Disinfection
Jim Webster
Cumbria stopped disinfecting their tankers on and off farms yesterday.
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
J B
news:a17325$phh$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> According to a tanker driver I met in the lanes this morning, "Zenith" in
> Cumbria stopped disinfecting their tankers on and off farms yesterday.
We has a letter from Wiseman last week to tell us they had stopped round here (I
wasn't actually aware that they were still doing it!)
--
J B
Gordon Burgess-Parker
> "Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
> news:a17325$phh$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > According to a tanker driver I met in the lanes this morning, "Zenith" in
> > Cumbria stopped disinfecting their tankers on and off farms yesterday.
Does it really matter now that dog-walkers and ramblers are not required to
disinfect?
--
Mandrake 8.0 User at Home since 8 October 2001 :-)
Registered Linux User no 240308
Windows 2000 Pro user at Work :-(
David P
<gor...@burgessparker.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>--
>Mandrake 8.0 User at Home since 8 October 2001 :-)
>Registered Linux User no 240308
Ooh, do you dual boot? What spec do you need?
I was given an old P166 with 58mb Ram and two small hard drives [both
sub 2gb] to play with over Christmas and I was looking at M 8 today in
Waterstones. It looked a bit 'heavy' for what I have and I'm looking
at RH 7 to try - seems to fit well.
We could go to mail if no-one else is intersted and you wouldn't mind?
--
David
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies.
FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more!
Dan
"David P" <davi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3c39fcc0...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 09:43:16 +0000, Gordon Burgess-Parker
> <gor...@burgessparker.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> >--
> >Mandrake 8.0 User at Home since 8 October 2001 :-)
> >Registered Linux User no 240308
>
> Ooh, do you dual boot? What spec do you need?
>
> I was given an old P166 with 58mb Ram and two small hard drives [both
> sub 2gb] to play with over Christmas and I was looking at M 8 today in
> Waterstones. It looked a bit 'heavy' for what I have and I'm looking
> at RH 7 to try - seems to fit well.
>
> We could go to mail if no-one else is intersted and you wouldn't mind?
No please, I'd like to know more so long as it doesn't get tooooooo
technical!
Dan
Jill
--
http://www.poultryscotland.co.uk http://www.henhouses.co.uk
http://www.kintaline.co.uk http://www.hardyplantcentre.co.uk
http://homepages.tesco.net/~welshcottage
"Dan" <dan.wh...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a1dcet$q26sv$1...@ID-115710.news.dfncis.de...
>
> "David P" <davi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3c39fcc0...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> > On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 09:43:16 +0000, Gordon Burgess-Parker
> > <gor...@burgessparker.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >--
> > >Mandrake 8.0 User at Home since 8 October 2001 :-)
> > >Registered Linux User no 240308
> >
> > Ooh, do you dual boot? What spec do you need?
> >
> > I was given an old P166 with 58mb Ram and two small hard drives [both
> > sub 2gb] to play with over Christmas and I was looking at M 8 today in
> > Waterstones. It looked a bit 'heavy' for what I have and I'm looking
> > at RH 7 to try - seems to fit well.
> >
> > We could go to mail if no-one else is intersted and you wouldn't mind?
>
> No please, I'd like to know more so long as it doesn't get tooooooo
> technical!
Here too -
Jill
Gordon Burgess-Parker
Yes I do dual-boot (at home, not at work :-( )
I'm afraid I'm not an expert at all on the different distributions - I think
that Mandrake works best on high spec machines and it was the one I got into
through a CD on a magazine cover.. (My PC is a 512 MHz Athlon with 258 Mb Ram
and a 13 GB hard disk). It is a bit "quirky" but once you get used to it, I
find that the machine is generally quicker than using windows - my "winmodem"
works far better in Linux than it does in Windows (!).And of course most
software is either free or VERY cheap. There are free Linux programs that will
do most things that you can do in Windows at a cost - Star Office/Open Office
being the obvious example as a replacement for MS Office.
If your really interested, the best place to go would be uk.comp.os.linux where
you should get a lot of good advice!
Regards
Gordon
--
Mandrake 8.0 User at Home since 8 October 2001 :-)
Registered Linux User no 240308
David P
<gor...@burgessparker.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Dan wrote:
>
>> "David P" <davi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:3c39fcc0...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>> > On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 09:43:16 +0000, Gordon Burgess-Parker
>> > <gor...@burgessparker.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > >--
>> > >Mandrake 8.0 User at Home since 8 October 2001 :-)
>> > >Registered Linux User no 240308
>> >
>> > Ooh, do you dual boot? What spec do you need?
>> >
>> > I was given an old P166 with 58mb Ram and two small hard drives [both
>> > sub 2gb] to play with over Christmas and I was looking at M 8 today in
>> > Waterstones. It looked a bit 'heavy' for what I have and I'm looking
>> > at RH 7 to try - seems to fit well.
>> >
>> > We could go to mail if no-one else is intersted and you wouldn't mind?
>>
>> No please, I'd like to know more so long as it doesn't get tooooooo
>> technical!
>>
>> Dan
>> > --
>> > David
>> > Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk for your local farmgate food supplies.
>> > FAQ's, Glossary, Farming Year and more!
>
>Yes I do dual-boot (at home, not at work :-( )
Good - I can learn from you then <g> Do you need to have the dual
boot facility on the main drive? - that would seem to make sense.
Does it set up when you install the distro?
>I'm afraid I'm not an expert at all on the different distributions - I think
>that Mandrake works best on high spec machines
That is the impression that I have. I'm looking for a low spec cheap
ad cheerful. It may not run the soundcard but so long as it will run
the screen and modem at whatever level it wants I won't care.
>
>If your really interested, the best place to go would be uk.comp.os.linux where
>you should get a lot of good advice!
>
The group will be added to my list - thanks for the tip Gordon. I
will no doubt have lots of dumb questions to ask there.
Gordon Burgess-Parker
> Good - I can learn from you then <g> Do you need to have the dual
> boot facility on the main drive? - that would seem to make sense.
mandrake automatically puts it there.
> Does it set up when you install the distro?
Yes if its Mandrake!
> That is the impression that I have. I'm looking for a low spec cheap
> ad cheerful. It may not run the soundcard but so long as it will run
> the screen and modem at whatever level it wants I won't care.
most distros will run the more popular cards afaik, best to check at somewhere like
http://www.linuxhardware.org/
>
> >
> The group will be added to my list - thanks for the tip Gordon. I
> will no doubt have lots of dumb questions to ask there.
Don't worry too much - we all ask dumb questions there!
Good luck
Gordon
--
Mandrake 8.0 User at Home since 8 October 2001 :-)
Registered Linux User no 240308
David P
<gor...@burgessparker.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>David P wrote:
>
>> Good - I can learn from you then <g> Do you need to have the dual
>> boot facility on the main drive? - that would seem to make sense.
>
>mandrake automatically puts it there.
>
So when you boot the pc it will do through the startup dialogue and
then do you get a message that says "do you want to run win.exe or
linux" and you then select which one you want to load?
Thanks for taking the time Gordon - I'm learning from 'talking' and I
trust that Dan and Jill are also finding it mildly interesting.
David G. Bell
davi...@yahoo.co.uk "David P" wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 09:28:34 +0000, Gordon Burgess-Parker
> <gor...@burgessparker.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Yes I do dual-boot (at home, not at work :-( )
>
> Good - I can learn from you then <g> Do you need to have the dual
> boot facility on the main drive? - that would seem to make sense.
On a machine that old, you don't have much choice. More modern machines
can be set to boot from other drives, which become the "main drive".
> Does it set up when you install the distro?
Yes, usually giving you the choice of which OS is the default.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Mr. Punch's Advice to a Young Man About to Become a Farmer:
"Marry, instead."
Gordon Burgess-Parker
> So when you boot the pc it will do through the startup dialogue and
> then do you get a message that says "do you want to run win.exe or
> linux" and you then select which one you want to load?
Yep, that's what Mandrake does - there are two different programs, Grub and
Lilo. Mandrake uses Lilo and you get a little menu to choose from on boot-up!
David P
("David G. Bell") wrote:
>On Tuesday, in article <3c3aca55...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>
> davi...@yahoo.co.uk "David P" wrote:
>
>> Good - I can learn from you then <g> Do you need to have the dual
>> boot facility on the main drive? - that would seem to make sense.
>
>On a machine that old, you don't have much choice. More modern machines
>can be set to boot from other drives, which become the "main drive".
>
I have to say I find it frightening that a 5 year old pc is considered
so old and worthless that it is given to me as a toy. When new I
reckon that it would have cost around £1000 [thinking of some other
purchases that I made around that time]. It is one heck of a
depreciation rate!
All because the masses want to run games on their pc's. What I have
as a toy is still a damn good 'office' machine as are many that are
much older.
Oz
>
>On a machine that old, you don't have much choice. More modern machines
>can be set to boot from other drives, which become the "main drive".
Indeed. At one time I ran w32, G95 and linux this way.
Not very convenient though, I must say.
Personally I would strongly suggest you use an obsolete machine for
Linux (or buy a new one for m$ - very acceptable m$ machines can be got
for under 500).
--
Oz
This post is worth precisely what you paid for it.
Michael Saunby
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 12:09:13 +0000 (GMT), db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk
> ("David G. Bell") wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, in article <3c3aca55...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>
> > davi...@yahoo.co.uk "David P" wrote:
> >
>
> >> Good - I can learn from you then <g> Do you need to have the dual
> >> boot facility on the main drive? - that would seem to make sense.
> >
> >On a machine that old, you don't have much choice. More modern
machines
> >can be set to boot from other drives, which become the "main drive".
