Skip to main content

Steam driven computing

I love my big, shiny, black, rather menacing Dell with its elegant flat screens and enough processing power to run NORAD - but sometimes it's useful to remember that writing isn't really about having a whizzy computer. I wrote my first few books on one of these.

It was IBM's first truly portable computer (it was too much like a part of a tank to really be called a laptop). Those two 3.5 inch diskette drives were it as far as disk storage went. No hard disk. One had the operating system, the other the word processing software and you saved your files on any space left.

I can't remember exactly how many lines of text you got on the screen - about 10 I think. And that screen was rubbish. But it did the job.

It wasn't the first PC I used - I'd worked on both at XT and an AT at work (the latter was only the second of these in the UK), which had hard disks, though admittedly only 10 Mb or thereabouts. But the 'portable' PC was enough for my book writing.

These days I hardly ever use a laptop. My current laptop dates back to 1998 and is due to be replaced (probably with a netbook) soon. It still looks quite stylish (it's a little purple Sony Vaio), but it's impossibly slow now. No one expects me to take a laptop to give talks any more - I just take a memory stick. And I prefer to work on paper on the train - I think better on paper.

If I'm doing a lot of text on the move and want to capture it electronically, I've got one of these rather fun electronic pads from Selwyn Electronics. You write on an ordinary pad with a special pen, and the clipboard below captures an electric version of the page (up to 999 of them) which can then be taken as a simple scan, or text recognized and input to a wordprocessor.

Like all text recognition it has its moments of madness. but for most things it's acceptable. Usually, though, an ordinary scribbled-on bit of paper is enough for my needs.

Comments

  1. I rather like the idea of one of those Selwyn thingies, especially as I do a lot of work on trains. I wrote up my PhD on one of those Amstrad PCW machines. My current set-up though is a real lash-up job, of secondhand iMac OS-X and ailing Dell Inspiron. And an Asus Eee. And (most of all) my iPhone. Isn't technology wonderful?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Do you use the Selwyn's OCR software, and if so, how much extra does it cost? And is the stylus pleasant to use for long stretches?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes. It's a bit fiddly. You use their Digimemo Manager software which gets the files off the widget across a USB, then the Myscript Notes package, which is not a bad handwriting thingy. About £30(http://www.selwynelectronics.co.uk/Pen+Input+Solutions/DigiMemo/item2910?startPos=) and they do bundles with the pad.

    Like all handwriting recognition it needs some editing after input - but basically works okay.

    The stylus is fine. It's a ballpoint pen with a built-in detector, so you write on an ordinary paper pad in ink, and the image is captured as you do it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. One other benefit - for anyone like me who uses Microsoft's OneNote as a universal notebook/info store, the newest version of the Digimemo software lets you load stuff from the pad direct into OneNote (you can also then use OneNote's text recogition, which I'm not sure is quite as good as Myscript Notes, but does do the job).

    See this: http://brianclegg.blogspot.com/2008/10/how-do-you-keep-track.html for more on OneNote.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...