[aargee]

Oh!!! God!!! My Son is listening to a nursery rhymes CD & it has someone teaching ABCD that say "X" for Xerox . At this rate we'll soon have G for Google

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by aargee

.....it has someone teaching ABCD that say "X" for Xerox . At this rate we'll soon have G for Google

Not sure what you're trying to say!
X for Xerox is wrong but G for Google is correct! Am I missing something?

[Thad E Ginathom]

How is it wrong?

Well, I'm amazed --- I was going to say that Xerox had been around for three or four decades, but a quick google shows that the company is over a hundred years old!

Here, the word is displayed outside all the photo-copying shops. I'm sure that a Chennai child would find X for Xerox easier to relate to than X for Xylophone!

What next?

A for Apple

(Oh! we already have that; we just need to change the picture!)

I is for IBM

M is for Microsoft

W is for Windows

Well... those things are a part of our lives...


EDIT... by the way... it was Xerox that created the concept of the interface that Apple and Microsoft took off with. So "X" is actually for Apple and Windows as well as Xerox!!!

[Blue Thunder]

Originally Posted by anupmathur

Not sure what you're trying to say!
X for Xerox is wrong ....

Not sure what you're trying to say!

Why should it be wrong...it is ,of course, correct.

But it would be wrong to say 'I just took 5 xerox copies', the better way would be 'I just took 6 photocopies'.

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

...EDIT... by the way... it was Xerox that created the concept of the interface that Apple and Microsoft took off with. So "X" is actually for Apple and Windows as well as Xerox!!!

very true .

[Blue Thunder]

Originally Posted by RajaTaurus

... It was just the equivalent of luxury car of these days. And everybody was using the term not only 'weaker sections' or 'uneducated'.

it was used by all and sundry during those days (as heard from my elders). Not just the 'weaker sections/uneducated', by the 'stronger/educated' sections also .

[Gansan]

@Blue Thunder
What you are posting is hearsay from your elders. Mine is what I have heard directly, so I know what I am talking about. I repeat, the term was not used by any of my peers/family members, but only by the servants during the period I am referring to.

[vivekiny2k]

Originally Posted by anupmathur

Not sure what you're trying to say!
X for Xerox is wrong but G for Google is correct! Am I missing something?

not wrong, but you need something for kids to relate to. you could as well say A for anthropologist.

But my 4 year old already knows google. Yesterday he was telling me he was seeing "free online games" on computer, wondering what else he saw. And there is really no word starting with X that kids can relate to. I think X for six or something like that will make more sense. Although it's not the first letter in the word, that's how X is mostly used.

[anupmathur]

Originally Posted by vivekiny2k

....
But my 4 year old already knows google. Yesterday he was telling me he was seeing "free online games" on computer, ........ And there is really no word starting with X that kids can relate to. I think X for six or something like that will make more sense. Although it's not the first letter in the word, that's how X is mostly used.

Infants know about Google today before they even get to Play School!
Aren't you forgetting Xmas? It's the best anyone can do for X.

[vivekiny2k]

Originally Posted by anupmathur

Infants know about Google today before they even get to Play School!
Aren't you forgetting Xmas? It's the best anyone can do for X.

nope, it's christmas.

from wikipedia
"Xmas" is a common abbreviation of the word "Christmas".

[aargee]

X for Xerox is wrong but G for Google is correct! Am I missing something?

This is actually the continuation of my previous post, I intend to say photocopy is not same as Xerox as Xerox is a company that manufactures photocopying machine & taking copies is called photostat.

If they teach X for Xerox, then why not M for Microsoft, G for Google, A for Audi & Y for Yamaha?

But it would be wrong to say 'I just took 5 xerox copies', the better way would be 'I just took 6 photocopies'

This is exactly what I'm trying to say, but many elders in this forum are against this & they want X for Xerox.

I used to say Xerox copies until I came across the word photostat after which somehow my mind refuses to continue wrong terminologies. I've to appreciate KL where almost all the shops say "Photostat" instead of "Xerox".

PS - I still remember reading X for Xylophone

[Thad E Ginathom]

The point is that Xerox invented the "photocopier", and were, for many years, the only manufacturer, so when every photocopier was a Xerox, it was natural to use it as a noun --- and a verb. If we had been a bit more pedantic about it, we might have called a photocopy a "xerograph", as I think the process was called xerography. It is not actually a photographic process. There were other copying machines, but, compared to the Xerox, ISTR, their output was rubbish.

Before Xerox, there were ink-based duplicating machines. We used a manual typewriter to "type" onto a wax-covered stencil, which was then wrapped around an ink-filled drum, the ink reaching the paper through the typed impressions in the wax. It was unbelievably messy. There were sophisticated etching machines that could make stencils for pictures, but the result was not good. The name "Gestetner" was associated with this process almost as much as the word Xerox was with its successor.

Amazing to think that we have that one company to thank now, for windows, whether your windows are Apple, MS or X/Linux, the photocopier, the laser printer...

[vivekiny2k]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

The point is that Xerox invented the "photocopier", and were, for many years, the only manufacturer, so when every photocopier was a Xerox, it was natural to use it as a noun --- and a verb. If we had been a bit more pedantic about it, we might have called a photocopy a "xerograph", as I think the process was called xerography. It is not actually a photographic process. There were other copying machines, but, compared to the Xerox, ISTR, their output was rubbish.

Before Xerox, there were ink-based duplicating machines. We used a manual typewriter to "type" onto a wax-covered stencil, which was then wrapped around an ink-filled drum, the ink reaching the paper through the typed impressions in the wax. It was unbelievably messy. There were sophisticated etching machines that could make stencils for pictures, but the result was not good. The name "Gestetner" was associated with this process almost as much as the word Xerox was with its successor.

Amazing to think that we have that one company to thank now, for windows, whether your windows are Apple, MS or X/Linux, the photocopier, the laser printer...

"cyclostyle", we had this in our school for quickly printing question papers. my maths teacher used to write those by hand on stencil and then print copies, and then he would go home and send his clothes for drycleaning

[Thad E Ginathom]

Thatword I had forgotten.

There was another duplicating system too, that produced copies with a blueish-purplish print. Some sort of spirit in the process (as in chemical, not ghost --- although the result was often a bit blurred!) --- anyone remember that?

[vivekiny2k]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Thatword I had forgotten.

There was another duplicating system too, that produced copies with a blueish-purplish print. Some sort of spirit in the process (as in chemical, not ghost --- although the result was often a bit blurred!) --- anyone remember that?

are you talking about a silver bromide based printer? I have used it to make photos out of B/W negatives at home. Was sold as a toy kit to my elder cousin AFAIK.

much more, I have also created an impression by putting a negative in front of my photochromatic glasses in harsh sunlight, looks pretty cool.

[vnabhi]

Originally Posted by vivekiny2k

"cyclostyle", we had this in our school for quickly printing question papers. my maths teacher used to write those by hand on stencil and then print copies, and then he would go home and send his clothes for drycleaning

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

Thatword I had forgotten.

There was another duplicating system too, that produced copies with a blueish-purplish print. Some sort of spirit in the process (as in chemical, not ghost --- although the result was often a bit blurred!) --- anyone remember that?

You guys are right. You'd be surprised to know that cyclostyling machines are still being used in public sectors today. I worked in the Personnel Department of a steel PSU and we used those machines a lot to issue circulars annoucing new policies, wage benefits,etc.

When hundreds of copies were needed, those Gestetner machines were the most economical. In fact there were persons recruited to operate those machines and they were designated as Duplicating Machine Operators.