Sad day today
Marc Ceelen
Bill (Adopt)
Marc Ceelen <marc....@telenet.be> wrote:
> Remember 20 feb 2009
Indeedy.. our friend, Paul Vigay (RIP)
:((
Bill ZFC
--
Adoption InterLink UK with -=- http://www.billsimpson.com/
Domain Host Orpheus Internet -=- http://www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/
Folderol
"Bill (Adopt)" <ad...@billsimpson.com> wrote:
> In article <Ar58p.40578$2t5....@newsfe24.ams2>,
> Marc Ceelen <marc....@telenet.be> wrote:
> > Remember 20 feb 2009
>
> Indeedy.. our friend, Paul Vigay (RIP)
>
> :((
>
> Bill ZFC
>
However, his website is still there (for now)
--
Will J G
Dr Peter Young
> In article <20110220142233.0ef19a13@debian>,
> Folderol <fold...@ukfsn.org> wrote:
>> However, his website is still there (for now)
> IIRC, it was agreed that it would be maintained in his memory.
Has there been any mention of whether his software is going to be
maintained? IMHO this would be the best memorial to him. Much missed.
With best wishes,
Peter.
--
Peter \ / zfc Lu \ Prestbury, Cheltenham, Glos. GL52
and \/ __ __ \ England.
family / / \ | | |\ | / _ \ http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
/ \__/ \_/ | \| \__/ \______________ pny...@ormail.co.uk
Steve Fryatt
<930a99a85...@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk>:
> Has there been any mention of whether his software is going to be
> maintained? IMHO this would be the best memorial to him. Much missed.
Or, indeed, riscos.org be maintained and updated by anyone? At present,
anyone Googling there would be forgiven for thinking RISC OS had stopped in
2008 -- while it's understandable, it would be an equally fitting memorial
to keep the site relevant and useful as a RISC OS "portal".
--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England Wakefield Acorn & RISC OS Show
Saturday 16 April 2011
http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/ http://www.wakefieldshow.org.uk/
filecore
memorise this date two years ago. You could have been a little more
forthcoming, or said "RIP: PV" or, you know, anything at all, rather
than making it into a puzzle game. But yes, him and his mad flying
saucer conspiracy theories will continue to be missed.
> > Has there been any mention of whether his software is going to be
> > maintained? IMHO this would be the best memorial to him. Much missed.
>
> Or, indeed, riscos.org be maintained and updated by anyone? At present,
> anyone Googling there would be forgiven for thinking RISC OS had stopped in
> 2008 -- while it's understandable, it would be an equally fitting memorial
> to keep the site relevant and useful as a RISC OS "portal".
It's being kept online indefinitely by his friend at the ISP he ran,
although as to whether anyone will continue the specific projects,
that's a different matter. Some interest has been shown by third
parties toward certain projects (do a search through the TIB archives,
for example) but to be fair, RISC OS is hardly "relevant and useful"
in 2011 and I'm sure that this is something that even PV would have
eventually come to realise. It's great that it's still there for
reference, but I say open it up to the enthusiasts and let his
unfinished work at least have some practical value.
Chris Bell
> RISC OS is hardly "relevant and useful" in 2011
Uhhh? What do you mean? It's INCEDIBLY relevant and useful. I use it
all the time in my small business in preference to other, more popular,
OSs - which I generally HATE!
Chris.
Dr Alan Leighton
Dr Peter Young <pny...@ormail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20 Feb 2011 Stuart <Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>> In article <20110220142233.0ef19a13@debian>,
>> Folderol <fold...@ukfsn.org> wrote:
>>> However, his website is still there (for now)
>> IIRC, it was agreed that it would be maintained in his memory.
> Has there been any mention of whether his software is going to be
> maintained? IMHO this would be the best memorial to him. Much missed.
He was such a kind man and was always ready to help. Sometimes I just
don't know who to turn to these days with out making someone grumpy.
He was a gentle, kind person and we miss him so much,
Alan
--
Dr Alan Leighton
Chris Bell <ne...@highpath.net> wrote:
> filecore <file...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris.
I can not agree more. I use it all the time producing books, booklets,
leaflets, data bases, church song sheets, rotas, hospital instruction
booklets, funeral and wedding services etc, etc. Window programs such
as Word are not up to to the ease of use and accuracy of OPro and
EasiWriter IMHO.
I use a PC when I have to, working PowerPoint and now FireFox.
How laborious PP is.
Alan
--
filecore
> as Word are not up to to the ease of use and accuracy of OPro and
> EasiWriter IMHO.
Windows programs have a lot of functionality that RISC OS doesn't.
I'll admit, you can't use Word as a general DTP package as you could
with Impression, no x86 platform vector graphics software seems able
to match the simplicity of using !Draw, and I haven't yet found a
graphics program that allows for multiple live views of the same
graphic at different zoom levels as you could with !Paint... but
seriously, unless you like the look of Geocities circa 1998 (and
judging by websites of many RO interest groups and programmers, you
might well do), modern Windows and *nix-based systems have a lot going
for them in areas where RISC OS simply can't compete.
That said, if your needs are few and modest, then RISC OS is probably
enough in 2011. I know I certainly don't need a 64-bit quad-core
system with 8GB of RAM just to run some word processing apps, basic
web browsing and image viewing - but then again, if all I want is to
do basic tasks, I could do them just as well on a circa-1995 Pentium
box as on a circa-1995 RiscPC. It does seem that some of those here
are jumping on the good ol' "Windows is evil" bandwagon without
realising that, while it still has its uses and its niche, RISC OS is
largely for the stubborn, the befuddled, and that small niche of die-
hard enthusiasts. Don't get me wrong, I love RISC OS and I had two
wonderful decades with it until about 2002, and I still play with it
even today and help people on the forums - but as a "relevant and
useful" substitute for something modern? Hardly.
work...@mail.com
>, RISC OS is
> largely for the stubborn, the befuddled, and that small niche of die-
> hard enthusiasts.
Meh.
I have failed to find a filer anywhere near as good as the RISC OS
filer. ROX is the only thing that comes close. I'm constantly fed up by
Windows/MacOSX/Linux filers MOVING my files when I drag and drop them
between folders on the same volume, whereas the same filers copy files
when the folders are on different volumes.
Nothing to do with Windows/MacOSX/Linux is bad, just a fundamentally bad
choice in the implementation of a filer system.
Can you fix it on any of these systems? Well only by installing third
party addons. $$$$ Kerrrrching!
Regards
Stan
--
An Iyonix in Buskerud.
Steve Fryatt
<6f1264c1-21c5-45f1...@y3g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>:
> > Or, indeed, riscos.org be maintained and updated by anyone? At present,
> > anyone Googling there would be forgiven for thinking RISC OS had stopped
> > in 2008 -- while it's understandable, it would be an equally fitting
> > memorial to keep the site relevant and useful as a RISC OS "portal".
[snip]
> to be fair, RISC OS is hardly "relevant and useful" in 2011 and I'm sure
> that this is something that even PV would have eventually come to realise.
I didn't say that RISC OS was "relevant and useful"; I asked if riscos.org
would ever again be kept "relevant and useful". I'm sure you'll realise
that there's a *very* significant difference between the two.
;-)
Russell Hafter News
<work...@mail.com> wrote:
> I have failed to find a filer anywhere near as good as
> the RISC OS filer. ROX is the only thing that comes
> close. I'm constantly fed up by Windows/MacOSX/Linux
> filers MOVING my files when I drag and drop them between
> folders on the same volume, whereas the same filers copy
> files when the folders are on different volumes.
And the only way you find that out is when you try it.
I recently thought I had lost all my accounts for the last
15 years, plus the software, because I thought that I was
copying it and in fact I moved it.
And yes, I could have restored from one of three or four
backups if necessary.
--
Russell
http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk
Russell Hafter Holidays E-mail to enquiries at our domain
Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>
filecore
> > > anyone Googling there would be forgiven for thinking RISC OS had stopped
> > > in 2008
> > to be fair, RISC OS is hardly "relevant and useful" in 2011
> I didn't say that RISC OS was "relevant and useful"; I asked if riscos.org
> would ever again be kept "relevant and useful". I'm sure you'll realise
> that there's a *very* significant difference between the two.
Indeed. Anyone thinking RISC OS had stopped in 2008 would already be
dead wrong and probably six years over the mark. riscos.org is a
wonderful resource for niche enthusiasts and, well, everything is
relevant and useful to *somebody*, somewhere... but anybody randomly
searching on Google and intentionally looking for RISC OS sites would
probably be a) in the incredibly small minority of those who need to
find information but don't already know where to ask, or b) looking
for stuff for an older machine that would probably be available in a
site dating from 1998, never mind 2008. Even had Paul kept on going, I
very much doubt there would have been much of significant difference
in the site now, compared to two years ago.
Sorry to sound negative; I'm just trying to be realistic. While
there's a difference between RISC OS being relevant and RISC OS
information such as that on riscos.org being relevant, at the end of
the day I'm sure that all five people who regret the lack of updates
on riscos.org have accepted the loss and moved on. Well, three of them
have, at least. "Relevant and useful" is, in this context, an
extremely subjective term.
Stuart
<792bce57-b64b-469a...@v31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
filecore <file...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Even had Paul kept on going, I
> very much doubt there would have been much of significant difference
> in the site now, compared to two years ago.
I would have thought there might have been some mention of Beagle boards
--
Stuart Winsor
Midland RISC OS show - Sat July 9th 2011
John Williams (News)
Stuart <Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article
> <792bce57-b64b-469a...@v31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
> filecore <file...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Even had Paul kept on going, I very much doubt there would have been
> > much of significant difference in the site now, compared to two years
> > ago.
