Last line on screen
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
New monitor three months ago, shows only half of last line. Other
than setting the monitor, is there a way to get DOS to not use the
last line? The monis on KVM switch, so I'd rathher not mess
- = -
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Remorse begets zeal] [Windows is for Bimbos]
thanatoid
news:gpkkc1$hri$1...@reader1.panix.com:
>
> New monitor three months ago, shows only half of last line.
> Other than setting the monitor, is there a way to get DOS
> to not use the last line? The monis on KVM switch, so I'd
> rathher not mess
I don't believe that is possible but you could use a different
display mode on the problematic computer, such as 600x320 or
something, I forget what they all are, there's quite a few. You
will lose a lot of your screen "real estate" but it will solve
the problem.
I have 2 machines with a KVM and as long as the monitor and all
machines are good quality, adjusting the monitor should work for
all the connected computers.
--
"Who knows what the OP is talking about?"
(about thanatoid)
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
wrote:
>vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote in
>news:gpkkc1$hri$1...@reader1.panix.com:
>
>>
>> New monitor three months ago, shows only half of last line.
>> Other than setting the monitor, is there a way to get DOS
>> to not use the last line?
No.
>>The monis on KVM switch, so I'd rathher not mess
>I don't believe that is possible but you could use a different
>display mode on the problematic computer, such as 600x320 or
>something, I forget what they all are, there's quite a few. You
>will lose a lot of your screen "real estate" but it will solve
>the problem.
>
>I have 2 machines with a KVM and as long as the monitor and all
>machines are good quality, adjusting the monitor should work for
>all the connected computers.
I have more than 2 machines on a KVM. All I do is adjust the monitor
so that the worst case display fits on the monitor. Then, all the
rest do, also. Maybe not all the way to the edge, but close enough.
So, the OP should adjust the vert height until the whole screen is
visible. Maybe there will be a small amount of black at the bottom,
but so what?
--
ArarghMail903 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.
thanatoid
news:ta8sr4hb92gvumn4o...@4ax.com:
<SNIP>
> I have more than 2 machines on a KVM. All I do is adjust
> the monitor so that the worst case display fits on the
> monitor. Then, all the rest do, also. Maybe not all the
> way to the edge, but close enough.
>
> So, the OP should adjust the vert height until the whole
> screen is visible. Maybe there will be a small amount of
> black at the bottom, but so what?
Sure. I never said there was only one way to skin a cat, so to
speak.
vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com
((I will play with the samsung monitor.. it's not that I didn't try, I
just got tired of failing.. and when my last two monitors seem to
have died in rainstorms, I am reluctant to get too attached to htis
one..))
thanatoid
news:gpmjrm$anb$1...@reader1.panix.com:
> Much obliged to all.
>
> ((I will play with the samsung monitor.. it's not that I
> didn't try, I just got tired of failing.. and when my last
> two monitors seem to have died in rainstorms, I am
> reluctant to get too attached to htis one..))
Weird. I run my system in MAJOR thunderstorms (yes, I know
EVERYONE says ya shouldn't :-) and it has lasted 11.5 years. I
DO have it plugged into a voltage regulator (voltage in some
places around the world - like here - is ridiculous) AND a UPS,
and a line conditioner probably wouldn't hurt either but I just
thought enough is enough.
My Sony 15" CRT lasted all this time, but after 5-10 hrs EVERY
day for over 11 years it developed intermittent color problems
and Sony won't fix them anymore. I refuse to use LCD's so I got
a 17" LG (last one in town I believe). Could be worse. It's nice
and bright, and has decent dot pitch, but some geo distortion
around the edges. But I hardly notice it anymore. The Sony
actually had a more annoying minor distortion about the middle
of the screen (very noticeable when scrolling an image), bult
the image quality overall WAS better of course. Life sucks and
then you die. Etc.
foxidrive
>and Sony won't fix them anymore. I refuse to use LCD's so I got
>a 17" LG (last one in town I believe).
Look at Freecycle in your area. Many people here give away their
15/17/19/21 inch CRT monitors.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
>Much obliged to all.
>
>((I will play with the samsung monitor.. it's not that I didn't try, I
>just got tired of failing.. and when my last two monitors seem to
>have died in rainstorms, I am reluctant to get too attached to htis
>one..))
BTDT. I have had 2 monitors die in the last few weeks. Everytime it
happens I have to scrounge around to find drivers for windows.
A few months before that, the monitor that I had been using for years
died. I am down to only 2 spares left. When they go, I will have to
spend a bunch of money to replace them all. :-(
thanatoid
news:s44ur41opmgbuvo9r...@4ax.com:
Alas, if you only knew what shithole I live in... A 15 year old
14" CRT is like $40 here...
And if I attempted to import one or get one from eBay it would
arrive in pieces and I would be charged $200 import duties.
thanatoid
news:ju5ur4lhjjd66pufa...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:29:10 +0000 (UTC),
> vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
>
>>Much obliged to all.
>>
>>((I will play with the samsung monitor.. it's not that I
>>didn't try, I just got tired of failing.. and when my last
>>two monitors seem to have died in rainstorms, I am
>>reluctant to get too attached to htis one..))
> BTDT. I have had 2 monitors die in the last few weeks.
> Everytime it happens I have to scrounge around to find
> drivers for windows.
I like to have /the/ driver too, but "plug-and-play" monitor is
more than sufficient in most cases. It's good to know what
refresh rates your monitor is capable of sop you don't blow it
up.
> A few months before that, the monitor that I had been using
> for years died. I am down to only 2 spares left. When
> they go, I will have to spend a bunch of money to replace
> them all. :-(
Well, I hear something called "Freecycle" gives them away from
free (thanks foxidrive).
foxidrive
>> A few months before that, the monitor that I had been using
>> for years died. I am down to only 2 spares left. When
>> they go, I will have to spend a bunch of money to replace
>> them all. :-(
>
>Well, I hear something called "Freecycle" gives them away from
>free (thanks foxidrive).
yw
thanatoid
news:cggur4hbtpm8m184v...@4ax.com:
<SNIP>
>>Well, I hear something called "Freecycle" gives them away
>>from free (thanks foxidrive).
>
> yw
>
> http://www.freecycle.org/
WOW. If you hadn't posted that I would not have found a group in
my town.
I wasn't expecting much, but the average monthly is *10* ads,
with max being under 50. Whoopseedoo.
Life really sucks sometimes.
Or is that ALWAYS????
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
wrote:
>ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote in
>news:ju5ur4lhjjd66pufa...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:29:10 +0000 (UTC),
>> vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
>>
>>>Much obliged to all.
>>>
>>>((I will play with the samsung monitor.. it's not that I
>>>didn't try, I just got tired of failing.. and when my last
>>>two monitors seem to have died in rainstorms, I am
>>>reluctant to get too attached to htis one..))
