Editor’s note. Following are some of the many letters received in response to Michael Finefrock’s series, “Computers and the Historian,” appearing in the November and December 1983 and January 1984 Perspectives.
To the Editor:
As a proud owner of an Eagle II(e) computer, I have been following Michael Finefrock’s saga of historians and computers in Perspectives with no small amount of interest. Being a professional historian, with PhD in hand, a couple of books under my belt, and having published several articles in journals, it finally occurred to me that I could use word processing in my life. I came to this conclusion as my old IBM typewriter looked like it was about to die.
So, I subscribed to a computer magazine, thought about the software I wanted, and began the rounds to computer stores. Dr. Finefrock is quite correct in stating that software needs are really more important than hardware considerations. Once one has decided what the computer is going to be used for, then worry about hardware. In any case, I ended up with an Eagle that included a bundle with Spellbinder (Lexisoft) word processing, Ultracalc (Lattice) spread sheet, and a CP/M operating disc. I added to that an Aspen/Random House Proofreader. So far that’s it. I have been able to do anything and everything I need with this particular configuration. After agonizing over 64K RAM memory on the Eagle, I decided to chance an 8 bit 64K unit. Upon use, I realize that I will never reach 64 capacity in one sitting, and even if I did write that much text at one time, I would be a fool not to enter it every 10K or so, in case the power goes off. Hence, 64K is plenty of memory; 128K is overkill. It all depends on the machine’s uses and how the builder designed his RAM and ROM systems.
Regarding the Spellbinder, I highly recommend it for text writing. It seems to be able to handle any situation including footnotes. It will not directly index, but it has the macro capability to be modified for indexing. I suspect it will print footnotes properly with the right print format. I am not skillful enough yet to determine. Spellbinder is a dedicated system to the Eagle and has far fewer keystrokes than does WordStar. It is very simple and easy to use and the manual is quite clear. I highly suggest that it is most usable for history-text writing. I have not had the time or need to fool with the Ultracalc so I cannot speak to it. However, I am sure that if I need to do figure manipulation, it will do the job. But not being a statistical historian, I really don’t care one way or the other about Ultracalc.
In any case, thanks again for the series of very informative articles. In every case, I agree with Finefrock’s observations regarding software, hardware, and application. It seems that his experience with computers has been exactly like mine. I have been ruined by a word processing system; it is so easy to write now. When I use my office IBM it is like using a Model T Ford! My next challenge on the Eagle is to run a 1040 tax form through it and do my taxes on it. That should really be fun.
Frederic J. Athearn
State Historian, Bureau of Land Management
Denver, Colorado
To the Editor:
This past month I developed my own calendar program. It is considerably cruder than Dr. Finefrock’s, but it does a job that needs to be done occasionally. It gives the day of the week for any year in the Gregorian calendar, and if requested, it prints to screen a calendar of any Gregorian year, pausing after each month. To get a hard copy of any monthly calendar, one simply presses [Shift/PrtSc]. I pieced together my program from one program in David Ahl’s Basic Computer Games and a day of the week algorithm in last month’s PC magazine. If time permits, I may add a Julian calendar to it because that would be professionally useful. (Then there is the possibility of creating a program to translate the normal monthly dates into the Roman system of kalends, nones, and ides . . .).
Steven Muhlberger
University of Toronto
To the Editor:
I only have one comment to make about D-Base II. It is the most powerful data base management package around because of its programming capabilities. This is excellent for people who are experienced programmers but not for the novice. All the patch-ups for D-Base are to make it more accessible to nonprogrammers. However I have found the programmer’s documentation to be poorly done. In the next year I am hopeful that there will be some innovations in data base management programs that will be as powerful as D-Base and better documented.
Patricia Seed
Assistant Professor of History
Rice University
To the Editor:
New techniques bring new problems and demand new answers. Nowhere is this more true than in the developing use of computers. A recent, rather personal example might highlight what I see as a problem that the AHA has to address.
In January of this year a major university press sent me a copy of a new book. The book is essentially based upon data I gathered in the late 1960s and on which I wrote several articles. The author used my computerized data in ways which I had not visualized at the time and has come forth with an original and interesting book. I should add that the book credits me thoroughly, devotes an appendix to the summary of my data, and, in fact, I cooperated to the extent that I sent the author the computer tapes and code book of my data.
What happened, however, is that my data, in effect, became his primary source material. Though he did recheck some of my data, what my data did was to save him a couple years’ work trying to do what I had already done. He had run across my own research on intellectual achievement in Scotland when he was beginning to do his PhD dissertation and asked me for help. I willingly gave it to him, flattered that my own studies could be of value to someone else. Fortunately, also, since I was still working with some of the data, I had saved it, although I could just as easily have tossed it out since I am using only part of the data base rather than the complete set.
Obviously my data base is more important to others than I thought, and since it is easily usable to anyone with my code book, it can be used by others. As far as I know, this is the first example in the history field of one scholar totally unrelated to the other using the data base of the other. We use such other computerized data bases as census data over and over for our interpretations, but it appears that our ow data base is valuable. I strongly believe that the American Historical Association should make some recommendations on how such data should be stored, how it should be indexed, and what limits there should be on the availability of it. Does anyone out there have any ideas?
Vern L. Bullough
Dean, Faculty of Natural and Social Sciences
State University College at Buffalo