> I would have thought there might have been some mention of Beagle boards
How about requesting a link on the site to developments after Paul's sad
death, and following on with post mortem developments there?
That way we can profit from a snapshot of 'then', and developments from
thereon.
It would require but a single link, and someone to provide links from
thereon.
It could easily be a Wiki.
John
--
John Williams, Brittany, Northern France - no attachments to these addresses!
Non-RISC OS posters change user to johnrwilliams or put 'risc' in subject!
Who is John Williams? http://petit.four.free.fr/picindex/author/ Somewhere nice to stay in Brittany? http://petit.four.free.fr/visitors/locate
filecore
wrote:
> In article <51aac9ca3eSpam...@argonet.co.uk>,
> > I would have thought there might have been some mention of Beagle boards
>
> How about requesting a link on the site to developments after Paul's sad
> death, and following on with post mortem developments there?
>
> thereon.
>
> It could easily be a Wiki.
It is. It's called riscos.info, and I do believe it's already linked
to from riscos.org.
Steve Fryatt
<51aaca8b...@tiscali.co.uk>:
> How about requesting a link on the site to developments after Paul's sad
> death, and following on with post mortem developments there?
>
> That way we can profit from a snapshot of 'then', and developments from
> thereon.
It just needs the "News" stuff replacing with static text. That could then
link on to other sites.
> It would require but a single link, and someone to provide links from
> thereon.
>
> It could easily be a Wiki.
...which we already have.
Graham Thurlwell
<snip>
> I have failed to find a filer anywhere near as good as the RISC OS
> filer. ROX is the only thing that comes close. I'm constantly fed up by
> Windows/MacOSX/Linux filers MOVING my files when I drag and drop them
> between folders on the same volume, whereas the same filers copy files
> when the folders are on different volumes.
On Puppy Linux (and presumably other other distros) it's possible to
configure ROX's left and right click drag behaviour. I generally set
it up to copy on 'select' drags and ask what to do on 'adjust' drags.
On XP I 'adjust' drag virtually all the time so I can choose from the
menu.
Overall, I still prefer RISC OS although I could probably manage on
just Puppy if I had to.
--
Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.
nos...@jades.org /is/ a real email address!
filecore
> On the 24 Feb 2011, workst...@mail.com wrote:
> > I have failed to find a filer anywhere near as good as the RISC OS
> > filer. ROX is the only thing that comes close. I'm constantly fed up by
> > Windows/MacOSX/Linux filers MOVING my files when I drag and drop them
> > between folders on the same volume, whereas the same filers copy files
> > when the folders are on different volumes.
>
> On Puppy Linux (and presumably other other distros) it's possible to
> configure ROX's left and right click drag behaviour. I generally set
> it up to copy on 'select' drags and ask what to do on 'adjust' drags.
> On XP I 'adjust' drag virtually all the time so I can choose from the
> menu.
On Windows and Linux this tends to be easily configurable, if you want
it globally in the OS. Even if not, you have a choice in both context
menu and keyboard shortcut between copy and paste - RISC OS didn't
even support basic cut/copy/paste keyboard shortcuts until at least
4.37 (I don't recall exactly, it may even be RO 5/6 only). There are
only a few things that RISC OS can do that a modern OS can't, and
generally it comes down to specific apps (which is generally a matter
of resistance to change, as much as anything else). There are some
technical exceptions, as I note myself with Impression, Paint and
Draw, but by and large the argument is redundant. Besides, there's
always emulation if you want the best of all worlds ;-)
Dave Plowman (News)
<d696944f-1628-430f...@a5g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
filecore <file...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Windows programs have a lot of functionality that RISC OS doesn't.
> I'll admit, you can't use Word as a general DTP package as you could
> with Impression, no x86 platform vector graphics software seems able
> to match the simplicity of using !Draw, and I haven't yet found a
> graphics program that allows for multiple live views of the same
> graphic at different zoom levels as you could with !Paint...
You could add in Organizer and Pluto to that too.
Most will probably have a PC for the things RISC OS can't handle - but I
only use that PC for those tasks.
--
*Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana*
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
News poster
Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> In article <1bc2b6a...@hetnet.nl>,
> <work...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have failed to find a filer anywhere near as good as
> > the RISC OS filer. ROX is the only thing that comes
> > close. I'm constantly fed up by Windows/MacOSX/Linux
> > filers MOVING my files when I drag and drop them between
> > folders on the same volume, whereas the same filers copy
> > files when the folders are on different volumes.
>
> And the only way you find that out is when you try it.
>
> I recently thought I had lost all my accounts for the last
> 15 years, plus the software, because I thought that I was
> copying it and in fact I moved it.
>
[snip]
It is not just a problem for RISC OS users who have migrated to other
platforms. Her indoors who grew up on Amigas and has been a Mac user for
years, only realised recently why she kept on 'losing' files on her
Apple. She was unaware of the way MacOSX Filer inconsistently treats
drag and drop actions between filer windows.
To 'fix' this problem will cost USD30 per computer, plus maintenance
time etc when new versions of the third party filer utility/MacOSX come
out.
I think am going to have to start practicing installing ROX on my Linux
machines and work out how to use it and configure it better. If ROX
works well enough for me then I'll ditch MacOSX on the macbook, put
Ubuntu on it and replace the Gnome session with a ROX one.
Or I could just carry on using my Iyonix without configuring and
fiddling with anything. That would save me days of time trying to get
something else to work properly.
News poster
filecore <file...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2:01 am, Graham Thurlwell <nos...@jades.org> wrote:
> > On the 24 Feb 2011, workst...@mail.com wrote:
> > > I have failed to find a filer anywhere near as good as the RISC OS
> > > filer. ROX is the only thing that comes close. I'm constantly fed up by
> > > Windows/MacOSX/Linux filers MOVING my files when I drag and drop them
> > > between folders on the same volume, whereas the same filers copy files
> > > when the folders are on different volumes.
> >
> > On Puppy Linux (and presumably other other distros) it's possible to
> > configure ROX's left and right click drag behaviour. I generally set
> > it up to copy on 'select' drags and ask what to do on 'adjust' drags.
> > On XP I 'adjust' drag virtually all the time so I can choose from the
> > menu.
>
> On Windows and Linux this tends to be easily configurable, if you want
> it globally in the OS.
[snip]
Back to my original point:
So where are the global OS options to force Filer in MacOSX or Nautilus
in Ubuntu to ALWAYS copy when I use a left-mouse-click drag and drop?
That is irrespective of whether the source and destination folders are
on the same volume?
I would seriously like to know this as I keep 'losing' files because of
this feature. And yes I have spent much more time in total in front of a
WinPC or MacOSX or Linux than in front of a RISC OS computer so it is
not because of unfamiliarity with those systems.
Russell Hafter News
(News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article
><d696944f-1628-430f...@a5g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
> filecore <file...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Windows programs have a lot of functionality that RISC
> > OS doesn't. I'll admit, you can't use Word as a general
> > DTP package as you could with Impression, no x86
> > platform vector graphics software seems able to match
> > the simplicity of using !Draw, and I haven't yet found
> > a graphics program that allows for multiple live views
> > of the same graphic at different zoom levels as you
> > could with !Paint...
> You could add in Organizer and Pluto to that too.
Pluto certainly, though I have never looked at Organiser.
Having spent considerable time getting my head around the -
to me - strange way that just about any Windows e-mail
software operates, with every mailbox having its own bin,
drafts, inbox and outbox - why, for goodness sake?
Finally discovered that I could have just the one mailbox
for everything and then set up folders which would be more
or less equivalent to Pluto's boxes. But there are still the
- for me - totally unnecessary inbox and sent box which I
will never use and cannot delte.
> Most will probably have a PC for the things RISC OS can't
> handle - but I only use that PC for those tasks.
Exactly.
Dave Plowman (News)
Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> Pluto certainly, though I have never looked at Organiser.
I use Organizer for the sort of things you'd once have written on the
calender. The anniversary function for things like car MOT etc. And the
address book as my master. PC progs tend to be US based, with far more
fields than I'd ever use.
--
*Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have *
Russell Hafter News
(News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <51ab01f9...@walkingingermany.invalid>,
> Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid>
> wrote:
> > > You could add in Organizer and Pluto to that too.
> > Pluto certainly, though I have never looked at
> > Organiser.
> I use Organizer for the sort of things you'd once have
> written on the calender. The anniversary function for
> things like car MOT etc. And the address book as my
> master. PC progs tend to be US based, with far more
> fields than I'd ever use.
Frankly, I much prefer pen + paper for that sort of thing.
Post-It notes stuck to the monitor as well as the wall
calendar.
filecore
> > > > I enjoy using a modern computer which can do modern things and is powerful
> > > I prefer a combination and use a PC only when necessary
> > I prefer to stick to RISC OS alone
And finally:
> Frankly, I much prefer pen + paper for that sort of thing.
> Post-It notes stuck to the monitor as well as the wall
> calendar.
I think that progression just about speaks for itself.
News poster
Laura Togneri <laura....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 9:37 am, News poster <workst...@mail.com> wrote:
> > MacOSX MacOSX MacOSX
[snip]
>
> Surely that should be enough different options? I'm sure there are
> similar options available for *nix too, and I know of at least one
> third-party Windows tool that lets you set behaviour to your own
> choice (Copy Handler). But since I understand and am happy with this
> behaviour, I'm not going to go and do all the hard work for you.
