XP desktop Time/Date
David
and the time/day/date displayed on each of the teirs. I now only run the
taskbar 1 teir high and have lost the day & date.
I would like to have a time/abbr. day/date display back but without
sacrificing so much screen as for 3 teirs.
I have looked at a number of desktop arrangements, but all from what I saw
want to give me a calender/day/ etc and a lot of other crap.
Would someone please tell me if I can monkey with the MS code for the
taskbar and have the basic time/day/month display in a single tier or else a
no nonsense desktop display with basic info, no extraneous handles, call
girl service or whatever wanted.
regards and my thanks,
Dave
Tim Meddick
program or by some other reverse-engineering of WinXP...
But it is definitely Windows default behaviour to only display the TIME on a one-bar
setup and then only adding the DAY then the DATE as other tiers are added.
But you could ditch Window's clock altogether and use a small (and free) program
called TCLOCK.exe
With this, you can configure loads of Taskbar-related stuff and takes up virtually no
memory.
(I like having the seconds ticking over in the taskbar clock - impossible with native
WinXP!)
Download TClock.exe (ZIP-file install) directly from :
http://homepage1.nifty.com/kazubon/tclocklight/tclocklight-040702-3.zip
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"David" <dtm...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:eQhFIm9v...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Ken Blake, MVP
<timme...@gawab.com> wrote:
> I suppose you could try tampering with XP's code, either with a resource "hacker"
> program or by some other reverse-engineering of WinXP...
>
> But it is definitely Windows default behaviour to only display the TIME on a one-bar
> setup and then only adding the DAY then the DATE as other tiers are added.
>
> But you could ditch Window's clock altogether and use a small (and free) program
> called TCLOCK.exe
>
> With this, you can configure loads of Taskbar-related stuff and takes up virtually no
> memory.
>
> (I like having the seconds ticking over in the taskbar clock - impossible with native
> WinXP!)
>
> Download TClock.exe (ZIP-file install) directly from :
> http://homepage1.nifty.com/kazubon/tclocklight/tclocklight-040702-3.zip
I'll second the motion for TCLock, which is my favorite program of
that type. But I'll add a word of caution: do not mix up TClock.exe
with TCLockex.exe. Despite the similarity of their names, they are two
different programs, and in my view, TClock is much better than
TClockex.
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
David
My thanks indeed.
You have read me rather exactly I might say. TClock is about perfect with
both the abbreviated day, then date and the 2400 clock. I know that XP, like
myself, is getting long in the tooth, but surely someone sometime must have
whispered this and lots of other gems in Mrs Gates' son's ear - Surely ??
Thankyou
Dave
"David" <dtm...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:eQhFIm9v...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Big_Al
> Until recently I have my taskbar 3 "teirs" high at the bottom of the screen
> and the time/day/date displayed on each of the teirs. I now only run the
> I would like to have a time/abbr. day/date display back but without
> sacrificing so much screen as for 3 teirs.
> I have looked at a number of desktop arrangements, but all from what I saw
> want to give me a calender/day/ etc and a lot of other crap.
> Would someone please tell me if I can monkey with the MS code for the
> taskbar and have the basic time/day/month display in a single tier or else a
> no nonsense desktop display with basic info, no extraneous handles, call
> girl service or whatever wanted.
> regards and my thanks,
> Dave
>
>
You might try Alfa Clock. I think its better than Tclock.
http://shareware.pcmag.com/product.php%5Bid%5D90612%5Bcid%5D46%5BSiteID%5Dpcmag
You have to get version 1.90 because later versions are not free.
1.90 was the last free version out.
Ken Blake, MVP
> Tim, Ken,
> My thanks indeed.
You're welcome. Glad to help.
--
Tim Meddick
direct download URL might have kinda squished all confusion over this...?!?
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:k6odp55qkp2kbb39t...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:35:15 -0000,
>
>
> I'll second the motion for TCLock, which is my favorite program of
> that type. But I'll add a word of caution: do not mix up TClock.exe
> with TCLockex.exe. ...
>
> < clipped >
>
Ken Blake, MVP
<timme...@gawab.com> wrote:
> I was aware of there being a similar product out, I rather hoped that posting the
> direct download URL might have kinda squished all confusion over this...?!?
I would hope so, but with such similar names, I've seen lots of
confusion over the two. So I thought that mentioning the other one
would help avoid any mixup.
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:k6odp55qkp2kbb39t...@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:35:15 -0000,
> >
> >
> > I'll second the motion for TCLock, which is my favorite program of
> > that type. But I'll add a word of caution: do not mix up TClock.exe
> > with TCLockex.exe. ...