> >
>
> I have to say I find it frightening that a 5 year old pc is considered
> so old and worthless that it is given to me as a toy. When new I
> reckon that it would have cost around £1000 [thinking of some other
> purchases that I made around that time]. It is one heck of a
> depreciation rate!
>
> All because the masses want to run games on their pc's. What I have
> as a toy is still a damn good 'office' machine as are many that are
> much older.
It's not really about the masses, large businesses generally replace PCs
every 3 years, so value at 1 year old is roughly 2/3 purchase price,
then 1/3, then nothing! Also Moore's law states that processing power
doubles every 18 months, so a 3 year old PC has 1/4 processing power of
new one, which is easy for users of even the most basic of software to
notice.
They should be paying you to take away a 5 year old PC!
Michael Saunby
Jim Webster
Michael Saunby <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:1010498429.12599....@news.demon.co.uk...
> It's not really about the masses, large businesses generally replace PCs
> every 3 years, so value at 1 year old is roughly 2/3 purchase price,
> then 1/3, then nothing! Also Moore's law states that processing power
> doubles every 18 months, so a 3 year old PC has 1/4 processing power of
> new one, which is easy for users of even the most basic of software to
> notice.
>
> They should be paying you to take away a 5 year old PC!
I suppose that so long as you keep the same operating system and software
packages updating the hardware isn't too much of a problem. However I have
heard of companies who felt that the constant cost of upgrading software,
with retraining courses etc meant that upgrades were often counter
productive. As one chap explained to me, "what's the point of buying in new
bells and whistles, then paying people to go on training courses to discover
the upgrades are all features we never use anyway?"
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
> Michael Saunby
>
>
Jim Webster
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 12:09:13 +0000 (GMT), db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk
> ("David G. Bell") wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, in article <3c3aca55...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>
> > davi...@yahoo.co.uk "David P" wrote:
> >
>
> >> Good - I can learn from you then <g> Do you need to have the dual
> >> boot facility on the main drive? - that would seem to make sense.
> >
> >On a machine that old, you don't have much choice. More modern machines
> >can be set to boot from other drives, which become the "main drive".
> >
>
> I have to say I find it frightening that a 5 year old pc is considered
> so old and worthless that it is given to me as a toy. When new I
> reckon that it would have cost around £1000 [thinking of some other
> purchases that I made around that time]. It is one heck of a
> depreciation rate!
>
> All because the masses want to run games on their pc's. What I have
> as a toy is still a damn good 'office' machine as are many that are
> much older.
ridiculous really. I suppose that at some point amachine will die on you,
but it is very difficult to avoid getting caught in the vicious circle in
that to work with others you have to have the software upgrades which tend
to be too bloated to run on your old machine, meaning that you have to
upgrade the machine as well.
Michael Saunby
"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
>
>
> ridiculous really. I suppose that at some point amachine will die on
you,
> but it is very difficult to avoid getting caught in the vicious circle
in
> that to work with others you have to have the software upgrades which
tend
> to be too bloated to run on your old machine, meaning that you have to
> upgrade the machine as well.
>
Also note that software upgrades bought without hardware are expensive,
e.g. Windows XP £130 + vat, Office XP £230 + vat. i.e. £360 quid for
standard business configuration. A basic, but good name PC, e.g. Dell
with this software installed will cost about £600 + vat. So if you want
MS software the PC only costs £240 quid, not bad for 1GHz, 128MB ram,
20GB disc, etc (i.e. last years spec). Software over 3 years old
frequently isn't supported. If Microsoft sold PCs this arrangement
would no doubt get them in trouble, as it is Microsoft, Intel and the
rest are doing very nicely, just so long as folks do upgrade, if they
stop, then it will take a long time for things to settle down again, and
that probably isn't in the interest of the big buyers of PCs such as
governments, banks, etc.
Note, I'm not saying this is good, but big firms upgrade the whole
thing, hardware, software, training, every 3 years and generally reckon
they're getting good value.
Michael Saunby
Oz
>ridiculous really. I suppose that at some point amachine will die on you,
>but it is very difficult to avoid getting caught in the vicious circle in
>that to work with others you have to have the software upgrades which tend
>to be too bloated to run on your old machine, meaning that you have to
>upgrade the machine as well.
I play masters of orion, being a dos program it works just fine on any
old software and has a nice retro feel to it too. I used to play
civilisation, but it takes too long to play a game (several intensive
days).
Hamish Macbeth
second processor was
to meet the need of processing mp3 audio files that have become popular.
If we assume that audio goes to 15000 cycles per second it looks awfully
inefficient to me :)
The gentleman also said that 750MHz machines and below were skip fodder.
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VJ4orjAn...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
Oz
>I was amused on yesterdays news to hear that the new 2400,000,000 Cycles per
>second processor was
>to meet the need of processing mp3 audio files that have become popular.
>
>If we assume that audio goes to 15000 cycles per second it looks awfully
>inefficient to me :)
Hmmm. I don;t think they require *that* much processing power but they
can waver under heavy cpu use. OTOH you can get lots and lots of CD'd on
a CD (IYSWIM).
Denis F
>The gentleman also said that 750MHz machines and below were skip fodder.
he wouldn't like my p133 then!
--
denis
A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is
shining and wants it back the minute it begins to rain. (Mark Twain)
Hamish Macbeth
Found a site in the USA that has free to download mp3 files of the !940s
Campbell's soup theatre including
the Orson Wells War of the Worlds. With my personnel MP3 CD player I've got
12 hours of entertainment on a single CD.
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Ju5fyPAh...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
Five Cats
<davi...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 12:09:13 +0000 (GMT), db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk
>("David G. Bell") wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, in article <3c3aca55...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>
>> davi...@yahoo.co.uk "David P" wrote:
>>
>
>>> Good - I can learn from you then <g> Do you need to have the dual
>>> boot facility on the main drive? - that would seem to make sense.
>>
>>On a machine that old, you don't have much choice. More modern machines
>>can be set to boot from other drives, which become the "main drive".
>>
>
>I have to say I find it frightening that a 5 year old pc is considered
>so old and worthless that it is given to me as a toy. When new I
>reckon that it would have cost around £1000 [thinking of some other
>purchases that I made around that time]. It is one heck of a
>depreciation rate!
>
>All because the masses want to run games on their pc's. What I have
>as a toy is still a damn good 'office' machine as are many that are
>much older.
Not really if it's to run Windows! Anything more than 3 years old is
unlikely to have enough memory and disk to load Win2K and Office 2K,
which are pretty standard for office PCs in many places now. Also, PCs
which are 3 or more years old are often rather expensive to upgrade -
for example they will use SIMMs instead of DIMMS and (say) 64MB memory
costs more on SIMMs than DIMMs. They can also have problems with hard
disks over 8GB unless the BIOS can be upgraded, and there's not much
hope of a processor upgrade.
I built one a few months ago for about £600 including DVD reader, CD
writer, lots of memory and lots of hard disk. I'm using a screen I
already had - an equivalent screen would be about £200-£250. It's an
Iiyama Vision Master Pro 410, one of the first CRT monitors with a flat
screen. There are cheaper ones around but they often won't accept the
refresh rate and resolution I use on this one.
--
Five Cats
Five Cats
.knows.where.by.now> writes
>
>Michael Saunby <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
>news:1010498429.12599....@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> "David P" <davi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>
>> It's not really about the masses, large businesses generally replace PCs
>> every 3 years, so value at 1 year old is roughly 2/3 purchase price,
>> then 1/3, then nothing! Also Moore's law states that processing power
>> doubles every 18 months, so a 3 year old PC has 1/4 processing power of
>> new one, which is easy for users of even the most basic of software to
>> notice.
>>
>> They should be paying you to take away a 5 year old PC!
>
>I suppose that so long as you keep the same operating system and software
>packages updating the hardware isn't too much of a problem. However I have
>heard of companies who felt that the constant cost of upgrading software,
>with retraining courses etc meant that upgrades were often counter
>productive. As one chap explained to me, "what's the point of buying in new
>bells and whistles, then paying people to go on training courses to discover
>the upgrades are all features we never use anyway?"
We started with the 16-bit version of Office. It didn't have a 'create
folder' button in the 'save' dialog box and of course only worked with
short (8.3) filenames.
Then we went to Office 97 and the 'create folder' button and ability to
use long filenames was something everyone can use without training. I
also like the Office shortcut bar which I use down the side of my screen
with buttons to launch stuff I use a lot. Word 97 also does much better
with tables than the older version. finally Office 97 came on CDs - it
was no joke installing the old version on 24 or so floppy disks,
especially once one of the floppies was stuffed. Somewhere I think I
have a version transferred onto CD-R!
Then office 2000 came along and lo! When you are choosing a type-face
from the drop-down box it shows you the name of the typeface *in* the
typeface, which is jolly useful when looking for a particular kind of
style. I think I've found other useful little bits & pieces as well.
With something like Word I have found that everything I used to do still
works the same, but there are some new bits & pieces which are really
useful. They sound pathetically when listed above - but I really
appreciate them.
When Windows XP is available on a student licences I think I might
invest £50.
>
>
>--
>Jim Webster
>
>"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
>
> 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
>
>>
>> Michael Saunby
>>
>>
>
>
--
Five Cats
Five Cats
.knows.where.by.now> writes
>
It really is very hard to add new functionality to a program without
making it larger.... ;-)
>
>
>--
>Jim Webster
>
>"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
>
> 'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
>
>
--
Five Cats
Five Cats
Michael Saunby <msa...@despammed.com> writes
>
>"Jim Webster" <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
>news:a1f3sm$dcp$3...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>
>>
>> ridiculous really. I suppose that at some point amachine will die on
>you,
>> but it is very difficult to avoid getting caught in the vicious circle
>in
>> that to work with others you have to have the software upgrades which
>tend
>> to be too bloated to run on your old machine, meaning that you have to
>> upgrade the machine as well.