>> BTDT. I have had 2 monitors die in the last few weeks.
>> Everytime it happens I have to scrounge around to find
>> drivers for windows.
>
>I like to have /the/ driver too, but "plug-and-play" monitor is
>more than sufficient in most cases. It's good to know what
>refresh rates your monitor is capable of sop you don't blow it
>up.
That's why I go to the trouble to dig up the drivers. The PnP driver
is not quite good enough for me with the new 'used' monitor, a Sony
G400. Since the video cards are different in all the systems, even at
1024x768 the display wasn't correct until I installed the monitor
driver. Also, I couldn't get sizes like 1600x1200 without it.
>> A few months before that, the monitor that I had been using
>> for years died. I am down to only 2 spares left. When
>> they go, I will have to spend a bunch of money to replace
>> them all. :-(
>
>Well, I hear something called "Freecycle" gives them away from
>free (thanks foxidrive).
They need to clean up their FAQ. I took a quick look at the web site
and couldn't figure out how to use it.
foxidrive
wrote:
>>Well, I hear something called "Freecycle" gives them away from
>>free (thanks foxidrive).
>They need to clean up their FAQ. I took a quick look at the web site
>and couldn't figure out how to use it.
My location here uses Yahoo Groups as the intermediary. People join the
Yahoo Group in their county and offer goods for free that they no longer
want. Other people in the yahoo group read the offerings and reply
directly to the person offering, and arrange to collect the goods.
The freecycle website just collects the list of locations.
thanatoid
news:a5kur410rv4vkea2l...@4ax.com:
> On 17 Mar 2009 04:49:38 GMT, thanatoid
> <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>
>>ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote in
>>news:ju5ur4lhjjd66pufa...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:29:10 +0000 (UTC),
>>> vjp...@at.BioStrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>Much obliged to all.
>>>>
>>>>((I will play with the samsung monitor.. it's not that I
>>>>didn't try, I just got tired of failing.. and when my
>>>>last two monitors seem to have died in rainstorms, I am
>>>>reluctant to get too attached to htis one..))
>>> BTDT. I have had 2 monitors die in the last few weeks.
>>> Everytime it happens I have to scrounge around to find
>>> drivers for windows.
>>
>>I like to have /the/ driver too, but "plug-and-play"
>>monitor is more than sufficient in most cases. It's good to
>>know what refresh rates your monitor is capable of sop you
>>don't blow it up.
> That's why I go to the trouble to dig up the drivers. The
> PnP driver is not quite good enough for me with the new
> 'used' monitor, a Sony G400. Since the video cards are
> different in all the systems, even at 1024x768 the display
> wasn't correct until I installed the monitor driver. Also,
> I couldn't get sizes like 1600x1200 without it.
Yes, that could be. BION, I have used 800x600 for about 17 years
no, even with this 17" I have nopw.
But I REALLY don't think drivers are hard to find.
Here's one place (free registration, NO spam):
Searched for Sony G400, 17 hits.
>>> A few months before that, the monitor that I had been
>>> using for years died. I am down to only 2 spares left.
>>> When they go, I will have to spend a bunch of money to
>>> replace them all. :-(
>>
>>Well, I hear something called "Freecycle" gives them away
>>from free (thanks foxidrive).
> They need to clean up their FAQ. I took a quick look at
> the web site and couldn't figure out how to use it.
Well, most ads in MY country were asking FOR things, but if you
can get a free monitor I think it might be worth spending some
time learning to use the site ;-)
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
wrote:
<snip>
>
>Yes, that could be. BION, I have used 800x600 for about 17 years
>no, even with this 17" I have nopw.
>
>But I REALLY don't think drivers are hard to find.
>Here's one place (free registration, NO spam):
>
>http://www.driverguide.com
others like it. A lot of them seem to want to "scan for computer for
???", which raises a large flag.
>Searched for Sony G400, 17 hits.
I already have them, thanks. Don't remember where I finally found
them. I try to get them from the mfgr site. Less chance of catching
something.
<snip>
>
>Well, most ads in MY country were asking FOR things, but if you
>can get a free monitor I think it might be worth spending some
>time learning to use the site ;-)
Well, except for 2 that I bought new, all the monitors I have were
given to me by people who had upgraded and didn't need the old one.
When it comes time, I will probably get 3 17" or 19" flat panels.
Maybe I could find some Dell refurbs. But it should be a few years,
yet.
thanatoid
news:1oi0s4d2q1p8e45el...@4ax.com:
> On 17 Mar 2009 18:02:21 GMT, thanatoid
> <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
> <snip>
>>
>>Yes, that could be. BION, I have used 800x600 for about 17
>>years no, even with this 17" I have nopw.
>>
>>But I REALLY don't think drivers are hard to find.
>>Here's one place (free registration, NO spam):
>>
>>http://www.driverguide.com
> I have become somewhat leery about that site, and the 99
> zillion others like it. A lot of them seem to want to
> "scan for computer for ???", which raises a large flag.
That one doesn't, it is one of the best. I especially "love" the
ones which are nothing but search engines and which try to make
you pay to access the fucking links!
>>Searched for Sony G400, 17 hits.
> I already have them, thanks. Don't remember where I
> finally found them. I try to get them from the mfgr site.
> Less chance of catching something.
ESET32 AV.
<SNIP>
> When it comes time, I will probably get 3 17" or 19" flat
> panels. Maybe I could find some Dell refurbs. But it
> should be a few years, yet.
LCD image quality BLOWS. IMHO.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
wrote:
<SNIP>
>> When it comes time, I will probably get 3 17" or 19" flat
>> panels. Maybe I could find some Dell refurbs. But it
>> should be a few years, yet.
>
>LCD image quality BLOWS. IMHO.
True. Mostly. Some may not be too bad. I haven't yet looked.
But the problem is that LCDs are the current *IN* thing. So, they are
going to cost less and be more widely available than the CRT types.
The G400s were, what, about $1000 new? I don't know - I never bought
any. But the problem is that in a few years it might cost more than
$3000 for 3 new CRT monitors of G400 quality or maybe $300 for 3 LCDs
of the same size, with hopefully a similar quality. Maybe.
LCDs are also less than 1/4 the weight for the same size. :-)
Adam
ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
>LCDs are also less than 1/4 the weight for the same size. :-)
Other positives:
http://www.explan.co.uk/hardware/scrn.html
The modern LCD monitors have many advantages over the earlier
generation of cathode ray tube (crt) screens:
* No X-ray radiation hazard
* Lower power consumption (typically 70% less than a crt)
Richard Bonner
> My Sony 15" CRT lasted all this time, but after 5-10 hrs EVERY
> day for over 11 years it developed intermittent color problems
> and Sony won't fix them anymore. I refuse to use LCD's so I got
> a 17" LG (last one in town I believe).
*** I dislike the LCDs too. I won't give up my half-metre, Sony
Trinitrons!