The problem is too many options and the inconsistent behaviour with
regards to drag and drop.
Why do I have to need to know whether the destination folder is on the
same drive, on a different drive on the same machine or on a remote
drive somewhere else to be able to *safely* copy my files?
Under Window/MacOSX/Linux (Nautilus) the only safe way is to always have
to use a right click, then select a menu item to be certain you are
always going to copy your files. Well that is consistent at least if not
rather unweildy compared to just dragging and dropping with a left mouse
click under RISC OS. Always defaulting to a copy is far and away the
safest option.
As regards the third party alternative filers the two I have
investigated under MacOSX seem to have their own foibles that make them
equally irritating in use although they do indeed solve the copy/move
bug.
I have actually researched some of this and some of the options. So I
don't mind you not doing the hard work for me, as I've already done it.
The simplest solution for me, is to only use other OS's when I
absolutely have to and not do any serious work (where you might need to
copy files around) on other OS's.
It works for me.
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> So where are the global OS options to force Filer in MacOSX or Nautilus
> in Ubuntu to ALWAYS copy...
How would we know? Surely the places to ask are Mac & Linux newsgroups?
--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to newsre...@wingsandbeaks.org.uk replacing "aaa" by "284".
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> She was unaware of the way MacOSX Filer inconsistently treats drag and
> drop actions between filer windows.
I don't believe that an OS/filer will do anything inconsistently, unless it
is bugged.
Surely the problem is that her indoors did not understand the more-or-less
standard approach the GUI was taking, which was almost certainly reliant on
the underlying command-line commands.
It's also in part a consequence of how the file-naming and directory
structures work, such that a file move is usually implemented as a rename
(if on the same disk) or a copy & delete if it's going somewhere else.
On other OSes (eg z/OS) one often cannot move a file from one location to
anotehr - whether on the same disk or tape or not - merely by renaming it.
You have to understand how the underlying structures work.
filecore
> In message <cdb735ab-d2db-4a30-9e31-d34d709c9...@e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
> Under Window/MacOSX/Linux (Nautilus) the only safe way is to always have
> to use a right click, then select a menu item to be certain you are
> always going to copy your files. Well that is consistent at least if not
> rather unweildy compared to just dragging and dropping with a left mouse
> click under RISC OS.
Um. You just described the biggest advantage of RISC OS as "just
dragging and dropping with a left mouse click", and yet I explained
that you can almost identical (but actually even more functional)
behaviour in Windows by dragging and dropping with a right mouse
click. I know that your adherence to RISC OS obliges you to be
stubborn regarding any other OS or any other way of doing things, but
since it's merely a matter of using a different mouse button, it
surely can't be that difficult a concept to grasp. Did you actually
read anything I wrote?
charles
<106ae2b6-bbcf-44ac...@b8g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> And finally:
Progression: I had a colleague who went away for a 3 week holiday - the
post-it notes awaiting his return started on the monitor, went across the
desk, down the front, across the floor and started going up the wall
opposite!
--
From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16
charles
<b868729f-08d5-483c...@z31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>,
possiblly he's thinking of older versions of Windows
News poster
filecore <file...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 1:47 pm, News poster <workst...@mail.com> wrote:
> > In message <cdb735ab-d2db-4a30-9e31-d34d709c9...@e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
>
> > Under Window/MacOSX/Linux (Nautilus) the only safe way is to always have
> > to use a right click, then select a menu item to be certain you are
> > always going to copy your files. Well that is consistent at least if not
> > rather unweildy compared to just dragging and dropping with a left mouse
> > click under RISC OS.
>
> Um. You just described the biggest advantage of RISC OS as "just
> dragging and dropping with a left mouse click", and yet I explained
> that you can almost identical (but actually even more functional)
> behaviour in Windows by dragging and dropping with a right mouse
> click.
Give me simplicity and consistency any time. Anyway if you have a
fantastically versatile and configurable filer why not add yet
another option to allow users to specify the default behaviour with
left mouse click drag and drop?
> I know that your adherence to RISC OS obliges you to be stubborn
> regarding any other OS or any other way of doing things,
:) Well lucky for you that you don't have any disgraceful stubborn
habits :)
Essentially I cannot see why a GUI needs to be so complex nor why it is
important to have inconsistent behaviour for basic filer actions.
I've spent more time behind a Win PC or a computer running MacOSX than
behind a RISC OS machine. My opinions have been informed by actually
using those machines and trying to learn them in the way that the
designers intended.
> but since it's merely a matter of using a different mouse button, it
> surely can't be that difficult a concept to grasp.
Oh so right click drag and drop under whatever OS actually always
copies rather than opening a menu and allowing to select whether or not
you want to copy or not?
>Did you actually
> read anything I wrote?
Not sure. Which post did you write it in? I haven't seen one from
filecore covering such matters in detail.
Cheers
News poster
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp....@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
> News poster <work...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > She was unaware of the way MacOSX Filer inconsistently treats drag and
> > drop actions between filer windows.
>
> I don't believe that an OS/filer will do anything inconsistently, unless it
> is bugged.
[snip]
>
Try this on MacOSX - but I am sure I have carried out the same test on a
Windows machine.
Create a text file and place it on your desktop.
Create a folder called new folder in a directory on the same drive and
then open it.
Drag your file from the desktop and drop it into the new folder.
The file is no longer on your desktop but in the folder you just created
in the other directory.
It has been 'moved'. Only one copy of that file is on your hard drive.
The filer window in my GUI shows me that my text file has moved from
location A to location B.
Do the same except create your new folder on a USB thumb drive.
Drag the text file from the desktop to the new folder.
The file stays on your desktop and is copied to the thumbdrive.
Result two copies of the file.
Now that is a bug to me. The GUI action 'drag and drop' produced two
copies of the file in one situation and only one copy of the file in
another.
If the GUI action 'drag and drop' always results in two copies of the
file (the source file remains undisturbed and a new copy is created)
then as a user you can't accidently drag files into other folders and
'lose' them.
Cheers
filecore
> In message <b868729f-08d5-483c-ba86-cdd070620...@z31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>
> > Um. You just described the biggest advantage of RISC OS as "just
> > dragging and dropping with a left mouse click", and yet I explained
> > that you can almost identical (but actually even more functional)
> > behaviour in Windows by dragging and dropping with a right mouse
> > click.
> Give me simplicity and consistency any time.
Is this not what I just said?
> > I know that your adherence to RISC OS obliges you to be stubborn
> > regarding any other OS or any other way of doing things,
> :) Well lucky for you that you don't have any disgraceful stubborn
> habits :)
I, too, come from a RISC OS background.
> >Did you actually
> > read anything I wrote?
> Not sure. Which post did you write it in? I haven't seen one from
> filecore covering such matters in detail.
Huh. Seem to have lost it. Anyway, the point is that there are many
options - shoft/ctrl/alt dragging does different things. There's Ctrl-
X and C and V, there's the context menu, and for the final time you
can simply drag with right mouse button. It's really not all that
hard.
> > > She was unaware of the way MacOSX Filer inconsistently treats drag and
> > > drop actions between filer windows.
> > I don't believe that an OS/filer will do anything inconsistently, unless it
> > is bugged.
> Try this on MacOSX - but I am sure I have carried out the same test on a
> Windows machine.
> Now that is a bug to me. The GUI action 'drag and drop' produced two
> copies of the file in one situation and only one copy of the file in
> another.
It's not a bug. It will move files if on the same HDD/mount, but copy
if dragging between different devices or mounts. This is a safety
feature, since it's far easier to delete a duplicate than to recover a
lost file from a bad device. It is the same behaviour by default in
both Windows and OSX, and is kind of standard among filers in the 21st
century.
On Feb 25, 2:06 pm, charles <char...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> possiblly he's thinking of older versions of Windows
One might imagine so, but given that this behaviour dates back *at
least* as far as Windows XP, you're going back more than a decade
already. I know the RISC OS world is full of Luddites, but really?
News poster
filecore <file...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> It's not a bug. It will move files if on the same HDD/mount, but move
> if dragging between different devices or mounts.
In its own insane way it is consistent, but it leads to inconistent
results for GUI users.
> This is a safety feature, since it's far easier to delete a duplicate
> than to recover a lost file from a bad device. It is the same
> behaviour by default in both Windows and OSX, and is kind of standard
> among filers in the 21st century.
What is unsafe about doing the same when dragging and dropping between
folders on the same volume? For a pure GUI user they will get the same
result whenever they drag and drop.
>
> On Feb 25, 2:06 pm, charles <char...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > possiblly he's thinking of older versions of Windows
>
> One might imagine so, but given that this behaviour dates back *at
> least* as far as Windows XP, you're going back more than a decade
> already. I know the RISC OS world is full of Luddites, but really?
The behaviour was also in Win95, and I am pretty sure it was in Win
3.11 too. The inconsistency was a bad idea then and it still is a bad
idea.
filecore
>
> > possiblly he's thinking of older versions of Windows
>
> One might imagine so, but given that this behaviour dates back *at
> least* as far as Windows XP, you're going back more than a decade
> already. I know the RISC OS world is full of Luddites, but really?
Actually from a quick check it goes back at least as far as Windows
95, and on the Mac perhaps further still. It predates the first
commercial RiscPCs. The only way you would be using RISC OS in a world
in which this behaviour wasn't becoming rapidly standardised on other
platforms is if you are using an A5000 with RO3.11 and it's brand new.
You'd probably be using a null modem cable or Econet to network it to
an even older machine, but you possibly haven't heard of networking by
this point. We could probably have a book burning, except all we have
is RISC OS 3 user guides.