>>
>
>Also note that software upgrades bought without hardware are expensive,
>e.g. Windows XP £130 + vat, Office XP £230 + vat. i.e. £360 quid for
>standard business configuration. A basic, but good name PC, e.g. Dell
>with this software installed will cost about £600 + vat. So if you want
>MS software the PC only costs £240 quid, not bad for 1GHz, 128MB ram,
>20GB disc, etc (i.e. last years spec).
Except that most people can find a way to be eligible for student
licences - £50 for Win2k and about £90 for Office 2000. Of course the
makers are supplying OEM versions. It's just like new cars - the tyres
on mine would cost me about £120 per corner (it's a lease car so the
lease company pays) but I bet Renault didn't pay that much for them.
> Software over 3 years old
>frequently isn't supported. If Microsoft sold PCs this arrangement
>would no doubt get them in trouble, as it is Microsoft, Intel and the
>rest are doing very nicely, just so long as folks do upgrade, if they
>stop, then it will take a long time for things to settle down again, and
>that probably isn't in the interest of the big buyers of PCs such as
>governments, banks, etc.
>
>Note, I'm not saying this is good, but big firms upgrade the whole
>thing, hardware, software, training, every 3 years and generally reckon
>they're getting good value.
Win2K made all the difference to us, along with needing more
sophisticated networking arrangements. We had problems with Win98
authenticating if the users were outside their 'home office' and spent
hours fiddling with PCs at various times. Everyone who has Win2K is
either very pleased with it (include me in that camp) or not unhappy.
I'm delighted - my own PC has Win2k as has the office laptop and to
network them I just link the two network cards with a cross-over UTP
cable. Win2k assigns an IP to each card in a defined range, and they
find each other without me having to set up IP numbers or worry about
there not being a DHCP server on my home 'network'!
It was also a great leap forwards to not have to reboot just because one
had changed the screen resolution....
Five Cats
<bedfor...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 18:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Hamish Macbeth wrote:
>
>>The gentleman also said that 750MHz machines and below were skip fodder.
>
>he wouldn't like my p133 then!
I wouldn't like it! I love my Duron 800!
--
Five Cats
Oz
>It was also a great leap forwards to not have to reboot just because one
>had changed the screen resolution....
I didn't have to in dos.
I didn't have to win W31
I don't have to in G98SE
So why did you have to?
Old drivers perhaps?
Oz
>>All because the masses want to run games on their pc's. What I have
>>as a toy is still a damn good 'office' machine as are many that are
>>much older.
>
>Not really if it's to run Windows! Anything more than 3 years old is
>unlikely to have enough memory and disk to load Win2K and Office 2K,
>which are pretty standard for office PCs in many places now.
Personally I couldn't give a toss what is standard in offices. Why
should I?
>Also, PCs
>which are 3 or more years old are often rather expensive to upgrade -
>for example they will use SIMMs instead of DIMMS and (say) 64MB memory
>costs more on SIMMs than DIMMs.
But they don't NEED to be upgraded. W31 worked fine on 16MB until last
year, and still would.
>They can also have problems with hard
>disks over 8GB unless the BIOS can be upgraded, and there's not much
>hope of a processor upgrade.
But you don't need disks more than 1GB and W31 runs fine without a
processor upgrade.
Unless, for some reason, you have to run G9X or G2000. But nobody is
forcing you.
And if you want to see *real* speed, run a dos program on a modern well
spec'd machine. Loads in fractions of a second and does all operations
in fractions of a second.
Dan
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 12:14:19 +0000, Gordon Burgess-Parker
> <gor...@burgessparker.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >David P wrote:
> >
> >> Good - I can learn from you then <g> Do you need to have the dual
> >> boot facility on the main drive? - that would seem to make sense.
> >
> >mandrake automatically puts it there.
> >
>
> So when you boot the pc it will do through the startup dialogue and
> then do you get a message that says "do you want to run win.exe or
> linux" and you then select which one you want to load?
>
> Thanks for taking the time Gordon - I'm learning from 'talking' and I
> trust that Dan and Jill are also finding it mildly interesting.
Certainly
Dan
Jill
<snip the rest that lost me before I caught up - sorry folks I will ask
again when the tim is right>
> Except that most people can find a way to be eligible for student
> licences - £50 for Win2k and about £90 for Office 2000.
Jill
--
http://www.poultryscotland.co.uk http://www.henhouses.co.uk
http://www.kintaline.co.uk http://www.hardyplantcentre.co.uk
http://homepages.tesco.net/~welshcottage
Jim Webster
Denis F <bedfor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f2hm3us5eg8q40n0b...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 18:18:58 +0000 (UTC), Hamish Macbeth wrote:
>
> >The gentleman also said that 750MHz machines and below were skip fodder.
>
> he wouldn't like my p133 then!
this ole girl is a p120 (or is it 125 I can never remember)
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
> --
Jim Webster
Five Cats <cats...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CsZ1BUA2...@nevis-view.demon.co.uk...>
> Not really if it's to run Windows! Anything more than 3 years old is
> unlikely to have enough memory and disk to load Win2K and Office 2K,
> which are pretty standard for office PCs in many places now. Also, PCs
> which are 3 or more years old are often rather expensive to upgrade -
> for example they will use SIMMs instead of DIMMS and (say) 64MB memory
> costs more on SIMMs than DIMMs. They can also have problems with hard
> disks over 8GB unless the BIOS can be upgraded, and there's not much
> hope of a processor upgrade.
Just a thought, will my p120 with 48 meg RAM run Windows 98 second edition?
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
Jim Webster
suppose that at some point amachine will die on you,
> >but it is very difficult to avoid getting caught in the vicious circle in
> >that to work with others you have to have the software upgrades which
tend
> >to be too bloated to run on your old machine, meaning that you have to
> >upgrade the machine as well.
>
> It really is very hard to add new functionality to a program without
> making it larger.... ;-)
yep, but if they cut out the rubbish I never use and used the space left for
the good bits :-)))
to be fair here I have never had any training in using spread sheets etc.
But after a bit of help from people on this NG I have found that excel is
pretty good to use and I've found it very helpful. If I knew what I was
supposed to be doing then I might find it limiting or a problem, but for the
untrained and ignorant it is OK
Jim Webster
Jill <kint...@REMOVETHISsol.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a1g1sp$rt1$1...@phys-ma.sol.co.uk...
>
> <snip the rest that lost me before I caught up - sorry folks I will ask
> again when the tim is right>
> > Except that most people can find a way to be eligible for student
> > licences - £50 for Win2k and about £90 for Office 2000.
> AND HOW - no one I know round here can!!
> Jill
round here there are so many copied CDs that there probably isn't much of a
market.
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
Jim Webster
> Five Cats writes
>
> >It was also a great leap forwards to not have to reboot just because one
> >had changed the screen resolution....
>
> I didn't have to in dos.
>
> I didn't have to win W31
>
> I don't have to in G98SE
>
> So why did you have to?
>
> Old drivers perhaps?
have to with WIn 95 on this machine
mind you it isn't something I have had to do more than twice in seven years
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
David P
<j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
>
>Just a thought, will my p120 with 48 meg RAM run Windows 98 second edition?
>
If you listen to Bill it will - same requirements as for W95.
Frankly I am not sure that there is so much difference between 95 and
98 as to warrant the change - unless you have a cd given to you that
is - and I'm assuming you have as you can't buy 98 generally now.
I use 98Se on my pc but others in the office are on W95b - not an
awful lot of difference really for most users.
The chap who donated his to me has XP installed as standard - that
looks 'interesting' but I guess its something that you would get used
to. My son saw it and commented that whilst it is said to be more
stable it is a shame they released a patch for it on the same day it
went on general release :( He also said that it looked very
'cartoony' - no doubt to appeal to those who like lots of toys'n'
games.
David G. Bell
j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now "Jim Webster" wrote:
> Five Cats <cats...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:CsZ1BUA2...@nevis-view.demon.co.uk...>
> > Not really if it's to run Windows! Anything more than 3 years old is
> > unlikely to have enough memory and disk to load Win2K and Office 2K,
> > which are pretty standard for office PCs in many places now. Also, PCs
> > which are 3 or more years old are often rather expensive to upgrade -
> > for example they will use SIMMs instead of DIMMS and (say) 64MB memory
> > costs more on SIMMs than DIMMs. They can also have problems with hard
> > disks over 8GB unless the BIOS can be upgraded, and there's not much
> > hope of a processor upgrade.
>
>
> Just a thought, will my p120 with 48 meg RAM run Windows 98 second edition?
I run Win98 on only a slightly more powerful machine (Better CPU speed).
Extra RAM always helps. I don't know how much more Win98 SE needs. If
you're on SIMM memory, you may have to replace some rather than just add
some, but I still see some around at Computer Fairs.
On the other hand, it can soon get to the point where a new system unit
rivals the cost of upgrading. I'd add the memory, but other stuff would
likely be a waste of money. Going up to 64 meg will make an obvious
difference for a lot of jobs.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Mr. Punch's Advice to a Young Man About to Become a Farmer:
"Marry, instead."
Oz
>Frankly I am not sure that there is so much difference between 95 and
>98 as to warrant the change - unless you have a cd given to you that
>is - and I'm assuming you have as you can't buy 98 generally now.
I have three copies here, but then I have three machines ...
Actually I only switched to G98SE so I could run my cdrom copier ....
I think it is fair to say that G98SE is generally regarded as the most
stable MS OS since W31 (maybe including later NT's), and significantly
better than G95.
