If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
XP desktop Time/Date
In message , "Ken Blake,
MVP" writes: On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:35:15 -0000, "Tim Meddick" wrote: [] Download TClock.exe (ZIP-file install) directly from : http://homepage1.nifty.com/kazubon/t...t-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). -- 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MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs.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...." |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
XP desktop Time/Date
In message , "Ken Blake,
MVP" writes: On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:35:15 -0000, "Tim Meddick" wrote: [] Download TClock.exe (ZIP-file install) directly from : http://homepage1.nifty.com/kazubon/t...t-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). -- 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MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs.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...." |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
XP desktop Time/Date
In ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) typed: In message , "Ken Blake, MVP" writes: On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:35:15 -0000, "Tim Meddick" wrote: [] Download TClock.exe (ZIP-file install) directly from : http://homepage1.nifty.com/kazubon/t...t-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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
XP desktop Time/Date
In ,
J. P. Gilliver (John) typed: In message , "Ken Blake, MVP" writes: On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:35:15 -0000, "Tim Meddick" wrote: [] Download TClock.exe (ZIP-file install) directly from : http://homepage1.nifty.com/kazubon/t...t-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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
XP desktop Time/Date
snipped
entire spawning conversation http://groups.google.com/group/micro...75c862a23718e/ /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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
XP desktop Time/Date
snipped
entire spawning conversation http://groups.google.com/group/micro...75c862a23718e/ /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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
OT for Shenan XP desktop Time/Date
In ,
Shenan Stanley typed: snipped entire spawning conversation http://groups.google.com/group/micro...75c862a23718e/ /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. HTH, Twayne` -- Life is the only real counselor; wisdom unfiltered through personal experience does not become a part of the moral tissue. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
OT for Shenan XP desktop Time/Date
In ,
Shenan Stanley typed: snipped entire spawning conversation http://groups.google.com/group/micro...75c862a23718e/ /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. HTH, Twayne` -- Life is the only real counselor; wisdom unfiltered through personal experience does not become a part of the moral tissue. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
OT for Shenan XP desktop Time/Date
snipped
entire spawning conversation http://groups.google.com/group/micro...75c862a23718e/ /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? -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
OT for Shenan XP desktop Time/Date
snipped
entire spawning conversation http://groups.google.com/group/micro...75c862a23718e/ /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? -- Shenan Stanley MS-MVP -- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
XP desktop Time/Date
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:01:40 -0700 "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote: [Posted and mailed] :On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:35:15 -0000, "Tim Meddick" 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/t...t-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)? -- Binyamin Dissen 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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
XP desktop Time/Date
On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:01:40 -0700 "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote: [Posted and mailed] :On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 23:35:15 -0000, "Tim Meddick" 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/t...t-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)? -- Binyamin Dissen 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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
XP desktop Time/Date
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:46:40 +0200, Binyamin Dissen
wrote: On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:01:40 -0700 "Ken Blake, MVP" 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" wrote: : Download TClock.exe (ZIP-file install) directly from : : http://homepage1.nifty.com/kazubon/t...t-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. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003 Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
XP desktop Time/Date
On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:46:40 +0200, Binyamin Dissen
wrote: On Tue, 09 Mar 2010 17:01:40 -0700 "Ken Blake, MVP" 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" wrote: : Download TClock.exe (ZIP-file install) directly from : : http://homepage1.nifty.com/kazubon/t...t-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. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003 Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
XP desktop Time/Date
On 10 Mar 2010, Big_Al wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize: You might try Alfa Clock. I think its better than Tclock. http://shareware.pcmag.com/product.p...teID%5Dpcm ag 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|