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
Richard Bonner
> ...I have used 800x600 for about 17 years
> no, even with this 17" I have now.
*** I use different resolutions depending on which program I run. I
prefer text programs to be 80 columns, which usually means 640. Otherwise,
sentences stretch too long across the screen which makes reading them
annoying. I set spreadsheets to higher numbers of columns so that I can
view more data at once.
Graphic programs I usually prefer to be at 1024. I use 800 when
using a graphic browser on the Internet.
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
Richard Bonner
*** Negatives:
Only one full-screen resolution
Blurring is greater during scrolling
Viewing angle is less
Wide angle screens lose too much area compared to same-width 1:1.33
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
thanatoid
news:ec61s495ii8fp37ak...@4ax.com:
<SNIP>
> The G400s were, what, about $1000 new? I don't know - I
> never bought any. But the problem is that in a few years
...you mean already :-(((
> it might cost more than $3000 for 3 new CRT monitors of
> G400 quality or maybe $300 for 3 LCDs of the same size,
> with hopefully a similar quality. Maybe.
Re: quality. MAYBE. Probably not.
> LCDs are also less than 1/4 the weight for the same size.
> :-)
Like I always say, how often do you move your
desktop/workstation?
If you ///have/// to move all the time, use a laptop and live
with the LCD and ridiculous costs of operation/repairs.
thanatoid
news:o1b2s4l8201r7tg25...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 02:00:37 -0500,
> ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
>
>>LCDs are also less than 1/4 the weight for the same size. :-)
>
> Other positives:
> http://www.explan.co.uk/hardware/scrn.html
> The modern LCD monitors have many advantages over the earlier
> generation of cathode ray tube (crt) screens:
> * No X-ray radiation hazard
Emitted almost exclusively from the REAR of the monitor, and
eliminated to virtually insignificant levels since the late
90's. You'll get a tumor from your cellphone first.
> * Lower power consumption (typically 70% less than a crt)
A *vast* exaggeration (especially considering how much
//larger// the LCD's tend to be, which makes them use MORE power
in "real-life" terms) perpetrated by the massive "public
relations" brainwashers employed to shove this down our bleating
throats, *nor* excusing all the numerous disadvantages of the
LCD and the fact that people who buy them really couldn't care
less about electricity. They are either cheap and/or try to pat
themselves on the back for being ecologically minded, but mostly
they just like being flashy, sexy, and "latest tech". Too bad
that inside they're the same assholes they always were and will
be. (Until their cell phones kill them, that is.)
thanatoid
news:gpvtje$4nm$4...@Kil-nws-1.UCIS.Dal.Ca:
Thank you (and hello again). These fights are murder with no
help. People are SO brainwashed.
And there are even more problems but you mentioned the most
important ones.
thanatoid
> thanatoid (wai...@the.exit.invalid) wrote:
>> My Sony 15" CRT lasted all this time, but after 5-10 hrs
>> EVERY day for over 11 years it developed intermittent
>> color problems and Sony won't fix them anymore. I refuse
>> to use LCD's so I got a 17" LG (last one in town I
>> believe).
> (Snip)
>
> *** I dislike the LCDs too. I won't give up my
> half-metre, Sony Trinitrons!
Did you ever see the big widescreen Trini that went for about 3
grand (US) when it came out, about 6 years ago or so? You can
still find a few for about $3-500 (US) if you look hard enough.
AMAZING. (Although a 1.33 ratio would have been fine, or at
least two models to choose from.)
thanatoid
I tried the 768x1024 on this 17", AND on the Sony (it could do
it, of course) but I see no point. The 35mm 1.33 ratio film
resolution was about equivalent to 800x600 pixels and that's
good enough for me. You couldn't drag me into an IMAX.
And the ONLY program I ever found which would NOT run in 800x600
and HAD to have the higher resolution was a really good Scrabble
version. All the squares were just NOT legible at 800x600 -
maybe they COULD be, but the program would NOT run at 800x600.
(IIRC, playing Scrabble all by yourself is a little boring, so I
only played with it for a few days.)
And all the jerks who make stupid web sites should learn to put
in the 15 lines of code which makes the page adjust itself to
EVERY resolution instead of MAKING us scroll all over the place.
Grrrr...
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
wrote:
>ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote in
>news:ec61s495ii8fp37ak...@4ax.com:
>
><SNIP>
>> The G400s were, what, about $1000 new? I don't know - I
>> never bought any. But the problem is that in a few years
>...you mean already :-(((
>> it might cost more than $3000 for 3 new CRT monitors of
>> G400 quality or maybe $300 for 3 LCDs of the same size,
>> with hopefully a similar quality. Maybe.
>
>Re: quality. MAYBE. Probably not.
No, probably not.
>> LCDs are also less than 1/4 the weight for the same size.
>Like I always say, how often do you move your
>desktop/workstation?
Everytime a monitor dies. 3 times in the last 6 months. The 17s
weren't too bad, but the G400 nearly broke my back. :-)
>If you ///have/// to move all the time, use a laptop and live
>with the LCD and ridiculous costs of operation/repairs.
My initial dislike of LCDs came from laptops. :-)
Also, for some reason, I have almost no luck with rechargable
batteries, (except the automotive kind - car batteries, that is). They
always seem to up and quit before their rated life.
thanatoid
news:i778s4tsb6k4kdqet...@4ax.com:
> On 20 Mar 2009 22:06:20 GMT, thanatoid
> <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
<SNIP>
>>Like I always say, how often do you move your
>>desktop/workstation?
> Everytime a monitor dies. 3 times in the last 6 months.
Wow. That IS bad. I have had about 4 or 5 HD's die in 15 years,
but no monitors except the Sony which was WAY overdue. What
brand were they?
> The 17s weren't too bad, but the G400 nearly broke my back.
> :-)
I believe it. Always lift with your knees, never the back. Get a
friend to help, don't be a macho fool. ;-)
>>If you ///have/// to move all the time, use a laptop and
>>live with the LCD and ridiculous costs of
>>operation/repairs.
> My initial dislike of LCDs came from laptops. :-)
I hate them, I was just saying IF someone HAS be mobile... Some
business people have to...
> Also, for some reason, I have almost no luck with
> rechargable batteries, (except the automotive kind - car
> batteries, that is). They always seem to up and quit before
> their rated life.
That's because everyone lies about everything. In OLD days of
16mm film, and video recorders the size of large suitcases, MANY
people used car batteries for power instead of the more
expensive and 1/50 the usable up-time original ones. I was once
in a thread about using car batteries with UPS's instead of the
little black ones you're supposed to, which keep on getting more
expensive and are now all made in China it seems. Some people
claim to have had great success with car batteries and UPS's.
Batteries are a nightmare. I sympathize.