> >
> > < clipped >
> >
--
J. P. Gilliver (John)
>On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:35:15 -0000, "Tim Meddick"
><timme...@gawab.com> wrote:
>> Download TClock.exe (ZIP-file install) directly from :
>> http://homepage1.nifty.com/kazubon/tclocklight/tclocklight-040702-3.zip
>
>
>
>I'll second the motion for TCLock, which is my favorite program of
>that type. But I'll add a word of caution: do not mix up TClock.exe
>with TCLockex.exe. Despite the similarity of their names, they are two
>different programs, and in my view, TClock is much better than
>TClockex.
>
it does the job for me).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
"Mummy, Mummy, I'm 13 now can I wear a bra?"
"SHUT UP RALPH...."
Twayne
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> typed:
> In message <k6odp55qkp2kbb39t...@4ax.com>,
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> writes:
>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:35:15 -0000, "Tim Meddick"
>> <timme...@gawab.com> wrote:
> []
>>> Download TClock.exe (ZIP-file install) directly from :
>>> http://homepage1.nifty.com/kazubon/tclocklight/tclocklight-040702-3.zip
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll second the motion for TCLock, which is my favorite
>> program of that type. But I'll add a word of caution: do
>> not mix up TClock.exe with TCLockex.exe. Despite the
>> similarity of their names, they are two different
>> programs, and in my view, TClock is much better than
>> TClockex.
> ... of which the homepage is
> http://www.rcis.co.za/dale/tclockex/ (and it does the job
> for me).
Well, there' s a couple recommendations there but no reference for why
they're relevant. People should really learn how to trim. The OP's original
quest should never be snipped.
HTH,
Twayne`
--
Life is the only real counselor; wisdom unfiltered
through personal experience does not become a
part of the moral tissue.
Shenan Stanley
<entire spawning conversation>
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize/browse_frm/thread/ec775c862a23718e/
</entire spawning conversation>
Twayne wrote:
> Well, there' s a couple recommendations there
> but no reference for why they're relevant.
> People should really learn how to trim. The
> OP's original quest should never be snipped.
"Never" is a bit overdone.
For example, my response has nothing to do with the OP or the suggestions
made to them - but with a statement you have made that also had nothing to
do with the OP. Therefore - why waste a lot of text space (although I do
normally link the Google Groups archive for posterity) with unrelated
information? So I did not - I responded to you and quoted the your message
text - which is what I am responding to.
"Never" is a long time, situations change and come up unexpectantly and very
few things can actually have the word 'never' applied to them.
Bad practice to snip the original message if your responding to the
OP/suggesting something to the OP - generally agreed. Gone off on a
side-conversation - spawned from but perhaps not directly related to the
original message - it depends.
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Twayne
Shenan Stanley <newsh...@gmail.com> typed:
> <snipped>
> <entire spawning conversation>
> http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize/browse_frm/thread/ec775c862a23718e/
> </entire spawning conversation>
>
>
>
> Twayne wrote:
>> Well, there' s a couple recommendations there
>> but no reference for why they're relevant.
>> People should really learn how to trim. The
>> OP's original quest should never be snipped.
>
> "Never" is a bit overdone.
lol, yeah, it "always" is, it seems.
>
> For example, my response has nothing to do with the OP or
> the suggestions made to them - but with a statement you
> have made that also had nothing to do with the OP.
Shenan, Then you were OT and made no correctional move or clarifying move.
The post I originally responed to came from you and was to the OP, and was
comprised of nothing but your own output; nothing whatsoever as all had been
snipped away. I didn't say you did the snipping nor did I say anyone
specific had done so.
> Therefore - why waste a lot of text space (although I do
> normally link the Google Groups archive for posterity) with
> unrelated information?
Exactly; which was what I said to you.
So I did not - I responded to you
> and quoted the your message text - which is what I am
> responding to.
That's for this message; not the one where you had nothing to post but your
own words. This post has gone completely OT and your trying to defend this
is rather a useless effort, to be honest about it.
>
> "Never" is a long time, situations change and come up
> unexpectantly and very few things can actually have the
> word 'never' applied to them.
That's "always" the case, isn't it? But the fact remains that, in this
case and in any thread, OP's original quest should never be snipped.
Period. If you're really trying to be helpful, then you're paying attention
to the OP and the query put forth, in theory. I have to say in theory
because so often you have no consideration of the OP in your responses at
all. The second someone appears to not think exactly the same way you do and
especially when they have a valid point, you reach for your bag of verbosity
and just charge ahead blindly most of the time.