I know that RISC OS was bold and innovative in its day, but it has its
share of quirks (and dear god don't get under the bonnet, it's a mess
of SWIs and really horrid code under there) and patches and good luck
charms and really isn't the dream OS that a lot of people like to make-
believe. Sure it had some great killer apps, but what platform
doesn't? Perhaps a modern version of it would compete against modern
versions of Windows (7) and Mac OS (X) but there hasn't been any
genuine innovation of the OS since 2002, when RO5 was being developed.
Everything since then is bugfixing and minor modifications. There is
absolutely no argument that RO would be viable in a modern world - no
more so than for continuing to use Windows 95, which I know many
people continue to do.
filecore
> > than to recover a lost file from a bad device. It is the same
> > behaviour by default in both Windows and OSX, and is kind of standard
> > among filers in the 21st century.
>
> What is unsafe about doing the same when dragging and dropping between
> folders on the same volume? For a pure GUI user they will get the same
> result whenever they drag and drop.
Moving the file around on the same volume is essentially the same as
leaving it in the same place on the same volume. There's a 100% equal
chance of it being lost if something happens to the volume. Moving it
to another volume, such as a network share or a USB device, means you
will not have access to the file if the volume corrupts, the network
disconnects, or the USB stick is dropped down the toilet. Safety
feature. Naturally you can *choose* to only have one copy of an
important file on an easily-loseable media, but hey, that's your own
choice. I think there is sensible logic behind the behaviour.
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> ... although they do indeed solve the copy/move bug.
It's not a bug. The system is working as designed.
Bugs are when things do not do what they are meant to do.
Your problem is that you do not like the design.
News poster
[snip]
> I know that your adherence to RISC OS obliges you to be stubborn
> regarding any other OS or any other way of doing things,
[snip]
Some people seem to confuse cause and effect.
It is my subborn nature that makes me adhere to RISC OS not my adherence
to RISC OS that makes me stubborn.
If I wasn't stubborn I'd be using Windows and saying just how fantastic
Windows Explorer is and how great Windows 7 is.
Have a good weekend.
filecore
> In message <b868729f-08d5-483c-ba86-cdd070620...@z31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>
> filecore <filec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I know that your adherence to RISC OS obliges you to be stubborn
> > regarding any other OS or any other way of doing things,
>
Nope, simply years of contact with and observation of the RISC OS
community :-D
> It is my subborn nature that makes me adhere to RISC OS not my adherence
> to RISC OS that makes me stubborn.
>
> If I wasn't stubborn I'd be using Windows and saying just how fantastic
> Windows Explorer is and how great Windows 7 is.
So you admit you're simply adhering to RO through stubbornness, and
your refusal to admit that Windows 7 is actually a decent OS for
everyday use is purely because you don't want to admit that anything
could be better than RISC OS? At least I can look at both systems and
judge them on their own merits - and admit the strengths and
weaknesses of each - rather than blindly convince myself that a decade-
old hardware architecture with a more-than-decade-old software
architecture is in some way superior.
filecore
Haha! Yep, that's definitely you. Glad to see you have a sense of
humour after all!
Brian Jordan
<Spa...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <51a889c...@billsimpson.com>, Bill (Adopt)
> <ad...@billsimpson.com> wrote:
> > In article <Ar58p.40578$2t5....@newsfe24.ams2>, Marc Ceelen
> > <marc....@telenet.be> wrote:
> > > Remember 20 feb 2009
> > Indeedy.. our friend, Paul Vigay (RIP)
> Aye, took me a moment to twig what the post was about but still
> remembered and sorely missed
I see the subject of this thread is still "Sad day today" a direct
reference to the untimely death of Paul Vigay.
Paul was, rightly or wrongly, a RISC OS enthusiast to the core; what a
shame that a brief reminder of his passing has lead to the "My filesystem
is better than yours" thread we have now. That a lot of the thread seems
to be rubbishing RISC OS and its supporters is about the least fitting
memorial to Paul I can imagine.
--
______________________________________________________________________
Brian Jordan
From somewhere in North Hampshire. England. UK.
______________________________________________________________________
filecore
> In article <51a88e5cb1Spam...@argonet.co.uk>, Stuart
>
> <Spam...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > In article <51a889c521ad...@billsimpson.com>, Bill (Adopt)
> > <ad...@billsimpson.com> wrote:
> > > In article <Ar58p.40578$2t5.34...@newsfe24.ams2>, Marc Ceelen
> > > <marc.cee...@telenet.be> wrote:
> > > > Remember 20 feb 2009
> > > Indeedy.. our friend, Paul Vigay (RIP)
> > Aye, took me a moment to twig what the post was about but still
> > remembered and sorely missed
>
> I see the subject of this thread is still "Sad day today" a direct
> reference to the untimely death of Paul Vigay.
>
> Paul was, rightly or wrongly, a RISC OS enthusiast to the core; what a
> shame that a brief reminder of his passing has lead to the "My filesystem
> is better than yours" thread we have now. That a lot of the thread seems
> to be rubbishing RISC OS and its supporters is about the least fitting
> memorial to Paul I can imagine.
I dunno, I think he'd be glad to know that people still debate the
issue and that, in 2011, it is still an active OS with an active
community. I'm sure he's out there somewhere - possibly in a flying
saucer - having a good laugh at all this. He was just as enthusiastic
as anyone else, and don't think I'm not fond of RISC OS; my
filesystem, for the record, resides on a RiscPC 700 with RO3.7 which I
still use on a regular basis. I just don't happen to believe that it's
competitive in the second decade of the 21st century. It had its day,
and ultimately, it lost and fell behind.
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> Now that is a bug to me. The GUI action 'drag and drop' produced two
> copies of the file in one situation and only one copy of the file in
> another.
I completely understand that the behaviours are different, in different
situations.
But it is NOT a bug. This is how the system was designed.
> If the GUI action 'drag and drop' always results in two copies of the
> file (the source file remains undisturbed and a new copy is created)
> then as a user you can't accidently drag files into other folders and
> 'lose' them.
You know, you seem to not have realised something. As a user of the machine
you're responsible for the actions you choose to make.
There's no reason why you need to use drag-and-drop if you find its
behaviour confusing. You could (as I do, mainly because mousing irritates
me when I already have my fingers on keys) use cut/copy/paste actions/
shortcuts. The thing is, you just have to learn how to tell the machine
what /you/ want it to do.
If you unambiguously tell it to do X and it does Y, then by all means
complain of a bug.
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> I think there is sensible logic behind the behaviour.
- especially when you consider that this behaviour was made standard many
years ago when all types of storage media were substantially less reliable
than current ones.
Russell Hafter News
> And finally:
You mean that a computer is the answer to everything?
Hardly.
One very specific example:
When taking people's credit card details over the phone when
they pay for their holiday one can either write them down on
a piece of paper, which can go through the shredder once
payment has been processed, or you can write it into a
document on the computer, in which case you need to use
certified security software (no doubt very expensive) to
ensure that the card details cannot be obtained by hacking.
Another, can you put up a typical (say A0) year planner on
your computer screen so that you can glance at it to check
something without it obscuring your work? Of course not. Or
at least, not without very expensive hardware.
Horses for courses, while a computer can help with a great
many tasks, it cannot do everything.
News poster
filecore <file...@gmail.com> wrote:
Funny, I could have sworn it was you.
Whoever you are.
Cheers
filecore
>
> > Haha! Yep, that's definitely you. Glad to see you have a sense of
> > humour after all!
>
> Funny, I could have sworn it was you.
...aaaaand yet, here you are again. Somebody on the internet is wrong
(that must be me), and you have to correct that somebody!
filecore
<see....@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> You mean that a computer is the answer to everything?
> Hardly.
[snip]
> Horses for courses, while a computer can help with a great
> many tasks, it cannot do everything.
This is very true. However, in a computer-related discussion, yes, a
computer is in fact the answer to everything. We were discussing the
relative merits of RISC OS vs Anything Else for the daily tasks of
2011. I didn't realise I was posting to paper.organisers.desk.planner
- you're trying to compare apples with oranges, outwith both the scope
and context of the discussion that has gone previously. If you want to
discuss non-computer-related solutions to daily tasks, perhaps a
computer group isn't the best place to do so.
filecore
their Iyonix review, which is even more poignant now than it was back
in 2005: http://www.iconbar.com/forums/viewthread.php?newsid=919
Chris Hughes
News poster <work...@mail.com> wrote:
> In message <07914c80-abb9-4ce3...@w36g2000vbi.googlegro
> ups.com>
> filecore <file...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>> It's not a bug. It will move files if on the same HDD/mount, but move
>> if dragging between different devices or mounts.
> In its own insane way it is consistent, but it leads to inconistent
> results for GUI users.
>> This is a safety feature, since it's far easier to delete a duplicate
>> than to recover a lost file from a bad device. It is the same
>> behaviour by default in both Windows and OSX, and is kind of standard
>> among filers in the 21st century.
> What is unsafe about doing the same when dragging and dropping between
> folders on the same volume? For a pure GUI user they will get the same
> result whenever they drag and drop.
Because a drap and drop on the same drive is simply a "rename", not a
physical move of data (by rename I mean the internal pointers are
simply changed to the new location. Its not physically been moved.
But a drag and drop to another device is a physical "move" of the
data, and thus is done as a copy and then delete of source depending
on which mouse click you have used. It done this way to protect the
source data in case the volume crashes etc..