Richard Bonner
> ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner) wrot:
> > (Re: LCD Monitors)
> > *** Negatives:
> >
> > Only one full-screen resolution
> > Blurring is greater during scrolling
> > Viewing angle is less
> > Wide angle screens lose too much area compared to
> > same-width 1:1.33
> >
> > Richard Bonner
> Thank you (and hello again). These fights are murder with no
> help. People are SO brainwashed.
*** Well... maybe. For those that find the above not to be problematic,
I can't say that the term "brainwashed" applies.
> And there are even more problems but you mentioned the most
> important ones.
*** One other that I forgot to mention is the level of blacks. LCDs
have improved a lot regarding that point, but I still find the Trinitrons
to have greater depth of blacks.
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
Richard Bonner
> > half-metre, Sony Trinitrons!
> Did you ever see the big widescreen Trini that went for about 3
> grand (US) when it came out, about 6 years ago or so? You can
> still find a few for about $3-500 (US) if you look hard enough.
*** Sorry, no, I never saw it.
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
Richard Bonner
> ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner) wrot:
> > thanatoid (wai...@the.exit.invalid) wrote:
> >> ...I have used 800x600 for about 17 years
> >
> > *** I use different resolutions depending on which
> > program I run. I prefer text programs to be 80 columns,
> > which usually means 640. Otherwise, sentences stretch too
> > long across the screen which makes reading them annoying. I
> > set spreadsheets to higher numbers of columns so that I can
> > view more data at once.
> >
> > Graphic programs I usually prefer to be at 1024. I use
> > 800 when using a graphic browser on the Internet.
> >
> > Richard Bonner
> I tried the 768x1024 on this 17", AND on the Sony (it could do
> it, of course) but I see no point.
*** It depends on the purpose. When I work on graphics, I prefer at
least 800, but usually 1024.
> The 35mm 1.33 ratio film resolution was about equivalent to 800x600
> pixels and that's good enough for me. You couldn't drag me into an IMAX.
*** Hmm - I love IMAX. It's a big image but the screen ratio is not
actually that wide. Can anyone remember what its ratio is?
As for widescreen, you would have gotten along with those film
directors that hated CinemaScope when it first came out.
> And all the jerks who make stupid web sites should learn to put
> in the 15 lines of code which makes the page adjust itself to
> EVERY resolution instead of MAKING us scroll all over the place.
> Grrrr...
*** What code is that?
I compose webpages at 800 and view at 640 and 1024 to be sure my pages
display properly. Paragraph tags adjust to the user's screen window
automatically. As for all else, except for photo layouts, I simply make
sure that any tables are set to percentage widths and not absolute ones.
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
wrote:
>ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote in
>news:i778s4tsb6k4kdqet...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 20 Mar 2009 22:06:20 GMT, thanatoid
>> <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>
>>>Like I always say, how often do you move your
>>>desktop/workstation?
>> Everytime a monitor dies. 3 times in the last 6 months.
>
>Wow. That IS bad. I have had about 4 or 5 HD's die in 15 years,
>but no monitors except the Sony which was WAY overdue. What
>brand were they?
1) a 1994 Viewsonic 17
2) a 1998 Viewsonic E771
3) a 2000 CTX PR700F
There is a repair shop in the next town over, I will see if they want
to try to fix them.
>
>> The 17s weren't too bad, but the G400 nearly broke my back.
>> :-)
>
>I believe it. Always lift with your knees, never the back.
I know. However my knees aren't strong enough, so I had to snatch it
off the floor. At least there were no stairs involved in the move.
>Get a friend to help, don't be a macho fool. ;-)
None live close enough.
>
>>>If you ///have/// to move all the time, use a laptop and
>>>live with the LCD and ridiculous costs of
>>>operation/repairs.
>> My initial dislike of LCDs came from laptops. :-)
>
>I hate them, I was just saying IF someone HAS be mobile... Some
>business people have to...
>
>> Also, for some reason, I have almost no luck with
>> rechargable batteries, (except the automotive kind - car
>> batteries, that is). They always seem to up and quit before
>> their rated life.
>
>That's because everyone lies about everything. In OLD days of
>16mm film, and video recorders the size of large suitcases, MANY
>people used car batteries for power instead of the more
>expensive and 1/50 the usable up-time original ones. I was once
>in a thread about using car batteries with UPS's instead of the
>little black ones you're supposed to, which keep on getting more
>expensive and are now all made in China it seems. Some people
>claim to have had great success with car batteries and UPS's.
>
>Batteries are a nightmare. I sympathize.
It has to do with charging current. Most UPS chargers are only rated
for the 5 or 10 amp hour batteries they come with, and will burn out
trying to charge a discharged 100 or 200 amp hour car battery. If the
charger is current limited and temperature protected, it would
probably work, except the recharge time would be several days.
Also, at least on the (broken) UPS I have, its charger tended to keep
the battery at a high float - 14-15 volts or so - and AFAIK, car
batteries are designed to be charged to around 13.5 volts or so. The
constant overcharging wouldn't be all that good.
I have been told that deep cycle marine batteries would be better.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
(Richard Bonner) wrote:
<snip>
>
>*** What code is that?
>
> I compose webpages at 800 and view at 640 and 1024 to be sure my pages
>display properly. Paragraph tags adjust to the user's screen window
>automatically. As for all else, except for photo layouts, I simply make
>sure that any tables are set to percentage widths and not absolute ones.
>
That is of course the correct way to do it, but there are still too
many pages that don't display correctly.
On a lot of pages where I increase the text size (so I can read it
more easily) the display becomes jumbled because too much of the text
appears to be absolute positioned.
thanatoid
The tiny mechanical LCD is incapable, *DUE TO ITS ESSENTIAL
DESIGN*, of producing a true 0% black. This is actually one of
The MAIN reasons they are garbage if you care at all about image
quality in anything but video games or text processing.
thanatoid
> thanatoid (wai...@the.exit.invalid) wrote:
>> ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner) wrot:
>>
>> I tried the 768x1024 on this 17", AND on the Sony (it
>> could do it, of course) but I see no point.
I was of course speaking purely from my own point of view. If I
had better eyes and a 21" CRT I'm sure I would have it set to
1200x1600 or something. But I was actually worried 17" was going
to be too big. 19" IS too big for me.
>> The 35mm 1.33 ratio film resolution was about equivalent
>> to 800x600 pixels and that's good enough for me. You
>> couldn't drag me into an IMAX.
>
> *** Hmm - I love IMAX. It's a big image but the screen
> ratio is not actually that wide. Can anyone remember what
> its ratio is?
Wiki probably do...
1.44:1
That's a weird one, but I would say it does approximate the
human eye's the most...
I'm surprised they didn't up the frame rate - it's still 24. I
would have thought they might as well go with 30 if not 45 - but
I guess film stock costs would double then.
> As for widescreen, you would have gotten along with
> those film
> directors that hated CinemaScope when it first came out.