Jim Webster
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2002 23:05:18 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Just a thought, will my p120 with 48 meg RAM run Windows 98 second
edition?
> >
> If you listen to Bill it will - same requirements as for W95.
>
> Frankly I am not sure that there is so much difference between 95 and
> 98 as to warrant the change - unless you have a cd given to you that
> is - and I'm assuming you have as you can't buy 98 generally now.
>
> I use 98Se on my pc but others in the office are on W95b - not an
> awful lot of difference really for most users.
I'm W95a but has rather been upgraded because of outlook express
>
> The chap who donated his to me has XP installed as standard - that
> looks 'interesting' but I guess its something that you would get used
> to. My son saw it and commented that whilst it is said to be more
> stable it is a shame they released a patch for it on the same day it
> went on general release :( He also said that it looked very
> 'cartoony' - no doubt to appeal to those who like lots of toys'n'
> games.
> --
the only reason I consider upgrading is that I have the norton anti virus
software for 98SE and that will not run of 95
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:cats...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Not really if it's to run Windows! Anything more than 3 years old is
> unlikely to have enough memory and disk to load Win2K and Office 2K,
> which are pretty standard for office PCs in many places now. Also, PCs
Why would a farmer need 'standard' (another word for mediocre) software?
> which are 3 or more years old are often rather expensive to upgrade -
> for example they will use SIMMs instead of DIMMS and (say) 64MB memory
> costs more on SIMMs than DIMMs. They can also have problems with hard
> disks over 8GB unless the BIOS can be upgraded, and there's not much
> hope of a processor upgrade.
You don't need more than a few 100 Mb - a 500mb disc will hold your
lifetime's creative writing... assuming you are a pretty prolific writer
and a reasonably good typist.
1 Mb ram will hold the entire text of a novel.
There are plenty of wordprocessors capable of editing such that will fit on
a 1.4Mb floppy -with- room for the text.
Windows is simply a 'pretty' way of wasting computer resources in order to
persuade you to pay money to upgrade.
(..and nobody in their right mind would use Windows for any professional
graphical application so that just leaves games...)
Cheerio,
--
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:cats...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It really is very hard to add new functionality to a program without
> making it larger.... ;-)
No.
Use a modular OS and intall a new/replacement module - no change to the
program but new functionality.
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:cats...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <a1f3sl$dcp$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jim Webster <jim@everyone
> .knows.where.by.now> writes
> >
> >Michael Saunby <msa...@despammed.com> wrote in message
> >news:1010498429.12599....@news.demon.co.uk...
> >>
> >> "David P" <davi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> >
> >> It's not really about the masses, large businesses generally replace PCs
> >> every 3 years, so value at 1 year old is roughly 2/3 purchase price,
> >> then 1/3, then nothing! Also Moore's law states that processing power
> >> doubles every 18 months, so a 3 year old PC has 1/4 processing power of
> >> new one, which is easy for users of even the most basic of software to
> >> notice.
An excellent reason to buy 3-5 year old PCs second hand.
Windows slows machines many many times - 3.1 was about 60x slower and every
version since has slowed even more, so (guessing) it must be several hundred
times now. Install an alternative OS (or even an older version of Windows
if you must) and watch it fly.
> >productive. As one chap explained to me, "what's the point of buying in new
> >bells and whistles, then paying people to go on training courses to discover
> >the upgrades are all features we never use anyway?"
The 'upgrades' are purely there to fill the 'New Features' panels on the
box.
>
> We started with the 16-bit version of Office. It didn't have a 'create
> folder' button in the 'save' dialog box and of course only worked with
> short (8.3) filenames.
>
> Then we went to Office 97 and the 'create folder' button and ability to
> use long filenames was something everyone can use without training. I
No they can't - unthinking use of long filenames is one of the major causes
of filer slowdowns on 'doze PC's
> also like the Office shortcut bar which I use down the side of my screen
> with buttons to launch stuff I use a lot.
That's what the function keys are for.
> Word 97 also does much better
> with tables than the older version. finally Office 97 came on CDs - it
Tables? Us a spreadsheet and import.
> Then office 2000 came along and lo! When you are choosing a type-face
> from the drop-down box it shows you the name of the typeface *in* the
> typeface, which is jolly useful when looking for a particular kind of
> style. I think I've found other useful little bits & pieces as well.
AAAAAAAAaaaarrrrrggh!
Windows b&~@$y founts.
You have too many of them.
You -never- consider the readability and density of the document.
You never balance the size/weight to the column width.
You never consider the character of the paper/ink in the final document.
You use the crummiest tracking, kerning and hinting imaginable -
and many of them don't have professional quality equivalets.
Then you add the cheesiest clip art and expect someone else to make a
publishable document out of it.
(I could go on [and on and on] but it's way off topic here.)
> When Windows XP is available on a student licences I think I might
> invest £50.
Not worth it.
Wearing one of my other hats I teach Adults to use computers. I went in for
the first class of the new term to find we had been 'upgraded' over the
holiday. Please come and steal a classful of 1800Mhz 40Gb/256Mb XP
paperweights.
They take FOUR AND A HALF MINUTES to boot up with all the useless garbage
that's been installed - worse, they cannot be booted until the server has
come on line - another 5 minute delay -before- the class machines can be
started. (Going to be interesting come exams as starting up and closing
down is part of the test - removing a large chunk of the time for the
computing part of the process.)
The networking is so flaky that -if- all the class machines are started at
once there is likely to be an undignified scramble for intranet ip addresses
and two or three machines run into contention with each other - so they must
be started in order (5 seconds or so pause) round the room.
Then the office software has so many bells and whistles on it that some
students get lost looking for everything. It runs so slowly that faster
students think "It didn't work, click again" and then multiple copies
appear and -they- get lost. Some run into click-on-everything mode as
-something- must work...
And we have keyboards with plenty of interesting extra keys on (but most
software ignores the function keys) that start up processes that promptly
overlay the working area and students get lost.
We had a suite of 350Mhz W98 machines, they were faster and easier.
We had a suite of 166Mhz W95 machines, they were even faster and easier.
We had a suite of 66Mhz W3.1 machines, they were yet faster and easier.
We had a suite of 25Mhz W3.1 machines, they were faster than the 166/W95's.
We had DOS 12Mhz & the Psion PC-four suite which were about the same speed.
When I worked in Prison Education we used to teach the CLAIT syllabus on
Acorn/RiscOS software in 5 days including the 3 exams. At the same time at
AE using W95 it took 20 weeks inc exams but was better done if an extra term
was allowed.
Sorry, I do go on a bit sometimes ;-)
The point is: No one needs to 'upgrade' until either:
It is broken.
or
A new task arises that cannot be done on the old kit.
Those who need to supply text/data to other (professional) outfits need a
brief chat with a technician about how simple is plain text or csv/tsv where
appropriate.
Contrary to popular belief I -do- have a Windows Pc at home, afaicr I last
powered it up in August.
Jim Webster
Derek Moody <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ant09163...@derek.moody.clara.net...
> In article <CsZ1BUA2...@nevis-view.demon.co.uk>, Five Cats
> <URL:mailto:cats...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Not really if it's to run Windows! Anything more than 3 years old is
> > unlikely to have enough memory and disk to load Win2K and Office 2K,
> > which are pretty standard for office PCs in many places now. Also, PCs
>
> Why would a farmer need 'standard' (another word for mediocre) software?
>
> > which are 3 or more years old are often rather expensive to upgrade -
> > for example they will use SIMMs instead of DIMMS and (say) 64MB memory
> > costs more on SIMMs than DIMMs. They can also have problems with hard
> > disks over 8GB unless the BIOS can be upgraded, and there's not much
> > hope of a processor upgrade.
>
> You don't need more than a few 100 Mb - a 500mb disc will hold your
> lifetime's creative writing... assuming you are a pretty prolific writer
> and a reasonably good typist.
>
> 1 Mb ram will hold the entire text of a novel.
>
> There are plenty of wordprocessors capable of editing such that will fit
on
> a 1.4Mb floppy -with- room for the text.
>
interestingly "my documents" when opened through Windows Explorer claims to
be 6.85meg but I assume a lot of this is the difference between a word
document and a text document
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
> >> de...@farm-direct.co.uk
> >> http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/
>
David P
<j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
>>
>
>interestingly "my documents" when opened through Windows Explorer claims to
>be 6.85meg but I assume a lot of this is the difference between a word
>document and a text document
>
If you are storing for posterity then save them all as *.txt files
Jim. You will lose formatting and WHY but it will save an incredible
amount of space.
Just try it with a few and see if you like what you get. You can
delete the *.doc files if you are happy. The later the version of Word
the more bloated the files are BTW.
Old Codger
>
> Just a thought, will my p120 with 48 meg RAM run Windows 98 second
edition?
Should do. According to the setuptip.txt file on the CD, Win98SE requires
minimum 486DX66, 24MB RAM and between 190 and 400MB disk space. Some
peripherals may require new(er) drivers but the drivers supplied with Win98
are often good enough. If you wish to retain existing settings it suggests
running setup from within Win95 and installing to the same windows
directory. If you do a clean install using an upgrade version of WIN98 you
will need your Win95 CD or disks. These are not required for a clean
install from the full retail version. It is important to make a startup
disk, even if you have one for Win95. The Win98 startup disk installs
drivers for your CD ROM drive so that you can use the CD to install (but see
below if your CD is an early upgrade that does not operate from the IDE
interface).
The requirement for 24MB RAM suggests you should be OK with 48MB but I agree
with David Bell, you might find 64MB better. I also agree with his
suggestion that it probably is not worth upgrading that machine, other than
to increase the RAM (possibly also the hard disk, if it is becoming too
small, but nothing else).