If you want to be consistent just use Ctrl-X to cut the files/folders
and then Ctrl-V to paste then into the new locations, works every time
on other platforms.
--
Chris Hughes
Wakefield RISC OS Computer Show - 16th April 2011
http://www.wakefieldshow.org.uk
Dave Plowman (News)
Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> > I use Organizer for the sort of things you'd once have
> > written on the calender. The anniversary function for
> > things like car MOT etc. And the address book as my
> > master. PC progs tend to be US based, with far more
> > fields than I'd ever use.
> Frankly, I much prefer pen + paper for that sort of thing.
> Post-It notes stuck to the monitor as well as the wall
> calendar.
Given the thinks I need prompting to remember these days I'd not be able
to see the picture. ;-)
Nor do you need to transfer things like birthdays to a new calender...
--
*Do they ever shut up on your planet?
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Russell Hafter News
(News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <51ab0a5b...@walkingingermany.invalid>,
> Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid>
> wrote:
> > > I use Organizer for the sort of things you'd once
> > > have written on the calender. The anniversary
> > > function for things like car MOT etc. And the address
> > > book as my master. PC progs tend to be US based, with
> > > far more fields than I'd ever use.
> > Frankly, I much prefer pen + paper for that sort of
> > thing. Post-It notes stuck to the monitor as well as
> > the wall calendar.
> Given the thinks I need prompting to remember these days
> I'd not be able to see the picture. ;-)
> Nor do you need to transfer things like birthdays to a
> new calender...
I only have three there at present: one lists weekends when
certain trains between Brussels and Cologne may / may not be
operating, one telling me when a particular travel trade
fair is on and one listing the ID numbers of UK issued
Mastercards with 'World' branding, which make a big thing of
how they refund part of your spend back to you. And just how
do they finance this?
Yes, you guessed, by charging the merchant an extra 0.6% in
the first place!
Would a computer program keep that sort of info permaently
in view without obscuring the working area significantly? I
suspect that if it were on screen all the time, I would have
started swearing at it weeks ago!
Steve Fryatt
<1aa814a...@hetnet.nl>:
> Now that is a bug to me. The GUI action 'drag and drop' produced two
> copies of the file in one situation and only one copy of the file in
> another.
ITYF that it's a design feature.
> If the GUI action 'drag and drop' always results in two copies of the file
> (the source file remains undisturbed and a new copy is created) then as a
> user you can't accidently drag files into other folders and 'lose' them.
I don't know about MacOS, but Windows has always provided drag modifiers
that force Copy, force Move and force Shortcutting. It also offers an
unmodified drag that tries to do the most logical action in a given
situation. And, if you look, the pointer changes to show you what you're
about to do.
That's how it's designed, and it's useful that way. By comparison, RISC OS
always feels a bit cumbersome now.
--
Steve Fryatt - Leeds, England Wakefield Acorn & RISC OS Show
Saturday 16 April 2011
http://www.stevefryatt.org.uk/ http://www.wakefieldshow.org.uk/
Steve Fryatt
<523ec21b-5274-411c...@e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>:
> I just don't happen to believe that it's competitive in the second decade
> of the 21st century. It had its day, and ultimately, it lost and fell
> behind.
I wasn't aware that RISC OS had to be competitive in order for us to have
riscos.org updated. And, while I'm sure that some confused folk believe
that RISC OS is modern and competitive, if you believe that we all do then
you're very much mistaken.
;-)
Steve Fryatt
That's because it was in a post which, although from a different account,
was still clearly made by "filecore".
Try <cdb735ab-d2db-4a30...@e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
filecore
> was still clearly made by "filecore".
Yeah. It's an issue with multiple people sharing the same computer and
forgetting to log out - and of course, with certain others not
noticing that somebody has logged them out and logged themselves on in
the meantime (especially if Gmail is in one tab and Google Groups,
unrefreshed, is in another - so Google Groups still shows the correct
account, while it's in reality something different). Nothing nefarious
going on.
Russell Hafter News
<mpro.lh6sqq01...@stevefryatt.org.uk>, Steve
Fryatt <ne...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
> On 25 Feb, News poster wrote in message
> <1aa814a...@hetnet.nl>:
> > Now that is a bug to me. The GUI action 'drag and drop'
> > produced two copies of the file in one situation and
> > only one copy of the file in another.
> ITYF that it's a design feature.
>
> > If the GUI action 'drag and drop' always results in two
> > copies of the file (the source file remains undisturbed
> > and a new copy is created) then as a user you can't
> > accidently drag files into other folders and 'lose'
> > them.
> I don't know about MacOS, but Windows has always provided
> drag modifiers that force Copy, force Move and force
> Shortcutting. It also offers an unmodified drag that
> tries to do the most logical action in a given situation.
Where is all this documented, please? I have raked around in
control panels played with freeware utilities that claim to
improve the GUI and never found anything that mentions any
of this.
> And, if you look, the pointer changes to show you what
> you're about to do.
You mean the little + sign stuck onto the pointer that comes
and goes as it moves around the screen? I always wondered
what that was about!
It is not really helpful at all, IMHO, rather a further
piece of confusion. Start dragging and the +sign is there,
indicating a 'copy'. Then it disappears as you move outwith
the filer window in which you start. Then, if you move onto
a filer window reprenting a different disc, it comes back!
Using XP Professional.
> That's how it's designed, and it's useful that way.
It may well be designed that way, making it a feature, not a
bug, but it is seriously annoying to some of us.
> By comparison, RISC OS always feels a bit cumbersome now.
--
filecore
<see....@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> Where is all this documented, please? I have raked around in
> control panels played with freeware utilities that claim to
> improve the GUI and never found anything that mentions any
> of this.
Apparently you have the IQ of a bar of soap. In your long and rigorous
"raking around" in Windows, you missed the entry which says "Help and
Support"? Admittedly this item isn't in the control panel, but it is
quite clearly labelled in a "Help" menu on every single filer window
(Help -> Help and Support Centre), on the Start menu in a default
installation, and can be accessed at any time by pressing F1 in the
context of the OS shell.
By using subtle and complex search terms such as "copy file" and "move
folder", I was able to find support articles on the topic - typing
"drag drop" even got my a detailed article on the intricacies of right
mouse button dragging, as well as the keypresses.
Seems very well documented to me, and to find this, I only had to use
the built-in and extremely obvious help service - which is a prime
item in the control panel. This same thing worked in both XP Pro and
Windows 7.
Graham Thurlwell
<snip>
> Um. You just described the biggest advantage of RISC OS as "just
> dragging and dropping with a left mouse click", and yet I explained
> that you can almost identical (but actually even more functional)
> behaviour in Windows by dragging and dropping with a right mouse
> click.
Unless they've changed it in Win7, which I admit I haven't used much,
the default behaviour on all versions of Windows when dragging and
dropping with the right mouse button is to pop up a menu asking you
what to do - which at least saves you and Windows the bother of trying
to guess what's intended to happen. ;-)
The main problem with the traditional left drag behaviour of Windows
is that it isn't consistent.
--
Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.
nos...@jades.org /is/ a real email address!
Graham Thurlwell
> On Feb 25, 2:01 am, Graham Thurlwell <nos...@jades.org> wrote:
<snip>
>> On Puppy Linux (and presumably other other distros) it's possible to
>> configure ROX's left and right click drag behaviour. I generally set
>> it up to copy on 'select' drags and ask what to do on 'adjust' drags.
>> On XP I 'adjust' drag virtually all the time so I can choose from the
>> menu.
> On Windows and Linux this tends to be easily configurable if you want
> it globally in the OS.
I can't recall seeing any configuration options for drag behaviour in
the versions of Windows I've used and in Linux it depends on which
file/window manager your distro is using. ROX is very configurable but
that does partly depend on you seeing the menu item to bring up the
preference screens. Default behaviour in Lucid Puppy is to ask at all
times for both buttons.
> RISC OS didn't even support basic cut/copy/paste keyboard shortcuts
> until at least 4.37 (I don't recall exactly, it may even be RO 5/6
> only).
It's not a feature I ever missed, largely because dragging and
dropping in Filer was always so intuitive. In Windows the main
advantage to using keyboard shortcuts is that at least you can
reliably predict what's going to happen.
> There are only a few things that RISC OS can do that a modern OS can't, and
> generally it comes down to specific apps (which is generally a matter
> of resistance to change, as much as anything else).
Heh. I managed to persuade the parents to switch to Ovation Pro on the
Omega because I said I couldn't guarantee that our version of
Impression Publisher would work on it. The task was helped by the
quality of OvPro and also the pretty good Impression importer that
came with it.
> There are some technical exceptions, as I note myself with Impression,
> Paint and Draw, but by and large the argument is redundant.
I personally still prefer to use RISC OS for virtually all of my
productivity work at home, even with having a fairly powerful PC
running XP. As mentioned previously, Impression has been replaced by
OvPro (which is available for Windows also - far too late for me). We
rarely use Paint, preferring Photodesk. We do use Draw although I
personally use DrawWorks (which sits on top of Draw).
The main problem I've found with the PC alternatives is that they do
seem to suffer from a nasty case of Monsteritis.
> Besides, there's always emulation if you want the best of all worlds ;-)
Playing with the PC verison of Virtual Acorn was a little surreal
after having used Acorn PC Emulator on an A5000 in the past. ;-)
Isn't this the sort of thing that is better discussed on
comp.sys.acorn.advocacy or did the B8MB nuke it?
Graham Thurlwell
<snip>
> don't think I'm not fond of RISC OS; my filesystem, for the record,
> resides on a RiscPC 700 with RO3.7 which I still use on a regular
> basis.