Cinemascope was OK except for the stupid principle - they would
have gotten MUCH better image quality dividing the 35mm frame in
2 horizontally and cropping it so it wouldn;t be 2.66.
I used to be a projectionist (16 and 35) when I was in college
and the inconsistency of spect ratios with the aperture masks
with the often varying (due to different cameras used on the
same film with the director either not caring or hoping that the
projectionist would do things right - but HOW could we when the
aspect ratio was almost never specified?) film print aspect
ratios (jumping between shots in one scene in some instances)
was maddening.
I was talking about computers exclusively. While half the films
made when the word cinema still meant something were shot in
1.33, my favorite aspect ratio is 1.85.
>> And all the jerks who make stupid web sites should learn
>> to put in the 15 lines of code which makes the page adjust
>> itself to EVERY resolution instead of MAKING us scroll all
>> over the place. Grrrr...
>
> *** What code is that?
I just read it the other day in one of the 5 or so old computer
magazines I kept... I only made a few web pages "internally"
many years ago so I know next to nothing about it except I hate
it, but I'll find it and post it here for you. It may or may not
still apply - people have been inflicting major abuse on web
standards. WTF is MS's "mspx" page extension? Just call it
*.billisgod and be done with it, FFS. (I may be repeating
myself, but I find that /extremely/ offensive. What if EVERY
software company created their own extensions for everything
they did?
I am surprised you don't have to pay a royalty every time you
say a "word" - as in Word!)
BTW, I started going through some of you DOS links.
These are dead:
http://www.cs.vu.nl/~rcblanke/access/access.html
AUMenu
http://members.aol.com/aumenu/menudwn.html
BZH.BAT
http://jamrent.50megs.com/dos/lin.htm#DOSdesk
thanatoid
news:6lnds4pfjgq11qnnc...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:05:44 +0000 (UTC),
> ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>>*** What code is that?
>>
>> I compose webpages at 800 and view at 640 and 1024 to be
>> sure my pages
>>display properly. Paragraph tags adjust to the user's
>>screen window automatically. As for all else, except for
>>photo layouts, I simply make sure that any tables are set
>>to percentage widths and not absolute ones.
>>
> That is of course the correct way to do it, but there are
> still too many pages that don't display correctly.
>
> On a lot of pages where I increase the text size (so I can
> read it more easily) the display becomes jumbled because
> too much of the text appears to be absolute positioned.
Well, why should web page designers be any smarter than any
other average person? Besides I am sure many *enjoy* inflicting
fixed sizes and 10 minute non-skippable flash intros on us -
perhaps because many of them are 18 year old frustrated virgins.
I guess it's better than getting a gun and shooting 10 of your
classmates.
Opera has had a zoom feature which works wonderfully, I suggest
you try it - it IS the best, safest, and most consistently
updated/patched browser.
thanatoid
news:3tlds4tnkrfspa8vg...@4ax.com:
<SNIP>
> I have been told that deep cycle marine batteries would be
> better.
Wow, you know a lot - that was the conclusion of the thread as
well! Of course, the cost of one of those pretty much defeats
the purpose of the whole thing.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
wrote:
>ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote in
>news:3tlds4tnkrfspa8vg...@4ax.com:
>
><SNIP>
>
>> I have been told that deep cycle marine batteries would be
>> better.
>
>Wow, you know a lot - that was the conclusion of the thread as
>well! Of course, the cost of one of those pretty much defeats
>the purpose of the whole thing.
I did my research. :-)
My UPS would have taken about $1000 worth of car batteries - if I
bought large capacity high quality. And thats about 15 years ago.
It took about $300 for the gelcels it is supposed to use - and they
only lasted 2 or 3 years.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
>> On a lot of pages where I increase the text size (so I can
>> read it more easily) the display becomes jumbled because
>> too much of the text appears to be absolute positioned.
>
>Well, why should web page designers be any smarter than any
>other average person? Besides I am sure many *enjoy* inflicting
>fixed sizes and 10 minute non-skippable flash intros on us -
installed. If for some strange reason I feel I have to get into the
site, I just google the URL with the "site:" option, and pick a page
other that the head. Normally, when I hit a flash site, I just close
it.
>perhaps because many of them are 18 year old frustrated virgins.
More like 10 year old.
>I guess it's better than getting a gun and shooting 10 of your
>classmates.
Too messy. :-)
>Opera has had a zoom feature which works wonderfully, I suggest
>you try it - it IS the best, safest, and most consistently
>updated/patched browser.
I have been using Mozilla - in its various named versions - since
version 0.5 or 0.6, just as I have been using Agent as a newsreader
since version 0.99, and have no intention of changing either. :-)
As long as they install on W2K. :-)
I did try Opera, back in 1997 - versions 212e & 3.00 it appears from
the install files - I don't remember just why I never used it.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
wrote:
>ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner) wrote in
>news:gq6joo$mrc$1...@Kil-nws-1.UCIS.Dal.Ca:
>
>> thanatoid (wai...@the.exit.invalid) wrote:
>>> ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner) wrot:
>>>
>>> I tried the 768x1024 on this 17", AND on the Sony (it
>>> could do it, of course) but I see no point.
>
>I was of course speaking purely from my own point of view. If I
>had better eyes and a 21" CRT I'm sure I would have it set to
>1200x1600 or something. But I was actually worried 17" was going
>to be too big. 19" IS too big for me.
I thought 19" would be too big for me also, but now that I am using it
- I kinda like it. Of course, it could also just the higher quality
of the Sony monitor.
I had a chance to get 3 21" monitors - they were way too heavy. The
19" is heavy enough. And it I can get the 17"s repaired I will
probably go back to them.
<snip>
thanatoid
news:kdqes4dj25ne3kuui...@4ax.com:
> I have a permanent block on flash files - don't even have
> the player installed. If for some strange reason I feel I
> have to get into the site, I just google the URL with the
> "site:" option
Thanks for this info! I have tried to circumvent this crap, and
I have managed to get to javascript stuff by analyzing the
source of the page, but it's a tedious process.
Richard Bonner
> (Richard Bonner) wrote:
(Re: Eliminating Webpage Side Scrolling)
> > I compose webpages at 800 and view at 640 and 1024 to be sure my pages
> >display properly. Paragraph tags adjust to the user's screen window
> >automatically. As for all else, except for photo layouts, I simply make
> >sure that any tables are set to percentage widths and not absolute ones.
> >
> That is of course the correct way to do it, but there are still too
> many pages that don't display correctly.
*** On my websites?
> On a lot of pages where I increase the text size (so I can read it
> more easily) the display becomes jumbled because too much of the text
> appears to be absolute positioned.
*** Does your browser increase just the text size or the images too?
If text appears to be absolutely positioned, it may be because break
tags at the end of each sentence or absolute-width tables have been used.
Of course, enlarging text to too much of a degree will cause layout
problems almost regardless of what an author does.
