Re: 95/98 ramblings
Re: 95/98 ramblings
In message <Xns9B1D17797AD8Dthanexit@66.250.146.158>, thanatoid
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> writes
[]
>Good point. Ah... the good old days. I MAY have already mentioned it,
>but did you know the qwerty layout is what it is because the earliest
>typewriters jammed a lot so they made the layout AS DIFFICULT as they
>could so people would be forced to type REALLY slow?! And we're STILL
ISTR reading somewhere that some of that is an urban myth - that it was
indeed designed to get round problems with mechanical typewriter keys
jamming, but not actually designed to make it as slow as possible. (The
positioning of the commonest letters does tend to support this. Plus the
fact that it is different in different languages - I think it is AZERTY
in German, for example.)
[]
>>>Wow. Just checked DL sizes and 'wallpaper changer' is even
>>>smaller! And it has some GREAT options. Check it out!
>>
>> Post marked "keep" to do so.
>
>Obviously, I never read the whole post, just start replying. Maybe I
>should try it someday. Sigh.
Oh, I wouldn't bother - I do the same as you, just reply in a
stream-of-consciousness way!
[]
>> Likewise. I actually liked the idea of .dlls - common code
>> - when they were first mooted, but the original concept
>> seems to have been well broken. Plus modern storage costs
>> have reduced the need.
>
>I actually never /quite/ understood the concept and functionality of
>DLL's, but they sure appear to be a rather flexible extension. I have a
>collection of icons for my desktop (some original program icons are
>just HORRID or simply make NO sense) and I have it saved as a DLL.
Well, my understanding of the idea behind DLLs was that lots of prog.s
use certain common routines (e. g. box/window drawing ones), and at the
time it made sense to put these into a common library, thus making the
size of the actual executables for applications smaller (and possibly
faster); this was significant at the time, when disc space was at a
premium at least to some extent, and also download sizes benefitted from
limitation.
[]
>I REALLY think the 3 ini files were just fine. The registry is such as
Yes. Actually, I preferred prog.s that used their own .ini file, kept in
their own directory.
>horrible agglomeration of useless crap - who needs ALL the time zones
>in the world if they KNOW they will never live anywhere else? And
Agreed.
>that's not even the worst of it. From what I have read recently, it
>seems an awful lot of it has to do with the way MS programs
>(specifically within Office) communicate with each other and exchange
>information - something which is of ABSOLUTELY no use to me personally.
Yes, Office seems to be almost an adjunct to the OS - not quite to the
extent that IE is, in that the Office bits seem only to affect other
parts of Office in the main, but I know what you mean; I've even found
cases where the only way I could see to change something in one part of
Office was to change it in another part (usually Word).
[]
>>>> Do get a cheap one and play a bit - the enjoyment comes
[]
>> Flowers can be most satisfying.
[]
>plants in general. But I appreciate the encouragement.
Good (-:. Well, other small things then.
[]
>photography you might consider a color laser printer. They have finally
I have access to an hp 4500N; very cranky and very slow (especially if
I'm the one who has to wake it up from its slumbers), but it does
produce lovely output.
>come down to a reasonable price level - and needless to say will be
>even cheaper a year from now.
I don't do that much photography, and what I do I nearly always view on
screen.
[]
>Crazy, isn't it? And the MAIN effect of such huge image sizes (in an
>average user's life) are 20MB email attachments of boring relatives. No
>one knows how (or cares) to resize. Sigh.
Agreed. (Or how to use their camera at less than max. size in the first
place.)
[]
>> Just get a cheap one, to play with a bit.
>
>No, there's no point. I NEVER touch my two 35mm cameras, and like I
No, but at least part of the reason for that is the knowledge of the
inherent delay due to processing. If you like instead, have a play with
a cheap USB microscope.
[]
>> [Acronis]
>>>No floppies, but you have to make a bootable recovery CD
>>>once you install it, and then you're set.
>>
>> If, as I say, you have a suitable BIOS.
>
>Actually, during my 2 weeks of computer hell, I found out how it works
>(because I almost destroyed my computer). It creates a little directory
>with custom boot info which (if necessary, perhaps) allows it to boot
Presumably on the HD, so no good if the HD actually dies, rather than
just getting scrambled.
>from the CD, loading the drivers etc., I imagine, and deletes it when
>you restart after the image restore. My 11 year old computer
>(temporarily "sitting idle", so to speak) after I went a /little/ too
>far with it, has a boot from CDROM option in its 14 year old BIOS, so I
>think it's possible on almost any machine except XT's.