>
> Bad practice to snip the original message if your
> responding to the OP/suggesting something to the OP -
> generally agreed. Gone off on a side-conversation -
> spawned from but perhaps not directly related to the
> original message - it depends.
No, it doesn't depend when it is IN and a part of the original thread, which
that was. And so is this as was your post preceding this one. Taking it off
group or even over to e-mail is the correct response if you actually care
about what your'e saying and wish to get a point across that doesn't seem to
be getting picked up. A thread essentially belongs, so to speak, to the
originator until it is marked resolved or abandoned by the originator. FYI
28 I think it is, covers that off rather neatly IIRC.
Shenan Stanley
<entire spawning conversation>
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize/browse_frm/thread/ec775c862a23718e/
</entire spawning conversation>
Twayne wrote:
> Well, there' s a couple recommendations there
> but no reference for why they're relevant.
> People should really learn how to trim. The
> OP's original quest should never be snipped.
Shenan Stanley wrote:
> "Never" is a bit overdone.
>
> For example, my response has nothing to do with the OP or the
> suggestions made to them - but with a statement you have made that
> also had nothing to do with the OP. Therefore - why waste a lot of
> text space (although I do normally link the Google Groups archive
> for posterity) with unrelated information? So I did not - I
> responded to you and quoted the your message text - which is what I
> am responding to.
> "Never" is a long time, situations change and come up unexpectantly
> and very few things can actually have the word 'never' applied to
> them.
> Bad practice to snip the original message if your responding to the
> OP/suggesting something to the OP - generally agreed. Gone off on a
> side-conversation - spawned from but perhaps not directly related
> to the original message - it depends.
Twayne wrote:
> lol, yeah, it "always" is, it seems.
>
> Shenan, Then you were OT and made no correctional move or
> clarifying move. The post I originally responed to came from you
> and was to the OP, and was comprised of nothing but your own
> output; nothing whatsoever as all had been snipped away. I didn't
> say you did the snipping nor did I say anyone specific had done so.
>
> Exactly; which was what I said to you.
>
> That's for this message; not the one where you had nothing to post
> but your own words. This post has gone completely OT and your
> trying to defend this is rather a useless effort, to be honest
> about it.
> That's "always" the case, isn't it? But the fact remains that, in
> this case and in any thread, OP's original quest should never be
> snipped. Period. If you're really trying to be helpful, then you're
> paying attention to the OP and the query put forth, in theory. I
> have to say in theory because so often you have no consideration of
> the OP in your responses at all. The second someone appears to not
> think exactly the same way you do and especially when they have a
> valid point, you reach for your bag of verbosity and just charge
> ahead blindly most of the time.
> No, it doesn't depend when it is IN and a part of the original
> thread, which that was. And so is this as was your post preceding
> this one. Taking it off group or even over to e-mail is the
> correct response if you actually care about what your'e saying and
> wish to get a point across that doesn't seem to be getting picked
> up. A thread essentially belongs, so to speak, to the originator
> until it is marked resolved or abandoned by the originator. FYI 28
> I think it is, covers that off rather neatly IIRC.
When you said, "The post I originally responed to came from you and was to
the OP." --> what? You responded to "J. P. Gilliver (John)", then to me in
the new spur conversation. Neither of our responses (you and I) are
to/about the Original Post nor will they in any way benefit the Original
Poster.
Which is fine.
Real life doesn't work like the fantasy world anyone would try to 'strive
for' here.
Conversations on one topic often spur other conversations on similar (and
sometimes completely unconnected) topics. People go to
conferences/meeting/places with a mixture of people and speak about all
sorts of things amongst themselves before/during/after the
conference/meeting/etc. People start talking about one thing and break off
into different groups to discuss similar/different things as time lingers
by.
It's very simple. The thread had already broken off into a different topic
and *I* was continuing that discussion. I had no interest in answering the
original poster, but you. I was continuing a side conversation you had
started in the room of crowded people.
I'm not 'defending' anything - for there is nothing to defend. This is the
way conversations have worked for hundreds/thousands of years in groups of
people with varying thoughts/ideas/etc.
Just because one does not respond directly to the OP does not mean they are
not trying to be helpful. Many times they are trying to 'help' someone else
with a spurred off conversation that was started. Doesn't mean they are
being helpful either - not all conversations are helpful - just interesting.