I view all of my websites on as many browsers, on as many systems, with
as many monitor types as possible. I then re-code to fix the major
differences. Since I keep my sites very simple as far as html coding goes,
with little to no eye-candy, this is generally an easy thing to do. Even
the ones that were once hard to fix are easy now because I have learned to
code initially for them.
My current complaint is that too many recent browser versions no
longer follow w3c guidelines. In particular, tables are poorly rendered by
many. )-:
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
Richard Bonner
> > ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner) wrote:
> > (Re: LCD Monitors)
> > *** One other that I forgot to mention is the level of
> > blacks. LCDs have improved a lot regarding that point, but
> > I still find the Trinitrons to have greater depth of
> > blacks.
> The tiny mechanical LCD is incapable, *DUE TO ITS ESSENTIAL
> DESIGN*, of producing a true 0% black. This is actually one of
> The MAIN reasons they are garbage if you care at all about image
> quality in anything but video games or text processing.
*** I think "garbage" is an excessive adjective. I simply prefer the
Trinitrons over the LCDs at this point in their development.
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
Richard Bonner
> ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner) wrote:
> > thanatoid (wai...@the.exit.invalid) wrote:
> >> The 35mm 1.33 ratio film resolution was about equivalent
> >> to 800x600 pixels and that's good enough for me. You
> >> couldn't drag me into an IMAX.
> >
> > *** Hmm - I love IMAX. It's a big image but the screen
> > ratio is not actually that wide. Can anyone remember what
> > its ratio is?
> Wiki probably do...
> 1.44:1
> That's a weird one, but I would say it does approximate the
> human eyes the most...
*** As I thought: it's not much wider than the standard 1.33 to 1
ratio.
> I'm surprised they didn't up the frame rate - it's still 24. I
> would have thought they might as well go with 30 if not 45 - but
> I guess film stock costs would double then.
*** Yes it would. I believe it was Doug Trumbull(*) who experimented
with a frame rate of 72. Film critics found the action to be much smoother
and clearer because 24 frames a second will blur greater during fast,
unpanned motion. However, the production cost was too great, as was the
cost of refitting theaters with the faster projectors.
> > As for widescreen, you would have gotten along with those
> > film directors that hated CinemaScope when it first came
> > out.
> Cinemascope was OK except for the stupid principle - they would
> have gotten MUCH better image quality dividing the 35mm frame in
> 2 horizontally and cropping it so it wouldn;t be 2.66.
*** That is what is done today to get the wide-screen ratio of 2.35.
However, because it is 35mm film, when it is enlarged, it is less clear
than wide-screen processes of old. Of course, that means little in the
mini-screened theaters of today.
> I used to be a projectionist (16 and 35) when I was in college
> and the inconsistency of spect ratios with the aperture masks
> with the often varying (due to different cameras used on the
> same film with the director either not caring or hoping that the
> projectionist would do things right - but HOW could we when the
> aspect ratio was almost never specified?) film print aspect
> ratios (jumping between shots in one scene in some instances)
> was maddening.
*** That reminds me of the silent days when film speeds were never
exactly spscified. Some theaters would speed up the film slightly to
squeeze in more showings in a day. That still goes on at radio stations
where music is sped up to make room for more commercials.
> I was talking about computers exclusively. While half the films
> made when the word cinema still meant something were shot in
> 1.33, my favorite aspect ratio is 1.85.
*** That is close to wide-screen LCDs of today which are typically
1.78 ratio.
> >> And all the jerks who make stupid web sites should learn
> >> to put in the 15 lines of code which makes the page adjust
> >> itself to EVERY resolution instead of MAKING us scroll all
> >> over the place. Grrrr...
> >
> > *** What code is that?
> I just read it the other day in one of the 5 or so old computer
> magazines I kept... I only made a few web pages "internally"
> many years ago so I know next to nothing about it except I hate
> it, but I'll find it and post it here for you.
*** Since we have gotten off topic for this group, could you e-mail
it to me?
> It may or may not
> still apply - people have been inflicting major abuse on web
> standards. WTF is MS's "mspx" page extension? Just call it
> *.billisgod and be done with it, FFS. (I may be repeating
> myself, but I find that /extremely/ offensive. What if EVERY
> software company created their own extensions for everything
> they did?
*** Some do to some extent. That is the reason for the growing
backlash and the cry for standards.
> BTW, I started going through some of you DOS links.
> These are dead:
(Snip)
*** Thanks. I am very busy this time of the year and with thousands of
links on four websites, it is some time before I can weed out the dead
ones.
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
(*) Doug Trumbull did special effects for "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Silent
Running", "Close Encounters..." and many other films.
R.
Richard Bonner
> >ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
> > ...why should web page designers be any smarter than any
> >other average person? Besides I am sure many *enjoy* inflicting
> >fixed sizes and 10 minute non-skippable flash intros on us -
> I have a permanent block on flash files - don't even have the player
> installed. If for some strange reason I feel I have to get into the
> site, I just google the URL with the "site:" option, and pick a page
> other that the head. Normally, when I hit a flash site, I just close
> it.
> >perhaps because many of them are 18 year old frustrated virgins.
> >
> More like 10 year old.
*** I can't agree. I place the blame on pagemaker software and the fact
that too many computer users think that everyone has the same
model computers with the same software and hardware, and all assigned to
the same settings. They would be surprised if they viewed their work on
enough systems.
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
(Richard Bonner) wrote:
>ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
>
>> (Richard Bonner) wrote:
>(Re: Eliminating Webpage Side Scrolling)
>> > I compose webpages at 800 and view at 640 and 1024 to be sure my pages
>> >display properly. Paragraph tags adjust to the user's screen window
>> >automatically. As for all else, except for photo layouts, I simply make
>> >sure that any tables are set to percentage widths and not absolute ones.
>> >
>> That is of course the correct way to do it, but there are still too
>> many pages that don't display correctly.
>
>*** On my websites?
No, on the web in general. Your pages - the ones I looked at - expand
quite nicely.
>
>
>> On a lot of pages where I increase the text size (so I can read it
>> more easily) the display becomes jumbled because too much of the text
>> appears to be absolute positioned.
>
>*** Does your browser increase just the text size or the images too?
Just text.
>If text appears to be absolutely positioned, it may be because break
>tags at the end of each sentence or absolute-width tables have been used.
>Of course, enlarging text to too much of a degree will cause layout
>problems almost regardless of what an author does.
I more than doubled the text size on your pages, and had no problems.
>
> I view all of my websites on as many browsers, on as many systems, with
>as many monitor types as possible. I then re-code to fix the major
>differences. Since I keep my sites very simple as far as html coding goes,
>with little to no eye-candy, this is generally an easy thing to do. Even
>the ones that were once hard to fix are easy now because I have learned to
>code initially for them.