Hmm, I think I have seen ones considerably more modern than XTs which
didn't have the from-CD boot option, but probably any one which anyone
would bother to work with these days would have it (maybe anything
Pentium on - certainly I'd expect it in anything P-II on).
>
>>>> early Word, too [I normally use Word 97 Burgundy].)
>
>No idea what the "Burgundy" thing is.
An OEM one I picked up somewhere - basically Office '97 with updates;
it's actually dates '98 I think. It is a genuine Microsoft product.
[]
>Anyway, I've been to Mike Lin's site a few times. A few of his utils
>worked perfectly, some did NOTHING. Isn't ITK the one that disables the
>damn insert/overwrite thing? It did NOT work on my machine!
It just makes a bleep whenever you hit the insert/overtype key, that's
all - rather like the "toggle keys" for the three lock keys which are
part of W'9x anyway, but for some reason hidden away under
"Accessibility" or something like that. (I find them useful, as I find
it very easy to hit caps lock without meaning to, and this at least
tells me I've done so.)
[]
>> Have a look at ERD/ERU - it's under others/misc, or
>> misc/others, or something like that, on the '95 disc.
>
>I have and it did not inspire confidence. Anyway, Acronis takes care of
>everything. They have not replied to me and apparently could not care
>less so if you like I will post a copy of my old small and perfectly
>bug-free version for you somewhere with my serial.
Far be it from me to encourage illegal activities ... (-:
[]
>I hate laptops. The keyboard (Fn key, no number keypad, 4 functions per
>key, etc.) and the mouse "substitutes" would drive me even more insane
>than I already am. I realize many people HAVE to have them for work or
>school. I am glad I am not one of them. I LIKE my desk!
I agree with you about the Fn keys; I stick to this laptop because it
has he sixpack and arrows-T as more or less as they are on a fullsize
kbd. I thought I'd never get the hang of a touchpad, either, but I have,
and now use it as easily as a mouse (it's easier for some things, and a
mouse wins for some things). I certainly don't think I'd get on with
those rubbery things that stick out of they keyboard - I didn't realise
they were actually a sort of mouse for ages, I thought they were just a
screen-protecting bump!
>
>Anyway, it took three days and a fantastic tiny utility called
>w2fix.exe to get me on BB with my "other" (now "this") 2GHz 98SELite
>machine. Since I /never/ intended to use it for internet, it did not
>have any network or dial-up components installed, and I needed to DL
My main desktop machine has never been online since I last rebuilt it
(after I replaced the mobo/proc/RAM after a mishap, some years ago). I
BB (and, to be honest, do a lot else) from this 400MHz 128M laptop.
>those at a friend's house and install them, and then it turned out my
>whole winsock/DUN thing was screwed up. The 60KB w2fix.exe program
>fixed it like magic. After 3 hours on the phone with BB support and
>them telling my I had to reinstall the whole OS (right!), next day I
>found that tiny program, ran it, and was online instantly! In fact, at
Does w2fix.exe _only_ fix online things, or - as its name suggests -
does it fix other things?
>512kbps I am FASTER (I get about 450-500kbps) than my friend who has a
>wireless 1GHz connection and barely manages 300kbps! (I have NO
>problems with wires.)
Me neither. (A wireless link is only as good as the wired link to the
wireless router; an ultrafast wireless link makes no difference at all,
unless you're transferring big files between _local_ computers.)
[]
>--
>[from a recent mental conversation]
>
>thanatoid:
>So why did you decide you wanted broadband after all your
>endless babbling about how no one except DVD pirates really
>needs it?
>
>thanatoid:
>My ISP is offering it for less than I am paying for dial-up now
It's getting that way here - pay-as-you-go dialup costs between 1.20 and
3 pounds an hour, so it isn't difficult (especially at dialup speeds) to
clock up the 6 to 10 pounds a month bottom-end BB costs.
(All-you-can-eat dialup, for the few people who might use it, already
costs more.)
>AND the offer includes some other very attractive rate
>reductions in the basic phone service charges. And I decided I
>want to read my e-mail faster 
You say that in jest, but with the already-discussed tendency of people
to put unnecessarily huge attachments on (and/or to add video), there is
some truth in it!
>
>(to be continued)
In the next thrilling instalment ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
**
http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **
Electricians do it 'till it Hz.