I'd go as far as to bet most conversations people have during a given
lifetime are *not* helpful to anyone. *grin*
While many people love to say, "Start your own post" - and I have done it
myself if the new responder gives little or no relevant information (but I
normally just ask for more information) - the fact is that if a side
conversation started from the original - so be it. It's not disrespectful,
it's not really choosing not to be helpful to the original poster (the one
who started the original conversation that may have spurred further
tangents/complete parallels and/or conversations that seemingly have no
connection unless you can see the entirety..) - but simply talking -
conversing.
It's like walking into a room 30 minutes into the conversation and only
catching the part *just said* and keying in on that - since it is the latest
topic and all you know about at that time. Just because there happens to be
a security camera with audio that recorded everything available to you
doesn't mean you *have* to review it and make sure you stay on the original
topic only. ;-) You might argue it's simpler here - since the whole article
is there for anyone to read - but it's also there for anyone to read and
decide whether that topic is dead (and I did decide that topic was dead, the
answers were given and if the OP happens to come back and give more
information, maybe it will change slightly or be ended 'officially' - as we
both know the OPs rarely return to 'close' anything.
As I have said before - to each their own. I *hope* you don't think the
same way I do - variety is what makes things fun. The more variety, the
better. I even like having 'anonymous' around - after all - you cannot tell
how good something is if all you have to compare with is the same level of
good. ;-) I am not trying to change your mind, convince you or anyone else
of anything. I am just sharing my opinion on your opinion.
Let me give you the short form:
You used the word 'never' and you were telling everyone the way they should
post.
Ironic?
" The OP's original quest should never be snipped. "
And you just keep telling people how they should communicate with, "Taking
it off group or even over to e-mail is the correct response if you actually
care about what your'e saying and wish to get a point across that doesn't
seem to be getting picked up. A thread essentially belongs, so to speak, to
the originator until it is marked resolved or abandoned by the originator."
It's just a newsgroup - a newsgroup of people with different personalities,
different cultures, different ideas on just about everything under the sun.
While it is suggested one 'stay on topic' - it *is* a suggestion, not an
'order'.
If you don't have fun with it - why bother?
Binyamin Dissen
<kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
[Posted and mailed]
:>On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:35:15 -0000, "Tim Meddick"
I have been using tclockex. What are the issues, and why do you recommend
tclock above it (I have not examined tclock)?
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
Ken Blake, MVP
<post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:01:40 -0700 "Ken Blake, MVP"
> <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
>
> [Posted and mailed]
If you sent an e-mail message to the address above, you certainly
didn't reach me. I use that address here because I don't want to get
personal replies.
> :>On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:35:15 -0000, "Tim Meddick"
> :><timme...@gawab.com> wrote:
> :>> Download TClock.exe (ZIP-file install) directly from :
> :>> http://homepage1.nifty.com/kazubon/tclocklight/tclocklight-040702-3.zip
> :>
> :>
> :>
> :>I'll second the motion for TCLock, which is my favorite program of
> :>that type. But I'll add a word of caution: do not mix up TClock.exe
> :>with TCLockex.exe. Despite the similarity of their names, they are two
> :>different programs, and in my view, TClock is much better than
> :>TClockex.
>
> I have been using tclockex. What are the issues, and why do you recommend
> tclock above it (I have not examined tclock)?
Sorry, it's been so long since I compared the two (five years or
more?) that I can't even remember the differences, let alone why I
greatly preferred TClock. But my recommendation is to try TCLock and
compare the two yourself.
Nil
microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize:
> You might try Alfa Clock. I think its better than Tclock.
> http://shareware.pcmag.com/product.php%5Bid%5D90612%5Bcid%5D46%5BSiteID%5Dpcmag
> You have to get version 1.90 because later versions
> are not free. 1.90 was the last free version out.
Alfaclock 1.90 can't be found any more. The only "free" version left
is 1.99... which was free for a few months until it expired in July
2009. It doesn't look like they plan to offer a free version.
Actually, to look at the site, it looks like the whole company has
been abandoned.
Too bad - I liked the free one, but it's not worth $40 for the pay
one (if it's even still available.)
I use TClockEX, and it works fine for me. Some slight display issues,
but nothing I can't live with. I like the pop-up calendar.
Tim Meddick
am thinking the most obvious difference between it and "TClock.exe" is probably going
to be that it is much lighter [smaller] and therefore tend to be more reliable, not
least on display quality (video memory).
Even when I am using all it's options to choose :
*my own custom "Start Button" text and image,
*my own "Start Menu" scrolling image,
(a replacement image in classic menus that usually shows the words "Windows XP")
*and my own custom non-standard time format.