Win98SE is more stable than Win95 (a or b). It also has some useful tools,
if you understand what they do. It supports USB adequately, but I don't
suppose your machine has any USB ports if it came with Win95a.
I have Win98SE on three machines, the oldest is a P75 with 64MB RAM. Works
fine on this old machine. I did a clean install on each machine and the
only problem was the old machine. The CD in that machine is driven from a
card, not the IDE interface, I therefore had to copy the CD to the second
hard disk, before formatting the "C" drive, and then install from "D". If
your CD is a standard IDE version you should be OK with a Win98 startup
disk. I think an upgrade from Win95 should also be OK, because CD ROM
drivers will already be loaded. Don't recall any problems with my printers
or scanner (Umax 1220P, Lexmark 7200, Star XB24-250).
HTH
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
Jim Webster
David P <davi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3c3cb742...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 20:46:32 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >
> >interestingly "my documents" when opened through Windows Explorer claims
to
> >be 6.85meg but I assume a lot of this is the difference between a word
> >document and a text document
> >
> If you are storing for posterity then save them all as *.txt files
> Jim. You will lose formatting and WHY but it will save an incredible
> amount of space.
>
> Just try it with a few and see if you like what you get. You can
> delete the *.doc files if you are happy. The later the version of Word
> the more bloated the files are BTW.
remember I want them in an easy marketable form. It sounds stupid but it is
amazing just how many editors prefer a word document. When I sit where they
do I just want the text poured into an email but I suspect a lot of these
people have it printed off for them and someone else does the techie stuff.
It is also useful to be able to just print it and fax it to them without
having to spend time tarting it back up again. Also with 4.5 gig to play
with 7 meg isn't a problem, 730 meg spare on the C drive and 1.6 gig on the
D.
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
> --
Jeff Taylor
<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Five Cats writes
>
> >It was also a great leap forwards to not have to reboot just because one
> >had changed the screen resolution....
>
> I didn't have to in dos.
That is a pointless statement since DOS has no concept of screen
resolution. Whether a DOS app needed restarting to change the screen
resolution would be a characteristic of the app (and the hardware), not of
the OS.
>
> I didn't have to win W31
W31 was, of course, a DOS app rather than a full OS. It's a very long time
since I last used it but I'm 90% sure that a change of resolution required
a Windows restart (though not an OS reboot).
>
> I don't have to in G98SE
And you wouldn't have had to in W95, W98 first edition and, to the best of
my recollection in NT3.5 and NT4.
Jeff Taylor
<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Hmmm. I don;t think they require *that* much processing power but they
> can waver under heavy cpu use. OTOH you can get lots and lots of CD'd on
> a CD (IYSWIM).
That's a function of an incompetent OS, not of inadequate CPU power.
Jeff Taylor
> In article <a1f3sm$dcp$3...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jim Webster <jim@everyone
> ..knows.where.by.now> writes
> >
> >ridiculous really. I suppose that at some point amachine will die on you,
> >but it is very difficult to avoid getting caught in the vicious circle in
> >that to work with others you have to have the software upgrades which tend
> >to be too bloated to run on your old machine, meaning that you have to
> >upgrade the machine as well.
>
> It really is very hard to add new functionality to a program without
> making it larger.... ;-)
But the problem Jim highlights has zilch to do with adding functionality.
He's talking about being forced to upgrade software simply to retain
compatibility with other users who, either because of genuine need or,
more often, because of mere herd mentality, have upgraded their software.
This problem in turn usually only arises because of the insistence of
software writers of using proprietary, undocumented file formats and
making them incompatible over upgrades to create exactly the pressures
for unnecessary and unwanted upgrades that Jim describes.
Jeff Taylor
(David P) wrote:
> So when you boot the pc it will do through the startup dialogue and
> then do you get a message that says "do you want to run win.exe or
> linux" and you then select which one you want to load?
The details will vary with the exact software used but most will
default to giving a menu allowing you to select any of the installed
OSs with a default which will automatically start up on expiry of a
timeout. You can control which is the default and the length of the
timeout: you can also set it to skip the menu and simply boot straight
into your chosen OS.
However, if I understand correctly you have an old PC on which to
experiment with Linux in which case I see no point in bothering with
the complication of dual boot (apart from setting up the boot manager
you also have some problems with disc formats - Windows won't work on a
Linux format while Linux is painfully slow on a Windows format so you
have to set up separate partitions): just wipe the whole thing and
install Linux. If you then want to share data between the two OSs just
get a cheap LAN card for each machine and put a crossover UTP cable
between them so they can talk to one another (Linux comes with all you
need to allow either reading Windows files from Linux or vice versa, in
each case using Windows' standard networking software).
Charles
>It sounds stupid but it is
>amazing just how many editors prefer a word document.
Use Rich Text Format (RTF). Loads into Word, as well as most other
word processors (including Wordpad - comes with Win95+). With any
degree of luck they'll send it back to you in the same format.
It's also never easy but telling them to save a Word doc in an older
format isn't hard to do. It's a shame Word doesn't make it easier. Not
sure if anyone knows the answer but I'm trying to make Word auto save
in RTF, which it has an option to do, however whenever you save the
damn thing asks whether you are sure you want to save off in this
format. A question I don't want asking and only confuses those that
don't know any difference??
Word docs are hell on earth to deal with. Working with RTF is a
breeze. Word (MS) has created a lot of hassle for what is merely a
text document. Sure if you use the fancy features but 99% of people
don't and look at the hassle and cost involved for simply a text
document. MS must have coined in a lot of money when they changed the
doc format, as everyone had to upgrade. However, they didn't if they
altered the odd setting and saved docs in older formats, of simply
moved to working in RTF. It will be interesting to see if MS try that
one again:) Unfortunately I think they might do and sooner than you
think :(
I suppose one could argue that using a Word doc is a virus nightmare.
For the most part an older version of a doc file and/or RTF would
reduce any virus risk quite a lot.
Don't worry I'm more than aware people have a fear of something *not*
loading in MS Word. RTF covers this ideally and I now do all my
document programming into RTF - works a treat.
Charles
www.fieldtrack.com
UK Business Agriculture User Directory & FAQ:
http://www.fieldtrack.com/ukba/
Oz
>
>But the problem Jim highlights has zilch to do with adding functionality.
>He's talking about being forced to upgrade software simply to retain
>compatibility with other users who, either because of genuine need or,
>more often, because of mere herd mentality, have upgraded their software.
>
>This problem in turn usually only arises because of the insistence of
>software writers of using proprietary, undocumented file formats and
>making them incompatible over upgrades to create exactly the pressures
>for unnecessary and unwanted upgrades that Jim describes.
There are ways round, although they aren't always available for all
timeperiods. QuickView plus, for example, got me round many of the
WP/spreadsheet incompatibilities although tediously it doesn't read word
2.
Oz
>In article <5M6zKzAv$2O8...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>, Oz
><O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Five Cats writes
>>
>> >It was also a great leap forwards to not have to reboot just because one
>> >had changed the screen resolution....
>>
>> I didn't have to in dos.
>
>That is a pointless statement since DOS has no concept of screen
>resolution. Whether a DOS app needed restarting to change the screen
>resolution would be a characteristic of the app (and the hardware), not of
>the OS.
Quite, I didn't have to is DOS, yes?
>> I didn't have to win W31
>
>W31 was, of course, a DOS app rather than a full OS. It's a very long time
>since I last used it but I'm 90% sure that a change of resolution required
>a Windows restart (though not an OS reboot).
That depended on your drivers to some extent. However outside the
earliest and most primitive trident cards/drivers I haven't even needed
a windows reboot, although the results were not always convenient.
>> I don't have to in G98SE
>
>And you wouldn't have had to in W95, W98 first edition and, to the best of
>my recollection in NT3.5 and NT4.
>>
>> So why did you have to?
So why did you have to?
--
Oz
It depends how my cpu time you allocate to the mp3 app and how heavily
cpu intensive other operating apps are. At the end of the day
cpu/memory/disk access availability are not infinite.
David P
<j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
>
>David P <davi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3c3cb742...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>> On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 20:46:32 -0000, "Jim Webster"
>> <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >interestingly "my documents" when opened through Windows Explorer claims
>to
>> >be 6.85meg but I assume a lot of this is the difference between a word
>> >document and a text document
>> >
>> If you are storing for posterity then save them all as *.txt files
>
>remember I want them in an easy marketable form. It sounds stupid but it is
>amazing just how many editors prefer a word document.
We are talking at cross purposes - I thought you meant they were your
*archive* store and not ones that you were currently working with.
David P
<01...@clearview.cix.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3c3ae73c...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>, davi...@yahoo.co.uk
>(David P) wrote:
>
>> So when you boot the pc it will do through the startup dialogue and
>> then do you get a message that says "do you want to run win.exe or
>> linux" and you then select which one you want to load?
>
>The details will vary with the exact software used but most will
>default to giving a menu allowing you to select any of the installed
>OSs with a default which will automatically start up on expiry of a
>timeout. You can control which is the default and the length of the
>timeout: you can also set it to skip the menu and simply boot straight
>into your chosen OS.
>
>However, if I understand correctly you have an old PC on which to
>experiment with Linux
That is correct
>in which case I see no point in bothering with
>the complication of dual boot
I have toyed with that idea but I am also intending to use it as a
back up pc for visitors - it will save them messing around with my
main one and will also allow me to not care what I put on and off it
by way of demos over the time that it will still stand up.
Thanks for the suggestion though - I am always happy to take advice.
Oz
>I suppose one could argue that using a Word doc is a virus nightmare.
>For the most part an older version of a doc file and/or RTF would
>reduce any virus risk quite a lot.
