|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|2019-01-30 01:53 PM|
I have not owned a working computer or laptop in about 3-4 years, I have one that I use for work but I do not "own" it and only use it for "work" purposes not for personal use as its pretty locked down. As for word processing, my family owns like 3 tablets now, all of them contain Microsoft Word, Excel and Powerpoint, theyre free from the app store. when ever I have an important document I need to open and print and I do not have a computer I have always been able to open it on my $100 tablet, make whatever changes I need, save it, and print it to my printer via Google Cloud Printing, it prints beautifully onto my printer, and best of all, no computer was used in the process, unless you consider a tablet a computer, some of them are ya but mine is just a simple android tablet. works great.
Yes printers are becoming obsolete, but they are still needed for A) Printing Bank related documents, B) for School registration applications C) for Passport or Visa or Travel documents D) income tax documents, E) other misc documents that must be mailed
|2017-10-14 08:55 AM|
^ I could imagine, if it would be possible to make or manufacture, what i just described would cost $2999 apon release, maby $499 after 5 years??? Maby 10 to 30 years from now they'll be able to manufacture it at a low price of $99 apon release and millions will buy it.
I love this as your signature, "I haven't lost my mind. It's around here...somewhere...", applies to this thread??? (I want to click in a laughing smiley thing here but it doesnt happen using a ps3 with old browser.....oh i know, need a lap top. I guess im one of those types that don't care for upgrading or constant upgrading, except for a typewriter.(please insert laughing smiley here since i can't)-(i bet ya can with your lap tops. OH you can't, finally 1 thing your lap tops cannot doo, unless i buy my own- "haha".
|2017-10-14 07:00 AM|
Perhaps it's because once you have an advanced electronic typewriter, you've got a computer that can do so much more than just be a typewriter. Computers are cheap. You want a word processor, then get a computer, add appropriate software and a printer. Those devices you want aren't being made because there's no market for something that will be less capable and will cost much more.
|2017-10-14 12:13 AM|
|nicdim||^I dont think that would do it. I think what im looking for is an electronic typewriter word processor that has the same type of LARGE screen as a laptop that DIGITALLY types each letter on paper wthout mechanical moving parts as in older electronic typewriters,(maby even a digital type-hammer[animated hammer on a narrow retangular transparent screen thats the width of the hammer and length all the way across and thats not a real mechanical hammer of course] that moves(digitally animated) across the paper(page) as you type each letter) and of course you also have the option to type and edit before its typed on paper. Its a wonder why they dont want to make any improvements to the most advanced 1990's electronic word processor typewriter? Its like they abandoned it because of the computer. Electronic typewriters were big back then, they can be big again with newer technology. (I think i invented or have ideas of a number of new ways this could be accomplished on this thread if done right).|
|2017-10-08 11:38 AM|
|ExDilbert||US$499 (close to CD$700) is a bit steep for what it does but I see the attraction. A small laptop would do the same thing. Just get someone to rip out the extraneous programs and install a locked down word processor as the main shell. A laptop with a minimal install of Linux and one of the many word processors that are available would do the trick. It would likely be cheaper as well.|
|2017-10-08 05:24 AM|
|Allan B||Well that is interesting but as it does not contain a Printer it will be of no interest to the OP.....|
|2017-10-08 01:28 AM|
Here is a distraction free smart typewriter that might come close to what you are looking for:
|2017-10-05 03:02 PM|
See I was wrong.
Great direction this crazy thread has taken, very interesting indeed. Thanks
|2017-10-05 02:30 PM|
Even over copper, multiplexing was used, other than for "the last mile". Initially it was Frequency Division Multiplexing (FDM). The old copper pair systems could carry 12 channels. Microwave links also used FDM, with hundreds of channels. Then, with digital systems, Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) was used and made the network more reliable and flexible. With TDM, there are DS0 carrying 64 Kb, DS1 (1.544 Mb) which is 24 DS0 and DS3 (45 Mb), 28 DS1. Next came SONET, which carried 1 or more DS3s, up to 192 of them at ~10 Gb/s. SONET (Synchronous Optical Network) is carried over fibre. These days, with the shift to IP, yes there's a mix of packets from a variety of sources and, instead of using TDM & SONET, the entire bandwidth is just used to carry packets.
|2017-10-05 02:13 PM|
|ExDilbert||I am talking about individual phone calls. Each call would be multiplexed with possibly millions of others over a single connection. It would make no sense to establish a single, dedicated connection for each call. That would be done with packet switching to take advantage of the available bandwidth.|
|2017-10-05 01:54 PM|
|JamesK||I have set up systems with both single and dual fibres. Both can carry the exact same traffic. Major trunks would use 2 fibres, but the connection to the end customer is often a single fibre. Given the incredible bandwidth (~2 petabits/s) fibre supports, there's no problem with a using single fibre and different wavelengths. In fact, several wavelengths can be used, each supporting a separate connection. Coarse Divisision Wavelength Multiplexing (CWDM) is frequently used to connect to customers. The wavelengths are separated with filters based on diffraction grating.|
|2017-10-05 01:39 PM|
|ExDilbert||For dedicated connections, yes. But what about packet switched networks and VoIP?|
|2017-10-05 12:49 PM|
It depends. There can be one or two fibres. If just one, then different wavelengths are used for each direction.
|2017-10-05 12:48 PM|
Originally Posted by ExDilbert View Post
|2017-10-05 11:51 AM|
There's a bit more to it than that. Initially, transatlantic calls were over radio links. Then, in 1957 (IIRC) the first cable capable of voice calls was put in service. Next came satellite links, but because of the time it took to go up to the satellite and back, a satellite channel was typically paired with a cable channel, so that in one direction, the call would go through the satellite and through the cable in the other. All this was still analog. What really caused a big shift in telecom was the move to digital, starting in the mid '60s. This allowed cheaper, better quality calls, without all the fussy analog gear.
Incidentally, I started working in the telecom industry in 1972 and have worked with everything from analog, vacuum tube based, voice carriers to voice over IP and lots more in between. I have seen a lot of changes in that time.
|This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|