>
> My current complaint is that too many recent browser versions no
>longer follow w3c guidelines. In particular, tables are poorly rendered by
>many. )-:
>
> Richard Bonner
>http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
thanatoid
I'm fond of the word garbage. I just read an article about the
CES Las Vegas and LG now have an LCD which /claims/ 2 million to
1 contrast range. This just might imply that true black IS now
possible. I am sure someday LCD's MAY become an acceptable
option, but I am also sure CRT's will be back at ridiculously
inflated prices.
thanatoid
<SNIP>
> *** That reminds me of the silent days when film speeds
> were never exactly spscified. Some theaters would speed up
> the film slightly to squeeze in more showings in a day.
> That still goes on at radio stations where music is sped up
> to make room for more commercials.
WOW! NOTING is sacred anymore. You learn something new AND
horrible everyday!
I /would/ say thanks but I wish I had never found this out!
>> I was talking about computers exclusively. While half the
>> films made when the word cinema still meant something were
>> shot in 1.33, my favorite aspect ratio is 1.85.
>
> *** That is close to wide-screen LCDs of today which are
> typically 1.78 ratio.
I know. I think they chose the somewhat bizarre 16x9 because
they were afraid no one would understand the decimal point
aspect ratio figures and anything like 1.75 or 1.85 would have
been WAY too decimal-y.
>> >> And all the jerks who make stupid web sites should
>> >> learn to put in the 15 lines of code which makes the
>> >> page adjust itself to EVERY resolution instead of
>> >> MAKING us scroll all over the place. Grrrr...
>> >
>> > *** What code is that?
>
>> I just read it the other day in one of the 5 or so old
>> computer magazines I kept... I only made a few web pages
>> "internally" many years ago so I know next to nothing
>> about it except I hate it, but I'll find it and post it
>> here for you.
>
> *** Since we have gotten off topic for this group, could
> you e-mail it to me?
I think the 5 people that visit here can live with that ;-)
I'd rather post it. I just scanned it and I am about to post it
to alt.binaries.test.gogo. Let me know if you don't get that
group.
> (*) Doug Trumbull did special effects for "2001: A Space
> Odyssey", "Silent Running", "Close Encounters..." and many
> other films.
I knew that ;-)
I was in film schools, learning and teaching, for over a decade.
Coiling cables (and other long tubular things) so they never
kink and always unwind in a perfectly straight line was the only
really useful thing I learned.
thanatoid
<SNIP>
>> >perhaps because many of them are 18 year old frustrated
>> >virgins.
>> >
>> More like 10 year old.
>
> *** I can't agree. I place the blame on pagemaker
I think you should say page-building software, Pagemaker is a
great DTP program as I am sure you know. I still use 6.52 and it
has a better text editor than many word processors.
> software and the fact that too many computer users think
> that everyone has the same model computers with the same
> software and hardware, and all assigned to the same
> settings.
No one is THAT stupid. It may not be ALL sexual frustration, but
it is just laziness and carelessness and not giving a crap.
> They would be surprised if they viewed their work
> on enough systems.
Any decent web designer does - if they care at all.
Paul Bartlett
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, thanatoid wrote:
> [...]
> Opera has had a zoom feature which works wonderfully, I suggest
> you try it - it IS the best, safest, and most consistently
> updated/patched browser.
Opera is my browser of choice, and I use it every day. Unfortunately,
there are those websites that are "optimized" for Internet Explorer and
simply will not work correctly with other browsers. My public library
recently installed some new web pages backed up by God-only-knows-what
sort of software. It broke with Opera. I finally managed to get
through to a library computer technician, and he told me that the
county IT department FORBIDS them to download and test any other
non-Microsoft software, despite that MS products are notoriously
insecure and buggy. He would contact the vendor, but until then he
said that I had no choice but to use IE.
--
Paul Bartlett
thanatoid
news:Pine.NEB.4.64.09...@panix2.panix.com:
> Off-topic, strictly speaking.
>
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, thanatoid wrote:
>
>> [...]
>
>> Opera has had a zoom feature which works wonderfully, I
>> suggest you try it - it IS the best, safest, and most
>> consistently updated/patched browser.
>
> Opera is my browser of choice, and I use it every day.
Then you probably know you can try to fool those sites (MS puts
code into its web-page building software which prevents those
pages from displaying 100% "correctly" in anything BUT Internet
Explorer) by "ID as IE " - it sometimes works and sometimes not.
I use OffByOne 99% of the time and everything shows up "wrong"
in it except really old sites - which is MUCH better, since I do
not have to seee Flash, java, and all the other brainturds
commonly referred to as "web page design" - I just see the main
content. Highly recommended. Fits on a floppy and leaves NO
cache or cookies (one *.cki file which will go on the floppy) so
no one will know you're using it. Have IE open and be ready to
Alt/Tab.
Since Ob1 is so "limited", SOME sites HAVE to be accessssed with
a full-featured browser. Also, it DOES SSL but that won;t fir on
the floppy.
> Unfortunately, there are those websites that are
> "optimized" for Internet Explorer and simply will not work
> correctly with other browsers. My public library recently
> installed some new web pages backed up by
> God-only-knows-what sort of software. It broke with Opera.
> I finally managed to get through to a library computer
> technician, and he told me that the county IT department
> FORBIDS them to download and test any other non-Microsoft
> software,
There truly IS no end to human stupidity.
> despite that MS products are notoriously insecure
> and buggy. He would contact the vendor, but until then he
> said that I had no choice but to use IE.
--
Richard Bonner
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:13:21 +0000 (UTC), ak...@chebucto.ns.ca
> (Richard Bonner) wrote:
> >ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
> >> ...there are still too many pages that don't display correctly.
> >
> >*** On my websites?
> No, on the web in general. Your pages - the ones I looked at - expand
> quite nicely.
*** They should - I use basic code that allows pages to fit to the
browser window.
> >> On a lot of pages where I increase the text size (so I can read it
> >> more easily) the display becomes jumbled because too much of the text
> >> appears to be absolute positioned.
> >
> >*** Does your browser increase just the text size or the images too?
> Just text.
> I more than doubled the text size on your pages, and had no problems.
*** That would be the case on my DOS pages because they contain few
images. However, on my sites that have picture layouts, increased
text size will corrupt the layout unless one uses a browser with a "zoom"
feature. Even then, excessive enlargement will eventually cause problems.
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
Richard Bonner
> ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner) wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > *** That reminds me of the silent days when film speeds
> > were never exactly spscified. Some theaters would speed up
> > the film slightly to squeeze in more showings in a day.
> > That still goes on at radio stations where music is sped up
> > to make room for more commercials.
> WOW! NOTING is sacred anymore. You learn something new AND
> horrible everyday!
> I /would/ say thanks but I wish I had never found this out!