>
>Don't worry I'm more than aware people have a fear of something *not*
>loading in MS Word. RTF covers this ideally and I now do all my
>document programming into RTF - works a treat.
I *absolutely* concur. Been using rtf for ages, and certainly whenever
transferring documents,
Chris Mead
from Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> contains these words:
Last book was all transferred electronically to the publisher using
rtf. Written in Word, rtf'd, picked up on a Mac, then fiddled and
sent to the printer.
--
Chris Mead, Hilborough, Norfolk
chris...@zetnet.co.uk or chris...@farm-direct.co.uk
Visit http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/ to find your local farm gate outlets
Visit http://www.birdcare.com/birdon for bird information
And finally http://www.bto.org for real bird science.
Jim Webster
Charles <Puneyrf....@snezyvar.pbz> wrote in message
news:spmq3u057n409omlb...@4ax.com...
>
> >It sounds stupid but it is
> >amazing just how many editors prefer a word document.
>
> Use Rich Text Format (RTF). Loads into Word, as well as most other
> word processors (including Wordpad - comes with Win95+). With any
> degree of luck they'll send it back to you in the same format.
I do occassionally handle RTF documents. I have been trying to convince one
body I deal with to send out its press releases in RTF as for a lot of
people who don't have upgraded Windows office a three page word document can
generate an extra 17 pages of gibberish
I must admit that as editor I don't want ANY format on the stuff sent me,
other that a gap to show the paragraphs. Yet other editors seem to love it
and who am I to cavail.....
Jim Webster
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 22:39:07 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
>
> > >> >interestingly "my documents" when opened through Windows Explorer
claims
> >to
> >> >be 6.85meg but I assume a lot of this is the difference between a word
> >> >document and a text document
> >> >
> >> If you are storing for posterity then save them all as *.txt files
> >
> >remember I want them in an easy marketable form. It sounds stupid but it
is
> >amazing just how many editors prefer a word document.
>
> We are talking at cross purposes - I thought you meant they were your
> *archive* store and not ones that you were currently working with.
rule one
there is no archive store.
Everything is available, Everything is potentially ready for that
enthusiastic impulse buyer (sorry but Grandmother has already gone)
:-))
seriously it is amazing how often stuff can be hauled out, dusted down and
sent off with a few minor modifications to do sterling service as part of a
consultants report or similar.
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
> David
J B
news:spmq3u057n409omlb...@4ax.com...
> sure if anyone knows the answer but I'm trying to make Word auto save
> in RTF, which it has an option to do, however whenever you save the
> damn thing asks whether you are sure you want to save off in this
> format. A question I don't want asking
A bit like when you download the latest security patch, there's an option to
'always trust Micro$oft' but there sure ain't one that says 'never trust
Micro$oft'
--
J B
Oz
>rule one
>
>there is no archive store.
>
>Everything is available, Everything is potentially ready for that
>enthusiastic impulse buyer (sorry but Grandmother has already gone)
>
>:-))
>
>
>seriously it is amazing how often stuff can be hauled out, dusted down and
>sent off with a few minor modifications to do sterling service as part of a
>consultants report or similar.
Except for the ONE time we wanted a copy, to do with attacking dacha's,
when it was mysteriously gorn.
So forgive me for some doubt as to the veracity of your statement.
Charles
>I must admit that as editor I don't want ANY format on the stuff sent me,
>other that a gap to show the paragraphs. Yet other editors seem to love it
>and who am I to cavail.....
I use to send all my stuff out as PDF files, however the amount of
people that can't load them into Word was a surprise :)
I've been doing a lot of work in converting reports and database
documentation into Word readable stuff. Tried OLE but that fails
whenever MS upgrade Office. Tried DOC conversions but again MS change
the rules so much, as well as have different standards. Tried them all
and finally had to write my own word processor (well that's not
exactly true - bought in a development component) to create standard
RTF documents and Bob's your uncle. MS can swing from a very long and
weak branch for all I'm concerned. People that 'require' Office
integration can suck it and work with RTF, as I've given up on trying
to 'fully' support MS' moving goal posts.
The MS Office file format change and it's default saving system in
this new format has created one hell of a lot hassle all told. Cost us
customers a lot of money I bet. MS Word should have detected if a new
format save was required and then adjusted the save requester to suit
the document. This would have proved the MS programmers had sense and
would have saved us all a lot of hassle; i.e., if no new feature was
used (specifically requiring the new VBA additions) then the document
should have automatically saved in it's earlier and perfectly workable
format. In fact I would go as far and say if the document didn't need
anything outside RTF, it should save in RTF first and adjust as
required. That would have been a step forward in the progress of
computers and brought something really new to the field.
I hate companies that can't support file format changes well. I
recently upgraded an old website authoring tool from a magazine cover
disk on version 2 to the latest version 5. I bought the latest version
on CD to find that it couldn't read version 2 files for the same
program. The solution? I had to download a 27Mb demo of an earlier
version to load the file, convert it and then I could load it into the
latest version and convert it again. I did this and still the
conversion was crap. Result? I maintain existing sites with the old
version and any new ones I'll probably use the new version. After
spending Ł100, two hours downloading and a load of time reading up on
the subject I'm bugger all better off :) Moving files from different
versions needs to be one of the highest priorities of any company.
Filling a CD with ALL tools required to convert from ANY version to
ANY other version must also be important. I spend Ł100 for a CD with
bugger all on it. You generally get a better level of support from
Shareware authors (generally - I say again), as they either have the
sense, can't afford bad press, or program something with less support
overheads. You'll find those companies with expensive support packages
have a crap product, which forces you to pay support costs. Not always
true but generally is the case :) Going wildly off the topic now...
You want to see something really scary, start looking at the size of
Word docs where people have thrown in a few JPG files off their digi
camera. There's always a better way. Let's hope this doesn't become a
standard, as the Internet is getting slow enough with junk flying
around as it is :)
Working your rear off to reduce file sizes is fast becoming a
forgotten art these days...
Jim Webster
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4DiDJNAJ...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
that one was worrying, and another has gone the same way. I ran a check and
two games of rather similar concept had gone awol. The other involved
collecting the license fee on gmo crops
in the Ukraine.
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
Jim Webster
Charles <Puneyrf....@snezyvar.pbz> wrote in message
> You want to see something really scary, start looking at the size of
> Word docs where people have thrown in a few JPG files off their digi
> camera. There's always a better way. Let's hope this doesn't become a
> standard, as the Internet is getting slow enough with junk flying
> around as it is :)
I got a 1.2 meg file from one government body.
when I opened it I discover I had one A4 letter. The departments logo at the
top of the letter could be removed. It took up 1.18meg!!
I emailed them and told them that I now had their logo so could they not
bother sending me another copy.
>
> Working your rear off to reduce file sizes is fast becoming a
> forgotten art these days...
>
a lot of these people don't even understand the concept
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
David G. Bell
j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now "Jim Webster" wrote:
> Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4DiDJNAJ...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk...
> > Jim Webster writes
> > >rule one
> > >
> > >there is no archive store.
> > >
> > >Everything is available, Everything is potentially ready for that
> > >enthusiastic impulse buyer (sorry but Grandmother has already gone)
> > >
> > >:-))
> > >
> > >
> > >seriously it is amazing how often stuff can be hauled out, dusted down
> and
> > >sent off with a few minor modifications to do sterling service as part of
> a
> > >consultants report or similar.
> >
> > Except for the ONE time we wanted a copy, to do with attacking dacha's,
> > when it was mysteriously gorn.
> >
> > So forgive me for some doubt as to the veracity of your statement.
>
> that one was worrying, and another has gone the same way. I ran a check and
> two games of rather similar concept had gone awol. The other involved
> collecting the license fee on gmo crops
>
>
>
>
>
> in the Ukraine.
I am put in mind of military operations named for a certain red-bearded
gentleman.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Mr. Punch's Advice to a Young Man About to Become a Farmer:
"Marry, instead."
Jim Webster
"David G. Bell" <db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:20020110.20...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk...
> On Thursday, in article <a1kc73$h4o$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>
> j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now "Jim Webster" wrote:
> > in the Ukraine.
>
> I am put in mind of military operations named for a certain red-bearded
> gentleman.
>
corporate mafia meets ukranian mafia really. Very rare anyone deployed at
above battalion strength unless you pulled impressive political strings.
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
> interestingly "my documents" when opened through Windows Explorer claims to
> be 6.85meg but I assume a lot of this is the difference between a word
> document and a text document
Write a short note of the 'Back at 11am.' variety in Word, save it, right
click on the file and check the size (properties).
ASCII uses 1 byte per character or space (13 in my example), how many does
Word use?
Cheerio,
--
Jim Webster
Derek Moody <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ant10014...@derek.moody.clara.net...
> In article <a1ic21$bdi$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, Jim Webster
> <URL:mailto:j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
>
> > interestingly "my documents" when opened through Windows Explorer claims
to
> > be 6.85meg but I assume a lot of this is the difference between a word
> > document and a text document
>
> Write a short note of the 'Back at 11am.' variety in Word, save it, right
> click on the file and check the size (properties).
>
> ASCII uses 1 byte per character or space (13 in my example), how many does
> Word use?
>
> Cheerio,
10 character
11264 bytes
nuff said I suspect
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
> --
>
> >> de...@farm-direct.co.uk
> >> http://www.farm-direct.co.uk/
>
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
>
> David P <davi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3c3cb742...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> > On Wed, 9 Jan 2002 20:46:32 -0000, "Jim Webster"
> > <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >interestingly "my documents" when opened through Windows Explorer claims
> to
> > >be 6.85meg but I assume a lot of this is the difference between a word
> > >document and a text document
> > >
> > If you are storing for posterity then save them all as *.txt files
> > Jim. You will lose formatting and WHY but it will save an incredible
> > amount of space.