Out of curiosity, have you ever used any of the more modern versions
of RISC OS? I agree that 3.7 is showing its age now. Oddly enough, my
family have an RPC 700, presumably with RO 3.7, in the study under one
of Dad's layouts. Haven't used it for years (main RISC OS machine is
an Omega). Wonder if it still works.
Russell Hafter News
<0a3a64b2-60c1-492e...@p24g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
filecore <file...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 25, 9:59 pm, Russell Hafter News
> <see....@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > around in control panels played with freeware utilities
> > that claim to improve the GUI and never found anything
> > that mentions any of this.
> Apparently you have the IQ of a bar of soap. In your long
> and rigorous "raking around" in the control panel, you
> missed the entry which says "Help and Support"? You can
> also get to it by pressing F1 in the context of the OS
> shell (and it's on the Start menu in a default
> installation). By using subtle and complex search terms
> such as "copy file" and "move folder", I was able to
> find support articles on the topic - typing "drag drop"
> even got my a detailed article on the intricacies of
> right mouse button dragging, as well as the keypresses.
Not interested in keypresses and we are talking about
drag+drop anyway.
> Seems very well documented to me, and to find this, I
> only had to use the built-in and extremely obvious help
> service - which is a prime item in the control panel.
> This same thing worked in both XP Pro and Windows 7.
Really!
That is all about copy or cut and paste.
Drag+drop is mentioned only as an afterthought, with an
instruction to click on related topics.
The idea of dragging with the menu button (right click) is
not exactly intuitive is it? And anyway, it is not
drag+drop, it is drag+menu.
And there is nothing in the help about what I was actually
looking for, and what I thought that Steve was talking
about, which is *configuring* drag+drop to do what I wanted
it to do, so that it was consistent in its behaviour.
I suspect that it is not there. Certainly 'change drag drop
behaviour' returns nothing.
Jim Nagel
> This is very true. However, in a computer-related discussion, yes, a
> computer is in fact the answer to everything. We were discussing the
> relative merits of RISC OS vs Anything Else for the daily tasks of
> 2011. I didn't realise I was posting to paper.organisers.desk.planner
> - you're trying to compare apples with oranges, outwith both the scope
> and context of the discussion that has gone previously. If you want to
> discuss non-computer-related solutions to daily tasks, perhaps a
> computer group isn't the best place to do so.
hmm. does this bring us back to some relevance to the title of this
computer-related thread?
--
Jim Nagel www.archivemag.co.uk
>> "from" address is genuine but will change. website has current one.
Chris Shepheard
ups.com>
filecore <file...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apparently you have the IQ of a bar of soap.
Is that really necessary? This is the sort of attitude that has seen
many former supporters depart the RISC OS scene in the past.
Can it or butt out!!!
Chris
--
Chris Shepheard writing as himself
chris.s...@chrispics.co.uk
from far west Surrey www.chrispics.co.uk
Dave Plowman (News)
Russell Hafter News <see...@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> Would a computer program keep that sort of info permaently
> in view without obscuring the working area significantly? I
> suspect that if it were on screen all the time, I would have
> started swearing at it weeks ago!
No. Organizer pops up a message at the time and date set. Just one day,
once a week, once a month, etc. Or any combination you can think of. With
or without an early warning. If you've got lots of postit notes, how do
you know which ones apply when?
But apart from displaying a message at the appointed time, it isn't on
screen unless you call it up - just running in the background.
--
*The average person falls asleep in seven minutes *
News Poster
> On 25 Feb, News poster wrote in message
>
> > In message
> > <b868729f-08d5-483c-ba86-cdd070620...@z31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com>
> > filecore <filec...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Did you actually read anything I wrote?
>
> > Not sure. Which post did you write it in? I haven't seen one from filecore
> > covering such matters in detail.
>
> That's because it was in a post which, although from a different account,
> was still clearly made by "filecore".
>
'Clearly' if you know who the feck filecore is. I thought it was just
another
member of Windows Jihad popping to to enjoy the fun.
News Poster
> I don't know about MacOS, but Windows has always provided drag modifiers
> that force Copy, force Move and force Shortcutting. It also offers an
> unmodified drag that tries to do the most logical action in a given
> situation. And, if you look, the pointer changes to show you what you're
> about to do.
>
> That's how it's designed, and it's useful that way.
Sigh. Yes I know how modifiers during right mouse click drag and drop
work under
various versions of windows and understand that for some inexplicable
reason
GUI/OS designers designed it to work like that. I've spend years of
my life
writing software for large client server systems using a programming
tool that ran under OS2/WinNT/WinXP and thus used the Windows GUI and
filer
every day, for several years.
For you, and many others, these options are obviously useful.
For me, these extra options, combined with inconsistent left
mouse click drag and drop behaviour are a right royal pain
in the butt.
I still can't fathom why anyone would deliberately design
behaviour into a GUI that helps people lose their files.
The effect of this default behaviour is the same as if the
GUI/Filer had a serious bug in it.
Jim Nagel
>> account,
>> was still clearly made by "filecore".
News Poster wrote on 26 Feb:
> 'Clearly' if you know who the feck filecore is. I thought it was just another
> member of Windows Jihad popping to to enjoy the fun.
'scuse me, but, come to that, it'd also be nice to know who-the-f
"News Poster <work...@mail.com>" is. c'mon, 'fess up, don't hide.
--
Jim Nagel [ www.archivemag.co.uk > Offer ]
Archive magazine's "two free trial issues" offer is still
in effect, if you haven't seen the magazine lately.
Matthew Phillips
on 26 Feb 2011 News Poster wrote:
> On Feb 25, 7:59 pm, Steve Fryatt <n...@stevefryatt.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > I don't know about MacOS, but Windows has always provided drag modifiers
> > that force Copy, force Move and force Shortcutting. It also offers an
> > unmodified drag that tries to do the most logical action in a given
> > situation. And, if you look, the pointer changes to show you what you're
> > about to do.
> >
> > That's how it's designed, and it's useful that way.
[snip]
> For me, these extra options, combined with inconsistent left mouse click
> drag and drop behaviour are a right royal pain in the butt.
>
> I still can't fathom why anyone would deliberately design
> behaviour into a GUI that helps people lose their files.
> The effect of this default behaviour is the same as if the
> GUI/Filer had a serious bug in it.
I agree: it's mighty inconvenient when someone at work drops an important
folder inside a random other folder by accident and does not realise they
have done it.
It gets worse with mapped networked drives. For a while we had the main
shared area mapped as K: and as S: because we were transitioning to S: to fit
in with the rest of the organisation but still had some legacy databases
which required K: available as a path. So you got exactly the same
directories and folders whichever drive you opened.
If you dragged from a subdirectory opened via K: to a different one opened
via S: you would get a copy operation. If you dragged to and from those same
subdirectories when both had been opened via the same drive letter, a move
operation. Crazy.
I wouldn't set too much store by some Linux filers operating the same way as
Windows. That doesn't mean it's good GUI design: it just means they've
either got no imagination and are copying the dominant OS, or they're
making Linux deliberately similar to ease users' transition.
--
Matthew Phillips
Durham
Dave Higton
<ebf43316-4ef9-4190...@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
News Poster <work...@mail.com> wrote:
> I still can't fathom why anyone would deliberately design
> behaviour into a GUI that helps people lose their files.
I have a colleague who like travelling to America because there,
he feels slim and intelligent.
Dave
filecore
> In message
> <ebf43316-4ef9-4190-bbdf-473ac9f33...@i39g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
> News Poster <workst...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > I still can't fathom why anyone would deliberately design
> > behaviour into a GUI that helps people lose their files.
>
> I have a colleague who like travelling to America because there,
> he feels slim and intelligent.
So he feels fat and stupid the rest of the time?
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> I agree: it's mighty inconvenient when someone at work drops an important
> folder inside a random other folder by accident and does not realise they
> have done it.
To me, this is more a problem of GUIs in general than specifically a
file-handling issue; I think it comes about because:
a) people have somehow been persuaded that a GUI is intuitive, and
will 'do what they want', without them necessarily being properly
trained to understand what it does
b) GUIs don't encourage people to think about what they're doing
c) GUIs make it far easier to do lots of things accidentally (compared
with CLIs where it's hard to have an accidental outcome though of
course mistakes are still common - but at least you have a record
of the command that was executed.
> It gets worse with mapped networked drives....
- which are not GUI-specific problems. The underlying CLI commands would
work the same way.
--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.
Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to newsre...@wingsandbeaks.org.uk replacing "aaa" by "284".
filecore
<jn.nntp.scrap...@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
> a) people have somehow been persuaded that a GUI is intuitive, and
> will 'do what they want', without them necessarily being properly
> trained to understand what it does
>
> b) GUIs don't encourage people to think about what they're doing
>
> c) GUIs make it far easier to do lots of things accidentally (compared
> with CLIs where it's hard to have an accidental outcome though of
> course mistakes are still common - but at least you have a record
> of the command that was executed.
All very good points, but don't they apply in both directions? I'm
sure PC users would say the exact same things to RISC OS users. In
truth, neither is more 'intuitive' than the other. Both are learned
systems, with users who prefer to stay with what they have learned.
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> All very good points, but don't they apply in both directions? I'm
> sure PC users would say the exact same things to RISC OS users. In
> truth, neither is more 'intuitive' than the other. Both are learned
> systems, with users who prefer to stay with what they have learned.