*** It is usually noticed by musicians; they realise a song they know
is in a different key. One way around that is to use a harmonizer
which will restore the frequencies, but the tempo will still be slightly
faster. Even just a 1% increase means that another 10 or 20-second spot
might be able to be aired every hour. The actual time depends on the
ratio of music to non-music in that hour.
> >> I was talking about computers exclusively. While half the
> >> films made when the word cinema still meant something were
> >> shot in 1.33, my favorite aspect ratio is 1.85.
> >
> > *** That is close to wide-screen LCDs of today which are
> > typically 1.78 ratio.
> I know. I think they chose the somewhat bizarre 16x9 because
> they were afraid no one would understand the decimal point
> aspect ratio figures and anything like 1.75 or 1.85 would have
> been WAY too decimal-y.
*** Dumb it down for the un and mis educated. )-:
> >> >> And all the jerks who make stupid web sites should
> >> >> learn to put in the 15 lines of code which makes the
> >> >> page adjust itself to EVERY resolution instead of
> >> >> MAKING us scroll all over the place. Grrrr...
> >> >
> >> > *** What code is that?
> >
> >> I just read it the other day in one of the 5 or so old
> >> computer magazines I kept... I only made a few web pages
> >> "internally" many years ago so I know next to nothing
> >> about it except I hate it, but I'll find it and post it
> >> here for you.
> >
> > *** Since we have gotten off topic for this group, could
> > you e-mail it to me?
> I think the 5 people that visit here can live with that ;-)
*** There are more than five. Regardless, off topic is off topic.
> I'd rather post it. I just scanned it and I am about to post it
> to alt.binaries.test.gogo. Let me know if you don't get that
> group.
*** Binaries on newsgroups are not accessible to me. They are blocked
by the ISP.
> > (*) Doug Trumbull did special effects for "2001: A Space
> > Odyssey", "Silent Running", "Close Encounters..." and many
> > other films.
> I knew that ;-)
> I was in film schools, learning and teaching, for over a decade.
> Coiling cables (and other long tubular things) so they never
> kink and always unwind in a perfectly straight line was the only
> really useful thing I learned.
*** Something that I do every week in my business.
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
Paul Bartlett
> Paul Bartlett <bart...@panix.com> wrote in
> news:Pine.NEB.4.64.09...@panix2.panix.com:
>
>> Off-topic, strictly speaking.
>>
>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, thanatoid wrote:
>>
>>> [...]
>>
>>> Opera has had a zoom feature which works wonderfully, I
>>> suggest you try it - it IS the best, safest, and most
>>> consistently updated/patched browser.
>>
>> Opera is my browser of choice, and I use it every day.
>
> Then you probably know you can try to fool those sites (MS puts
> code into its web-page building software which prevents those
> pages from displaying 100% "correctly" in anything BUT Internet
> Explorer) by "ID as IE " - it sometimes works and sometimes not.
> [trim]
Thank you for reminding me of that. I had forgotten about that
capability of Opera to identify itself to a website as something
other than itself. When I dug down deep enough, I told Opera to
identify itself as IE to the site involved, and now all the tabs
work. One of the frames is off, but at least the information is
available and decipherable.
Thanks again.
--
Paul Bartlett
thanatoid
<SNIP>
> Thank you for reminding me of that. I had forgotten about
> that capability of Opera to identify itself to a website as
> something other than itself. When I dug down deep enough,
> I told Opera to identify itself as IE to the site involved,
> and now all the tabs work. One of the frames is off, but
> at least the information is available and decipherable.
>
> Thanks again.
>
Happy to help.
thanatoid
> *** Binaries on newsgroups are not accessible to me.
> They are blocked by the ISP.
I'll see if can OCR and just paste it in here. It is SO short
and simple.
Richard Bonner
> ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner) wrote:
> > *** Binaries on newsgroups are not accessible to me.
> > They are blocked by the ISP.
> I'll see if can OCR and just paste it in here. It is SO short
> and simple.
*** No, no no! Never post images to text newsgroups.
That aside, I still won't be able to see it. For some reason
reconstituted images from paste-ins are seen as corrupt by my graphic
viewers. Please e-mail it to me as an attachment.
Thanks.
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
thanatoid
> thanatoid (wai...@the.exit.invalid) wrote:
>
>> ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner) wrote:
>> > *** Binaries on newsgroups are not accessible to me.
>> > They are blocked by the ISP.
>
>> I'll see if can OCR and just paste it in here. It is SO
>> short and simple.
>
> *** No, no no! Never post images to text newsgroups.
I KNOW that. READ the sentence above, I said OCR it. That means
I will paste /text/.
But you already know that since you probably got it by now.
> That aside, I still won't be able to see it. For some
> reason
> reconstituted images from paste-ins are seen as corrupt by
> my graphic viewers. Please e-mail it to me as an
> attachment.
No! ;-)
> Thanks.
Anytime. :-)
Richard Bonner
> ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner) wrote:
> > thanatoid (wai...@the.exit.invalid) wrote:
> >
> >> ak...@chebucto.ns.ca (Richard Bonner) wrote:
> >> > *** Binaries on newsgroups are not accessible to me.
> >> > They are blocked by the ISP.
> >
> >> I'll see if can OCR and just paste it in here. It is SO
> >> short and simple.
> >
> > *** Never post images to text newsgroups.
> I KNOW that. READ the sentence above, I said OCR it. That means
> I will paste /text/.
*** My apologies. I am unfamiliar with the abbreviation "OCR".
> But you already know that since you probably got it by now.
*** Yes. (-:
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
thanatoid
<SNIP>
> *** My apologies. I am unfamiliar with the abbreviation
> "OCR".
<SNIP>
It's OK. It was NOT impossible that I would do something like
that - and in fact I have noticed ISP's are MUCH less stringent
about filtering binaries out of text groups these days.
I am sorry my "borrowed" advice was so useless.
Regards
t.
Todd Vargo
>
> *** My apologies. I am unfamiliar with the abbreviation "OCR".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_character_recognition.
--
Todd Vargo
(Post questions to group only. Remove "z" to email personal messages)
Richard Bonner
> > *** My apologies. I am unfamiliar with the abbreviation
> > "OCR".
> <SNIP>
> It's OK. It was NOT impossible that I would do something like
> that - and in fact I have noticed ISP's are MUCH less stringent
> about filtering binaries out of text groups these days.
*** Hmm, I find they are more stringent, at least in Nova Scotia.
> I am sorry my "borrowed" advice was so useless.
>
> t.
*** No advice is useless. It just happend that in this case, I was
already familiar with that technique. Other readers may not.
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/
Richard Bonner
> Richard Bonner wrote:
> >
> > *** My apologies. I am unfamiliar with the abbreviation "OCR".
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_character_recognition.
> --
> Todd Vargo
*** Thanks, Todd. I appreciate that.
Richard Bonner
http://www.chebucto.ca/~ak621/DOS/