(including seconds - why I got it in the first place).
Again, here is the direct download URL (374k) below :
http://homepage1.nifty.com/kazubon/tclocklight/tclocklight-040702-3.zip
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"Binyamin Dissen" <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote in message
news:mnj1q5t2lksor2l8v...@4ax.com...
>
> < clipped >
>
> I have been using tclockex. What are the issues, and why do you recommend
> tclock above it (I have not examined tclock)?
>
> < clipped >
Nil
microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize:
> Judging by what "Nil" wrote in his reply, that "TClockEx" has a
> "Pop-up calendar", I am thinking the most obvious difference
> between it and "TClock.exe" is probably going to be that it is
> much lighter [smaller] and therefore tend to be more reliable, not
> least on display quality (video memory).
TClockEx is perfectly stable. It has never been any kind of problem for
me.
Tim Meddick
"I use TClockEX, and it works fine for me. Some slight display issues,
but nothing I can't live with."
So what does "slight display issues" mean?
You actually meant to write "it has no issues at all" did you?
I can only go on the information you supplied, as I have not used this program
myself.
Since you *did* originally say there were some [slight] issues with TClockEX and
display, I protracted that the program may use more memory resources than TClock
does.
TClock light has no issues with display, slight or otherwise, and is as reliable and
unobtrusive as a background application can be...
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"Nil" <redn...@REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9D3EE514...@130.133.4.11...
Nil
microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize:
> Sounds very much like you were calling me a liar!
Oh my! We are quite prickly, aren't we?
> So what does "slight display issues" mean?
TClockEX doesn't blend in with the task bar completely and leaves a
line a couple of pixels wide underneath it.
> You actually meant to write "it has no issues at all" did you?
No. Why do you say that?
> Since you *did* originally say there were some [slight] issues
> with TClockEX and display, I protracted that the program may use
> more memory resources than TClock does.
That's a huge leap on your part. You might as well have "protracted"
that it shoots laser beams into the user's eyes, then replaces them
with cocktail olives.
> TClock light has no issues with display, slight or otherwise, and
> is as reliable and unobtrusive as a background application can
> be...
TClockEX is as reliable and unobtrusive as a background application can
be. And it give you an additional thin line at no extra charge. Plus a
convenient pop-up calendar.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
>On 17 Mar 2010, "Tim Meddick" <timme...@gawab.com> wrote in
>microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize:
>TClockEx is perfectly stable. It has never been any kind of problem for
>me.
Seconded. (I _very_ occasionally find it has gone away - i. e. the
default Windows clock is back - but running it again restores normality;
I _think_ it's only, generally, when some other aspect of Windows has
caused something to disrupt lots, normally closing many of the items in
the tray as well. It's possible it only happens on one of the four
machines [including two '98 ones] I run it on - it's so rare, and easily
fixed, that I haven't bothered to try to track anything down.)
I like the popup calendar too: that fact that it disappears when you do
almost anything else I thought would be irritating, but is actually a
boon.
I haven't tried Tclock.
I was going to say, just for interest, what memory and CPU resources
TClockEx is using on this computer, but unless I bring up its properties
window, I can't see it in the list of running processes. In fact it's
most odd - I just tried turning it off (it really was off, the boring
clock came back) and then back on again, and the number of running
processes didn't change.
--
J. P. Gilliver. 27 years experience in the electronics industry - seeking
employment (also computer, tester, trainer ...); email for details and/or CV!
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the God who endowed me with sense,
reason, and intellect intends me to forego their use". - Gallileo Gallilei
Nil
wrote in microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize:
> Seconded. (I _very_ occasionally find it has gone away - i. e. the
> default Windows clock is back - but running it again restores
> normality; I _think_ it's only, generally, when some other aspect
> of Windows has caused something to disrupt lots, normally closing
> many of the items in the tray as well.
Very occasionally Explorer will crash on me, and it takes TClockEx out
along with it.
> I haven't tried Tclock.
I tried TClock before I I tried TClockEx. It works fine, and it
visually blends into XP's gradated task bar better than Ex. But it
doesn't have the calendar, which I use a lot.
> I was going to say, just for interest, what memory and CPU
> resources TClockEx is using on this computer, but unless I bring
> up its properties window, I can't see it in the list of running
> processes. In fact it's most odd - I just tried turning it off (it
> really was off, the boring clock came back) and then back on
> again, and the number of running processes didn't change.
I did the same test, and like you I couldn't find it listed as a
running process or detect any change in memory when it ran.