I wasn't suggesting the points were specific to any OS.
filecore
<jn.nntp.scrap...@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote:
> filecore <filec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > All very good points, but don't they apply in both directions?
And I do believe I was agreeing with you :-)
Matthew Phillips
on 26 Feb 2011 Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:
> > It gets worse with mapped networked drives....
> - which are not GUI-specific problems. The underlying CLI commands would
> work the same way.
No, the GUI unpredictability does get worse in this situation.
The complaint is, in Windows when you drag a file to another folder, how do
you know whether it will move it or copy it? (The answer is that you have to
spot the little plus sign, but suppose you don't know that.)
Now if we have K: and S: mapped to exactly the same area on the same
networked drive (because of the transitional arrangements I mentioned), in
the command line I do:
1) copy k:\this\file.doc s:\that\file.doc
2) copy k:\this\file.doc k:\that\file.doc
or
3) move k:\this\file.doc s:\that\file.doc
4) move k:\this\file.doc k:\that\file.doc
and cases (1) and (2) the file will be copied, and in (3,4) will be moved.
No surprise there.
But suppose I open the folders K:\this and S:\that and drag file.doc from one
to the other. The file will be copied.
However, if I open the folders K:\this and K:\that and drag file.doc from one
to the other, the file will be moved.
In each case, the destination folder is actually the *same* networked drive
location, but the behaviour is different depending on whether I had opened
via the K: drive or the S: drive alias.
Remember that the operating system at some level *knows* that they are the
same location! How is the educated user who understands about drive mappings
to second guess whether the OS goes on arbitrary drive mappings or genuine
storage location? It just adds to the confusion. And I may not have the
title bar of the folder visible when I drop the file in, so I might not be
able to see whether it is S: or K:.
Yes, people can be trained to spot the little plus sign, or to right-drag and
choose from a pop-up menu, but I would maintain that the RISC OS behaviour
where dragging in the Filer *always* copies and shift-dragging *always* moves
is easier to teach.
It's a little thing in the GUI design, but one which RISC OS got right, and
Windows got wrong. Yes, Windows does all sorts of things that RISC OS cannot
ever hope of catching up on, but at least concede that in some areas Windows
is less intuitive than RISC OS.
--
Matthew Phillips
Durham
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
> In message <mpro.lh8mmb...@wingsandbeaks.org.uk.invalid>
> on 26 Feb 2011 Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:
>
> > > It gets worse with mapped networked drives....
>
> > - which are not GUI-specific problems. The underlying CLI commands
> > would work the same way.
>
> No, the GUI unpredictability does get worse in this situation.
>
> The complaint is, in Windows when you drag a file to another folder, how
> do you know whether it will move it or copy it? (The answer is that you
> have to spot the little plus sign, but suppose you don't know that.)
>
> Now if we have K: and S: mapped to exactly the same area on the same
> networked drive (because of the transitional arrangements I mentioned), in
> the command line I do:
>
> 1) copy k:\this\file.doc s:\that\file.doc
> 2) copy k:\this\file.doc k:\that\file.doc
>
> or
>
> 3) move k:\this\file.doc s:\that\file.doc
> 4) move k:\this\file.doc k:\that\file.doc
>
> and cases (1) and (2) the file will be copied, and in (3,4) will be moved.
> No surprise there.
>
> But suppose I open the folders K:\this and S:\that and drag file.doc from
> one to the other. The file will be copied.
>
> However, if I open the folders K:\this and K:\that and drag file.doc from
> one to the other, the file will be moved.
Still no surprise in that, provided you appreciate that "K:\" and "S:\" are
not the same drive letters.
> In each case, the destination folder is actually the *same* networked
> drive location, but the behaviour is different depending on whether I had
> opened via the K: drive or the S: drive alias.
>
> Remember that the operating system at some level *knows* that they are the
> same location!
Does it? Why should it?
I'd expect there to be separate sets of control information held by the OS
for these two different mapped drives. Even if one is physically a subset
of another they're not logically the same place. I'd expect everything to
do with /file/ integrity & serialisation to be separate for two mapped
drives.
I don't know enough about Windows internals to know at what point I/O ceases
to be considered at a file level and becomes a device-level issue. I would
hope that at some point the OS or disk controller or something does realise
that opening the same file under more than one disk mapping does equate to
attempting to process the same sector (or whatever). (I'm afraid I know
more about IBM mainframe disks - which have long being shared between
multiple machines / OS images at a hardware level and between tasks running
within images at a software (OS) level).
> How is the educated user who understands about drive mappings to second
> guess whether the OS goes on arbitrary drive mappings or genuine storage
> location?
It depends on how well they're educated on drive mapping, I expect. Perhaps
the 'educated user' shouldn't be mapping one drive twice unless they
understand the implications?
> And I may not have the title bar of the folder visible when I drop the
> file in, so I might not be able to see whether it is S: or K:.
Which more or less brings me back to my contention that GUIs are a menace
especially if a user hasn't turned on or paid attention to salient details.
> Yes, people can be trained to spot the little plus sign,
It strikes me that the real problem with the presence or not of the plus
sign is that it's not displayed until the drop part of a drag'n'drop. I
would expect that most users pay much less attention to the form of the
mouse pointer when they're finishing a d'n'd rather than as they are
starting one off, especially if they think they're just copying files.
Whereas ^C & ^V (copy) and ^X & ^V (move) allow the user to specify which
process is going to be used at the start.
> or to right-drag and choose from a pop-up menu, but I would maintain that
> the RISC OS behaviour where dragging in the Filer *always* copies and
> shift-dragging *always* moves is easier to teach.
Does it in fact *always* do that? What about when the filer is showing
shares or views of disk(s) on foreign file systems?
Vince M Hudd
> <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> > You could add in Organizer and Pluto to that too.
> Pluto certainly, though I have never looked at Organiser.
> Having spent considerable time getting my head around the - to me -
> strange way that just about any Windows e-mail software operates, with
> every mailbox having its own bin, drafts, inbox and outbox - why, for
> goodness sake?
Not all e-mail clients operate that way on Windows. The most obvious example
is Gemini/Messenger Pro, since it's what I use, but I'm 50.0000001% sure
Thunderbird can be configured similarly, although it defaults to the
behaviour you describe.
> Finally discovered that I could have just the one mailbox for everything
> and then set up folders which would be more or less equivalent to Pluto's
> boxes. But there are still the - for me - totally unnecessary inbox and
> sent box which I will never use and cannot delte.
Depending which software you are using, you may be able to hide them from
sight, only to appear if something ends up in them - which, if you
definitely aren't using those boxes, won't happen.
I'm a little confused, though - it's been a long time since I used Pluto,
but doesn't it also have a default inbox (just not called inbox) along with
another for sent mail?
--
Vince M Hudd: http://misc.vinceh.com Soft Rock: http://www.softrock.co.uk
http://www.riscository.com/2011/sophie-wilson-at-the-risc-os-south-west-show-2011/
Vince M Hudd
> > That's because it was in a post which, although from a different
> > account, was still clearly made by "filecore".
> Yeah. It's an issue with multiple people sharing the same computer and
> forgetting to log out
This is easily solved by having the screen saver come on after only a very
short time, and set such that the logon screen is displayed when returning
from it. Here, it's set to just one minute - although it's for a different
reason, it does work quite well for that purpose.
The only slight nuisance is remembering to (say) give the mouse pointer a
slight nudge when just reading something, which I imagine you probably do
more of as a proof-reader. On the other hand, for the very same reason that
light nudging might just become second nature.
[...]
filecore
> This is easily solved by having the screen saver come on after only a very
> short time, and set such that the logon screen is displayed when returning
> from it.
A what now? Since I use modern technology (including my monitor), the
only value a screen-saver - a tool designed to prevent screen burn-in
- has, is entertainment value.
When I'm away from the computer for more than a few minutes I switch
the monitor off - good for the environment, y'know, as well as having
a cumulative if tiny effect on my electricity bill - and having a
modern monitor, I get a pretty quick response when turning it back on
again. So there is absolutely no need for using one. I appreciate the
security angle of both screen blanking and password-on-resume, but
since I run my company from home and have no employees, the only
danger is if my lizard wants to steal corporate info, and I doubt
that's going to happen.
So I take convenience, eco-friendliness and speed of response over
burn-in prevention (not going to happen) and security (not going to
happen), and find a screen-saver to be a pointless, distracting piece
of eye candy. It's pure arrogance to walk away from the computer for
hours and leave it showing the screen-saver; that's purely wasting
energy for the sake of wasting energy. Multiply that by millions of
office-workers and home-users around the globe, and you see what I
mean. Screen-savers no longer have any function as per their original
design and should be phased out, replaced with something more
security- and environmentally-conscious.
Alexander Ausserstorfer
<6f1264c1-21c5-45f1...@y3g2000vbh.googlegroups.com>
filecore <file...@gmail.com>
hat geschrieben:
> RISC OS is hardly "relevant and useful" in 2011
I'm using it all the time long and made the decision in the past not to
spend my hard-earned money for a portable computer running Windows &
VRPC but for a thirth Acorn computer, a second monitor and some great
software like the PS3-driver and ProCAD+ which I enjoy enough.
RISC OS is VERY RELEVANT and USEFUL... for the right things you do.
A.
--
Alexander Ausserstorfer, Bavaria
http://home.chiemgau-net.de/ausserstorfer/
Alexander Ausserstorfer
<689d06a...@ntlworld.com>
Dr Alan Leighton <alan.le...@ntlworld.com>
hat geschrieben:
> He was such a kind man and was always ready to help. Sometimes I just
> don't know who to turn to these days with out making someone grumpy.