> remember I want them in an easy marketable form. It sounds stupid but it is
> amazing just how many editors prefer a word document. When I sit where they
Ime most editors are computer-inept - with the exception of a few Mac users.
> do I just want the text poured into an email but I suspect a lot of these
> people have it printed off for them and someone else does the techie stuff.
> It is also useful to be able to just print it and fax it to them without
> having to spend time tarting it back up again. Also with 4.5 gig to play
> with 7 meg isn't a problem, 730 meg spare on the C drive and 1.6 gig on the
> D.
There's a good chance you could get all your work -as text- backed up
onto a couple of floppies...
But then you have everything backed up off site with duplicates of the
important stuff in the bank already don't you?
(No I don't either - do as I say, not what I do!)
Hamish Macbeth
Jim Webster <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote in message
news:a1l7hd$er2$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Yes, but what do you have to do in a plain ascii text file of 13 bytes if
you want it to print out exactly the same
on any PC using any printer every time?
The 11264 will word file will every time, the 13 bytes will be the default
of where ever it gets printed.
That nicely formatted article you submitted to the magazine, gets rejected
because it looks awful on the editors default settings.
Word costs, there are a lot of free text only editors. Horses for courses.
Hamish Macbeth
Key stuff backed up onto a CD costing 25p stored at a friends or
relatives is just as good. Encrypted if your relative is nosey :)
Jim Webster
> But then you have everything backed up off site with duplicates of the
> important stuff in the bank already don't you?
>
> (No I don't either - do as I say, not what I do!)
if it's important it shouldn't be in writing in the first place
:-))
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
>
Jeff Taylor
wrote:
> I use 98Se on my pc but others in the office are on W95b - not an
> awful lot of difference really for most users.
The significant difference between W95 and W98 is that on the latter USB
support is built in and often works while on the former it is an add-on
and, so I'm told, usually doesn't work.
Jeff Taylor
<O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I think it is fair to say that G98SE is generally regarded as the most
> stable MS OS since W31 (maybe including later NT's), and significantly
> better than G95.
Rubbish!
The most stable MS OS was Windows NT3.51. All the NT family are *much*
more stable than the consumer family of windows OS's though NT4
sacrificed a chunk of stability for better driver performance and I
believe that W2000 and XP also degrade stability and security somewhat
(though TTBOMK both are more stable than any of the previous consumer
family OSs). W98 is pretty much on a par with W95, perhaps a bit less
stable (I've only experience of a single W98 installation so I can't
form a representative view from my own experience but reports from
others seem to confirm my impression).
With all versions of Windows the stability depends crucially on what is
loaded on the machine and how much it is changed. I've had machines
with various Windows versions on that have been absolutely rock solid
and others with the same version that have been ready to fall over at
the drop of a hat (except NT3.51 - of the 5 machines I was responsible
for with that version I encountered almost no OS crashes: a record which
ceased when they had to be upgraded to NT4).
swroot
> Charles <Puneyrf....@snezyvar.pbz> wrote in message
> news:spmq3u057n409omlb...@4ax.com...
> >
> > >It sounds stupid but it is
> > >amazing just how many editors prefer a word document.
> >
> > Use Rich Text Format (RTF). Loads into Word, as well as most other
> > word processors (including Wordpad - comes with Win95+). With any
> > degree of luck they'll send it back to you in the same format.
>
> I do occassionally handle RTF documents. I have been trying to convince one
> body I deal with to send out its press releases in RTF as for a lot of
> people who don't have upgraded Windows office a three page word document can
> generate an extra 17 pages of gibberish
>
> I must admit that as editor I don't want ANY format on the stuff sent me,
> other that a gap to show the paragraphs. Yet other editors seem to love it
> and who am I to cavail.....
Please do continue precisely as you are. My Quark doesn't even *see* RTF
files, let alone import them unless I purchase separate software to do
the translation (and there are some reports that the translation is not
always precise). Besides which, with the very greatest respect, I don't
need to know what you think the document should look like: I'm paid (in
some cases at least) to decide what I think it should look like.
If you know precisely how to use Word Style Sheets we could perhaps have
a dialogue, though :-)
regards
sarah
--
Think of it as evolution in action.
Oz
<snip good rant>
>You'll find those companies with expensive support packages
>have a crap product, which forces you to pay support costs. Not always
>true but generally is the case :) Going wildly off the topic now...
>
>You want to see something really scary, start looking at the size of
>Word docs where people have thrown in a few JPG files off their digi
>camera. There's always a better way. Let's hope this doesn't become a
>standard, as the Internet is getting slow enough with junk flying
>around as it is :)
>
>Working your rear off to reduce file sizes is fast becoming a
>forgotten art these days...
I have to say I agree completely with everything you said, in spades.
Oz
>Please do continue precisely as you are. My Quark doesn't even *see* RTF
>files, let alone import them unless I purchase separate software to do
>the translation (and there are some reports that the translation is not
>always precise).
Considering the age of RTF, this is a fault in quark.
Most win wp's and even spreadsheets can read common apple formats.
Oz
> The other involved
>collecting the license fee on gmo crops
>
>
>
>
>
>in the Ukraine.
>
Pity, I expect that one would have been fun to read as well....
Oz
>Derek Moody <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ant11013...@derek.moody.clara.net...
>
>> But then you have everything backed up off site with duplicates of the
>> important stuff in the bank already don't you?
>>
>> (No I don't either - do as I say, not what I do!)
>
>if it's important it shouldn't be in writing in the first place
>
>:-))
Hmmm. I see a good business opportunity here. Charge firms 5/month to
store a CD for a year. They post them to you, you file and store.
At only 30/annum per disk this is amazingly cheap, and just not worth
not doing. There sarah, you are set up for life ....
David P
wrote:
>Hmmm. I see a good business opportunity here. Charge firms 5/month to
>store a CD for a year. [..]>At only 30/annum per disk
I take it you don't go anywhere near your accounts Oz?
--
Oz
>On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:15:23 +0000, Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Hmmm. I see a good business opportunity here. Charge firms 5/month to
>>store a CD for a year. [..]>At only 30/annum per disk
>
>I take it you don't go anywhere near your accounts Oz?
Eh? I don;t follow you.
Andrew
> > forgotten art these days...
> >
>
> a lot of these people don't even understand the concept
Has the demise of floppy disks got anything to do with it? I can
remember many years ago doing all sorts of things to files to squeeze
them onto 800k floppies.
David P
wrote:
>David P writes
>>On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:15:23 +0000, Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hmmm. I see a good business opportunity here. Charge firms 5/month to
>>>store a CD for a year. [..]>At only 30/annum per disk
>>
>>I take it you don't go anywhere near your accounts Oz?
>
>Eh? I don;t follow you.
>
12 months in a year -> 12x5 = 60/annum
Charles
>Has the demise of floppy disks got anything to do with it? I can
>remember many years ago doing all sorts of things to files to squeeze
>them onto 800k floppies.
I still do. The floppy disk is still a standard to aim for IMO -
though I use CD these days but still I have to consider the floppy, or
at the very least Internet download times (not to mention my upload
times). Yes things have changed with bigger hard disks but it's handy
for some to be able to download some software and move it about on a
floppy. Not always possible I admit but with the Internet those skills
are now needed more than ever. For example have you seen some sound
card driver downloads at 28Mb! A recent upgrade to a software package
I have (InstallShield to be exact) the upgrade alone is 25Mb. I mean
what the hell is in the damn upgrade!!!!!????? Suffice to say i
haven't yet bothered with the upgrade.
I put a lot of work into the compromise of beauty and file size. For
the most part no one knows, or I suppose cares. People only care when
it all goes wrong maybe.
Oz
> The floppy disk is still a standard to aim for IMO -
To be honest CD-W is now so cheap and easy IMHO it's now the medium of
choice, faster too.
Recently bought a CD-RW for 60 quid, it's on my desk as I type.
16-10-40 (ie will write a CD-R at 16 speed, a RW at 10 and read at 40x)
c/w burnproof!
Crazy.
CD rom blanks now only about 20p each, too.
Hamish Macbeth
Andrew <a.hi...@uea.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a.hickley-D1357...@cpca14.uea.ac.uk...
Files have not got bigger !!!!!!!!!
The area needed to store a byte has got very much smaller, so files of the
same size can have many more bytes in them.
swroot
My clients already receive what is essentially the same service: since
1995 I've kept duplicate archives of my work on relatively expensive CD
(I'm looking for a source of archive-quality CD to duplicate it yet
again). I charge UKP25 to dig anything I've done out of the archive,
burn it to CD, generate the paperwork and send it to the printer again
(if he can accept the file format). Changing the date or so would be
included, but any major amendments are chargeable. The disclaimer
includes the fact that this service depends on the life of the CD and
the ability to read it. I binned some 5 1/4 disks of data only the other
year, and I've now got software on 800k disks that I can't read (1.4HD
only in the LaCie drive). Setting up an archiving service requires
investment, forethought, space and technical ability.
swroot
> swroot writes
>
> >Please do continue precisely as you are. My Quark doesn't even *see* RTF
> >files, let alone import them unless I purchase separate software to do
> >the translation (and there are some reports that the translation is not
> >always precise).
>
> Considering the age of RTF, this is a fault in quark.
No kidding, as those of us bound to Quark would say. It's nonetheless a
problem. The rest of the point remains valid as well. I usually don't
want to waste bandwidth downloading someone else's ideas (there are
exceptions), and I certainly do not want someone else's scans unless I
know they're competent. I may appear arrogant, but a considerable amount
of my time is wasted dealing with stuff sent to me by people who think
they know what they're doing. As I understand it RTF is intended for
people who use Word to send pretty documents to each other: I don't need
pretty, I need accurate cross-platform and program rendering of accents
and unusual characters.
