I have already given: "The prototype, Colossus Mark 1, was shown to be working in December 1943 and was operational at Bletchley Park by 5 February 1944.[1] An improved Colossus Mark 2 first worked on 1 June 1944,[2] just in time for the Normandy Landings. Ten Colossus computers were in use by the end of the war." The history of crossbar switches is given in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbar_switch from which it appears that it's invention was not that of an earth-shattering device emerging from Bell labs. The duty of a No4 crossbar switch is described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_4_telephone_switch from which it appears the term applies not to a particular device (or device family) but to what ever 'toll switch' device might be used to connect two No5 crossbar devices. It could even be applied to a bunch of human operators. No matter what the arrangement of No4 and No5 crossbar devices may have been, they don't seem to have represented the same level of advance as the Colossus. Bear in mind that the Bell Labs Model 1 relay computer was in use before the Colossus. "The company agreed to finance construction of a large experimental model of Stibitz's invention. Stibitz completed the designs in February, 1938, and the construction of the machine began in April, 1939, by Samuel Williams, a switching engineer in Bell. The final product was ready in October and was first put into operation on January 8, 1940, and remained in service until 1949." http://history-computer.com/ModernCo...s/Stibitz.html That site specifically states "The Complex Number Computer was not programmable". (The Complex Number Computer was not called the Mk 1 until later). It goes on to say "the Models III and N were the first of the Bell Labs digital calculators to have some degree of general programmability, although neither was a fully general-purpose calculator". -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
better Kodak reorganization
On Sat, 11 May 2013 17:22:16 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 11 May 2013 04:00:15 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:41:20 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 10 May 2013 11:14:12 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: "J. Clarke" wrote: In article , says... Because all switching systems from the advent of the crossbar on were in fact computers. For a very loose definition of "computer". A crossbar switch is a mechanical computer. In the 1940's it was the most advanced computer in existence. Debatable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer We were talking about pre-WWII though. _YOU_ were talking about the 1940s. So was I. The question originally raised was about pre-WWII, and my statement was correct up through the early 1940's. My appologies for not limiting it enough for you. The No4 crossbar switch as a commercial product was first installed in 1943. The first prototype of the Colossus was demonstrated that same year. The point is that during the early development, when the first crossbar switches/computers were being produced for research purposes, there was nothing more advanced. Of course by the time the crossbar switch was a commercial product there was indeed a research computer that as should be expect was more advanced. The Colossus was far more than a research computer. People's lives were depending on it. It was just a prototype in 1943 at a time when the No4 Crossbar was a production product in commercial use. A functional working Colossus was produced in 1944 or 1945. From the URL I have already given: "The prototype, Colossus Mark 1, was shown to be working in December 1943 and was operational at Bletchley Park by 5 February 1944.[1] An improved Colossus Mark 2 first worked on 1 June 1944,[2] just in time for the Normandy Landings. Ten Colossus computers were in use by the end of the war." The history of crossbar switches is given in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbar_switch from which it appears that it's invention was not that of an earth-shattering device emerging from Bell labs. The duty of a No4 crossbar switch is described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_4_telephone_switch from which it appears the term applies not to a particular device (or device family) but to what ever 'toll switch' device might be used to connect two No5 crossbar devices. It could even be applied to a bunch of human operators. No matter what the arrangement of No4 and No5 crossbar devices may have been, they don't seem to have represented the same level of advance as the Colossus. Eric your imagination runs wild, but is not at all significant to the discussion. The No4 Crossbar is a very specific model of what is correctly described as a Class 4 switch. It was replaced by the 4A Crossbar switch. Today a "Class 4" switch would be represented by a 4ESS switch (which is not a Crossbar). What you describe as "your imagination" is in fact Wikipedia. You should write to them and connect their errors. There is very little information on the Internet about the No4 Crossbar but http://www.corp.att.com/history/neth...switching.html tells us something: "1940s & 1950s: Automated switching Automation came to long distance switching when AT&T installed the first No. 4 crossbar switch in Philadelphia in 1943. Now a single operator built up the needed circuit by dialing a series of routing codes to instruct this automatic electromechanical switch. Dialed routing codes soon gave way to the familiar area codes, which the switch itself could translate into the needed routing information. AT&T soon modified the switch to handle customer-dialed long distance calls; the modified design became the No. 4A crossbar switch. No. 4A crossbar switches and direct-distance dialing spread to subscribers across the country during through the 1950s. Call-completion time dropped to 10-20 seconds." The No 4 Crossbar switch appears to be nothing more than a manually set crossbar, with the setting controlled by the operator via a dial on their desk. It was no more programmable than an ordinary telephone of the period. There is nothing in the above to say when the No 4 Crossbar was supplanted by the No 4A but http://tinyurl.com/cmk89j5 says: "Direct distance dialing ("DDD") started in the United States in 1953" That's a fairly specific statement which sounds like it refers to the introduction of the No4a Crossbar. You are still missing the point. The discussion was whether AT&T made computers pre-WWII. Since they had a production Crossbar switch in 1943 there can be little doubt that Bell Labs was working with computers prior to the war. The fact is that going into the 1940's a crossbar mechanical computer was as advanced at it got. And Jean-David Beyer has cited references to the specific R&D crossbar computer projects that preceeded production of the No4 Crossbar. End of the story... -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kodak reorganization | Dale[_2_] | In The Darkroom | 3 | May 6th 13 09:54 AM |
Reorganization CFV | James Silverton | Digital Photography | 2 | October 9th 04 11:12 PM |
Vote *NO* on reorganization | Robert McClenon | Digital Photography | 26 | September 13th 04 04:55 PM |