> He was a gentle, kind person and we miss him so much,
It's people like him who keep me using RISC OS. I don't like M. Gâtes
much. So it's not only a technical but also a moral question why I'm
still using RISC OS. I just don't pay for all this cheating they have
done to us...
Alexander Ausserstorfer
<1bc2b6a...@hetnet.nl>
work...@mail.com
hat geschrieben:
> In message <d696944f-1628-430f...@a5g2000vbs.googlegroups.com> you wrote:
>
> >, RISC OS is
> > largely for the stubborn, the befuddled, and that small niche of die-
> > hard enthusiasts.
>
> Meh.
>
> I have failed to find a filer anywhere near as good as the RISC OS
> filer.
It's not just the filer. To me it is stupid how modern scanning software
for Windows and also MacOS works: First you have to decide what you want
and then the stream is directly sent do harddisc, printer or another
programme. I find it more logical and also flexible to scan first the
picture, then to adjust it and then to save it to disc by giving it a
name or to drag & drop it to another programme. The last philosophy is
also more obvious to the user, I think.
Alex'
Alexander Ausserstorfer
<96e207a...@ntlworld.com>
> I use a PC when I have to, working PowerPoint and now FireFox.
>
> How laborious PP is.
Please don't use it! It was always a pain in the arse at my time as
student.
A.
Vince M Hudd
> On Feb 27, 2:27 am, Vince M Hudd <vin...@softr
> > This is easily solved by having the screen saver come on after only a
> > very short time, and set such that the logon screen is displayed when
> > returning from it.
> A what now? Since I use modern technology (including my monitor), the only
> value a screen-saver - a tool designed to prevent screen burn-in - has, is
> entertainment value.
It has what value now?
Personally, I see no entertainment value in watching a blank screen doing
absolutely nothing. Why assume that at the mention of screen savers I meant
one of the stupid animations?
All what you've said in your follow-up achieves is to suggest to me that you
didn't properly read and digest what I said, nor the reason for it, and
instead responded to what you think I might have meant. I refer you to the
times I've told you that you come across as an arrogant twat on The Icon Bar
forums - this is exactly the sort of thing that justifies it.
[...]
> I appreciate the security angle of both screen blanking and
> password-on-resume, but since I run my company from home and have no
> employees, the only danger is if my lizard wants to steal corporate info,
> and I doubt that's going to happen.
Indeed, and that's my main reason for using one** (well, not the lizard
part), but there is another benefit: It helps to ensure the you use the
correct account on the computer when there is more than one user.
Which is exactly where I came into this thread.
Using a screen saver (be it a blank screen or an animated gimmick) with the
option set to show the logon screen on resume is an easy solution to the
problem I replied to in my follow-up.
----8<----
Yeah. It's an issue with multiple people sharing the same computer and
forgetting to log out
----8<----
If you use a screen saver as I've suggested neither you nor Laura need to
*remember* to log out when leaving the computer unattended because, if it's
unattended for more than a minute, the next user will have to log *in* -
neither of you can accidentally use the other's account.
(For unattended periods of less than a minute, all bets are obviously off!)
The only real issue is ensuring you have both saved any work before leaving
the computer unattended, in case the other user subsequently shuts it down -
but even then, it'll warn you that another user is still logged in, giving
whichever of you the opportunity to check with the other.
And you can *still* switch the monitor off - good for the environment,
y'know, as well as having a cumulative if tiny effect on your electricity
bill - and having a modern monitor, you'll still get a pretty quick response
when turning it back on again.
I'll stop with the paraphrasing at that point, because your next sentence
was "So there is absolutely no need for using one" and while it's true that
you don't *need* to use one, there is a clear benefit to you from doing so.
** A screen saver isn't the greatest form of security in the world, but in
the environments I take my laptop (and more to the point, the people *in*
those environments), it is more than adequate for my needs.
M Harding
Alexander Ausserstorfer <bavari...@chiemgau-net.de> wrote:
> In der Nachricht
> <689d06a...@ntlworld.com>
> Dr Alan Leighton <alan.le...@ntlworld.com>
> hat geschrieben:
> > He was such a kind man and was always ready to help. Sometimes I
> > just don't know who to turn to these days with out making someone
> > grumpy. He was a gentle, kind person and we miss him so much,
> It's people like him who keep me using RISC OS. I don't like M.
> Gātes much. [ . . . ]
Is that a pun, gāter meaning "to spoil"? If so, an excellent one. 8-)
Michael Harding
Rev. Preb. M.D. Harding ris...@mdharding.org.uk
Folderol
"Alexander Ausserstorfer" <bavari...@chiemgau-net.de> wrote:
> In der Nachricht
> <96e207a...@ntlworld.com>
> Dr Alan Leighton <alan.le...@ntlworld.com>
> hat geschrieben:
>
> > I use a PC when I have to, working PowerPoint and now FireFox.
> >
> > How laborious PP is.
>
> Please don't use it! It was always a pain in the arse at my time as
> student.
>
> A.
>
A few years ago I read a very interesting article about PP but I'm afraid I
can't remember the source.
A class of students asked to help with some learning research. They weren't
told exactly what the research was but were told that they would be given
material that was deliberately outside their normal curriculum so as to avoid
any information 'contamination'.
They were split into 3 groups. One group simply had a lecture from a well
respected professor. The second group had the same lecture but run with a PP
presentation, and the third group were given just the presentation and more or
less told to get on with it.
A couple of days later they were all given a test to see how much they'd
retained. The results might be a surprise. The group with both the lecture and
the presentation were very much worse than either of the other groups, and the
the best by a long way was the straight lecture.
This tended to support the idea that the researches wanted to test, in that you
can only properly concentrate on one thing at a time and that students
attempting to switch backwards and forwards between the professor and the
presentation were losing information from both sources. Also, when given a
lecture form a good professor people tend to engage better.
--
Will J G
Stuart
<b10ca154-b983-4dd1...@o10g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
filecore <file...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I take convenience, eco-friendliness and speed of response over
> burn-in prevention (not going to happen) and security (not going to
> happen), and find a screen-saver to be a pointless, distracting piece
> of eye candy. It's pure arrogance to walk away from the computer for
> hours and leave it showing the screen-saver; that's purely wasting
> energy for the sake of wasting energy. Multiply that by millions of
> office-workers and home-users around the globe, and you see what I
> mean. Screen-savers no longer have any function as per their original
> design and should be phased out, replaced with something more
> security- and environmentally-conscious.
But it could always do something useful
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/
--
Stuart Winsor
Midland RISC OS show - Sat July 9th 2011
filecore
net.de> wrote:
> It's not just the filer. To me it is stupid how modern scanning software
> for Windows and also MacOS works: First you have to decide what you want
> and then the stream is directly sent do harddisc, printer or another
> programme. I find it more logical and also flexible to scan first the
> picture, then to adjust it and then to save it to disc by giving it a
> name or to drag & drop it to another programme. The last philosophy is
> also more obvious to the user, I think.
I do believe you have the option of doing both (at least with Windows
apps, I've found there to be an "Import from -> Scanner" option in the
graphic editing application. In my experience, it's only the physical
buttons on the scanner that send a "Save/Print/Open with" option to
the computer, via its driver, and at least with Canon scanners you can
also configure it to output directly into your editing app of choice,
which is effectively the same as opening the app first and then
scanning into it. It's all about how you've set your options.
filecore
> But it could always do something useful
>
> http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/
Very true (apart from the fact that protien folding is a more
realistic use of folding than searching for aliens), but if F@H is
what you want to do with your otherwise wasted CPU cycles, you can
just as well do it with the monitor switched off and save additional
power that way. Still don't need a screensaver blaring light and enrgy
out into the ether when you're AFK and nobody's watching it. It's the
equivalent of leaving the television on "for something to listen to"
when you're not in the room; if you want background noise, it's more
efficient to switch on the radio instead (or alternatively, most
modern LCD TVs have an option to power down the screen when doing
audio only).
filecore
> filecore <filec...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > A what now? Since I use modern technology (including my monitor), the only
> > value a screen-saver - a tool designed to prevent screen burn-in - has, is
> > entertainment value.
>
> It has what value now?
I was being sarcastic.
> Personally, I see no entertainment value in watching a blank screen doing
> absolutely nothing. Why assume that at the mention of screen savers I meant
> one of the stupid animations?
I'm either at my computer - using it, and therefore needing to see the
desktop - or I'm away from it, thus not using it and not needing to
see the desktop. There are rare occasions when I'm near it but not
actively using it, and will occasionally glance to check the progress
of something; these, however, are rare and in the minority. If I need
to use it, the monitor is switched on. If I don't need to use it, the
monitor is off. There is still no need to use a screensaver when I'm
not using the computer, because I won't see it, and therefore it is
purely wasting energy - and there is no need to use a screensaver when
I *am* using it, because... well, because I'm using it at the time.
> times I've told you that you come across as an arrogant twat on The Icon Bar
> forums - this is exactly the sort of thing that justifies it.
But I'm a nice guy in real life, honest! ;-)
http://sacrificialswath.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/internet-dickwad.jpg
(and don't you dare try to tell me that doesn't apply to half the
posters to CSA*, anonymous or otherwise - I was reading these groups
for a long time before I ever started posting again.)
SG nws
http://sacrificialswath.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/internet-dickwad.jpg
The same seems to apply to some peeps as soon as they get behind
the wheel of a motor vehicle.
--
Stewart Goldwater
http://janusg.co.nr