> Most win wp's and even spreadsheets can read common apple formats.
^^^^^
? Don't jump to conclusions. One way or another I can read almost any PC
format file you care to send, but Quark won't even see an RTF file
generated in Word on my own machine.
Jim Webster
swroot <swr...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1f5tfmd.5phtoz5qhwowN%swr...@farm-direct.co.uk...
> Jim Webster <j...@everyone.knows.where.by.now> wrote:
>
> Please do continue precisely as you are. My Quark doesn't even *see* RTF
> files, let alone import them unless I purchase separate software to do
> the translation (and there are some reports that the translation is not
> always precise). Besides which, with the very greatest respect, I don't
> need to know what you think the document should look like: I'm paid (in
> some cases at least) to decide what I think it should look like.
>
> If you know precisely how to use Word Style Sheets we could perhaps have
> a dialogue, though :-)
>
> regards
> sarah
>
I must admit that I am beginning to think that there is a change in the way
editors et al work. In the good old days with hot metal and great presses
type setters were perhaps more muscular than they need to be now where
software has converted them into graphic designers.
Having seen the quality of web pages done by graphic designers who
just used the software supplied, (as opposed to being software trained web
designers) I can see things changing rapidly soon.
If the editor can be likened to the Architect (has the grand ideas, the over
all vision and gets sued when the unmentionable hits the fan) then the Type
setter/graphic designer is the builder (who sidles up and mutters things
like "you didn't ought to put them RSJs there, get away with timber which
will mean the lads can hang the guttering down here and it isn't strutural
anyway. Oh and you put three by twos on the plan when you need 4 by 3s or
the building inspector will crucify you.")
The danger I see for the web designer is that he is in danger of
being the guy who turns up on the site and gabbles about "got this lovely
job lot of html, real cheap, do you a treat it would, all the bells and
whistles and get all the neighbours wanting some" before the foreman ejects
him from the site.
The top of the range web designer will still have a place. Writing
the new software, putting in place the really top of the range and more
complex web sites, setting the standard and opening up new ground. It is his
or her less exaulted colleagues who are going to find themselves retraining.
After all, graphic designer/type setters are using so much software that
dream weaver etc is just one more extra package.
Just my two pennoth, I shall now step back out of the firing line
--
Jim Webster
"The pasture of stupidity is unwholesome to mankind"
'Abd-ar-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Khaldun al-Hadrami'
Hamish Macbeth
It is a serious problem that no medium has a indefinite life. A few years
back it was being predicted that commercial audio CDs would only have a life
of 5 years. Clearly that has proven to be false. However it is unlikely that
archaeologists
will be digging up 300 year old computer records and reading them.
Even paper is short lived now-days. I have books published in the 1930's
that are in good condition, while paperbacks from the 60s are falling apart.
The amount of sulphur in the paper I believe.
If you are doing a commercial archiving service then at least two copies on
different media is required and periodic regeneration.
Cds have proved a very popular media which probably be replaced by the
almost backwards compatible DVD.
So probably that format and media may just see most of us out. Although
perhaps Windows 2013 will be delved on 10 4G DVDs
Charles
Oz <O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> wrote...
>To be honest CD-W is now so cheap and easy IMHO it's now the medium of
>choice, faster too.
Yes it is and is something I've been doing for a long time, in fact
all my business cards are now CD based, however I bet not many of my
customers have them (CD-RW's I mean), though many have more than one
machine and only a floppy drive to swap things over. Some software has
to be specifically designed for an easy transport system. This can be
done several ways. The floppy is semi dead for application
distribution but it still has it's uses. Still size comes into it's
own when you are talking nabs rural Internet connections.
CD-W cheap, yes. Easy, err, maybe that's a relative one. Maybe on new
machines where they come fitted but the largest number of customers
will not want to fit something like a CD-RW - tetchy stuff. It's a
shame 120Mb floppies haven't become more standard really.
Charles
swr...@farm-direct.co.uk (swroot) wrote...
>One way or another I can read almost any PC
>format file you care to send, but Quark won't even see an RTF file
>generated in Word on my own machine.
Probably Word then because not everything can see a RTF file created
in Word. Word is the weakest link here by a long way. It does strange
things to RTF.
You are correct though that RTF is not a format for plain text - it's
a presentation device and even then it's limited when it comes to
Word. Word doesn't read the picture size data in RTF, so RTF to Word
with pictures is a waste of time (assuming both parties aren't using
Word - Word to Word in RTF is fine). Suffice to say, I give the option
to produce PDF, which is also a good format, though really for
presentation works and not for editors. PDF is perfect for including
JPEG pictures and keeping the file size down (as long as you don't
embed fonts and keep to standard fonts).
The more you look into file formats, standards and Microsoft, or even
Macs it becomes very clear we've moved on very little over the pass
few years. We've moved but not exactly to a standard we were all
hoping for! How much incompatibility can there be in text documents I
wonder :)
Old Codger
news:a1m1kq$mp1$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
>
> Yes, but what do you have to do in a plain ascii text file of 13 bytes if
> you want it to print out exactly the same
> on any PC using any printer every time?
>
> The 11264 will word file will every time,
I beg to disagree Hamish. Using a different printer can change the layout
of a word document. If the computer used for printing does not have the
fonts installed that were originally used "equivalent" fonts will be
substituted, also changing the layout.
The best solution for maintaining the original format of any document is
conversion to Adobe Acrobat (using the Distiller facility). The format is
then maintained across different platforms. This only fails if a font used
in the original document cannot be embedded by Acrobat (New Brunswick is
one). Even then it does a very creditable substitution but may change the
layout, so it is worth checking that all fonts are embedded and reviewing
the document on a machine that does not have the problem font installed
before sending.
Acrobat is not much use however if the recipient wishes to change the layout
or do significant editing, the content would have to be pasted back into a
word processor.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
Hamish Macbeth
Old Codger <oldc...@anywhere.net> wrote in message
news:a1nngn$am9$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
Ok, the word document has a set of definitions for font, paper size etc
which if the PC and printer can print it it will print it exactly the same
on any PC and printer. If the font etc is not supported then a "best
endeavour" will be done.
It is best to stick to common fonts or those known to be used to the users
of the document.
But your suggestion of using Adobe Acrobat is still putting the point that
the advantage of using a file structure that incorporates lots of format
information helps to ensure that the resulting document looks as you want it
to.
Ascii text files are small but look different according to the platform they
are displayed on.
Charles
"Old Codger" <oldc...@anywhere.net> wrote...
>The best solution for maintaining the original format of any document is
>conversion to Adobe Acrobat (using the Distiller facility). The format is
>then maintained across different platforms.
PDF can embed the font data, however the PDF export code I'm working
on I can tell it *not* to embed the fonts and I think the Acrobat PDF
printer defaults to not embedding fonts. Word and RTF embed the font
names and sizes of fonts but not the font data. It will second guess a
close match.
I've been looking into it today with PDF (trying to reduce the file
sizes, as ever) and the difference on the same document with only 2
different fonts used and thus embedded is the difference between a
15Kb none embedded file and a 500Kb embedded fonts file!!!
The best solution is to always use a font that comes on most computers
and about the best all round font would be Times New Roman and/or
Arial. Embedding fonts is not a good idea for file sizes
If you use fonts and want exact copy and be able to transport them in
small file sizes you need to know what fonts come with your target
computer, or use fonts that will migrate to a very similar font
indeed, as trusting the computer to do this is dangerous at best.
There are cheaper PDF creator applications out there than Acrobat. If
you own a Kodak digi camera and got some Adobe picture manipulating
software (Adobe PhotoDeluxe 3.5 installs a PDF printer driver - not
sure about any other PhotoDeluxe versions but check your printer
driver list to see), you've probably got a PDF printer driver already
installed - just print to it, etc. PDF is about the only 'standard'
that can transport text and images in a reasonable file size - worth
knowing. HTML could also be used but it's a bit of a hassle until HTML
will embed images into a single file. If required PDF can embed fonts.
For most people's needs this is all useless info but you never know
someone might find a use for it. I've just spend the whole day coding
this solution, so I'm well read on the subject currently :) An' it all
started because MS Word is useless :)
Charles
"Hamish Macbeth" <Hamish....@btinternet.com> wrote...
>It is a serious problem that no medium has a indefinite life. A few years
>back it was being predicted that commercial audio CDs would only have a life
>of 5 years. Clearly that has proven to be false. However it is unlikely that
>archaeologists
>will be digging up 300 year old computer records and reading them.
As long as I don't have to write my help files on stone tablets, I can
rest easy tonight then.....
I did glance a TV program on this a few weeks/months back I recall.
David G. Bell
<+FJi4LAm...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk>
O...@upthorpe.demon.co.uk "Oz" wrote:
> Charles writes
>
> > The floppy disk is still a standard to aim for IMO -
>
> To be honest CD-W is now so cheap and easy IMHO it's now the medium of
> choice, faster too.
>
> Recently bought a CD-RW for 60 quid, it's on my desk as I type.
>
> 16-10-40 (ie will write a CD-R at 16 speed, a RW at 10 and read at 40x)
>
> c/w burnproof!
>
> Crazy.
>
> CD rom blanks now only about 20p each, too.
I think you're both right on this.
CD-R is cheap enough to replace the floppy disk, but the floppy disk is
still a useful target for program size, until something significantly
faster than modem/ISDN becomes widely used.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Mr. Punch's Advice to a Young Man About to Become a Farmer:
"Marry, instead."