A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Clock



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 11th 18, 04:31 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Peter Percival
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Clock

In the lower right-hand corner of my screen is the time and date. When
I left click on it I see a calender and a digital clock. Under Win7, I
used to see an analogue clock. How under Win10 can I get an analogue clock?
  #2  
Old February 11th 18, 04:51 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mr. Man-wai Chang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,941
Default Clock

On 11/2/2018 23:31, Peter Percival wrote:
In the lower right-hand corner of my screen is the time and date. When
I left click on it I see a calender and a digital clock. Under Win7, I
used to see an analogue clock. How under Win10 can I get an analogue
clock?


Out of CURIOSITY: why do you want an analogue clock when a digital clock
spells all information precisely? You don't need to judge the positions
of two hands as in an traditional analog clock!

Just out of curiosity...

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa
  #3  
Old February 11th 18, 05:53 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mark Lloyd[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,756
Default Clock

On 02/11/2018 09:51 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

[snip]

Out of CURIOSITY: why do you want an analogue clock when a digital clock
spells all information precisely? You don't need to judge the positions
of two hands as in an traditional analog clock!

Just out of curiosity...


Yes, I find digital a lot easier to read. The time is already displayed
in a familiar format, especially compared to an analog clock, which is
complicated. One thing I noticed is (for example) at 1:59 the hour is 1
but the hour hand is MUCH closer to 2.

Analog does seem to have some advantages, but not enough to be worth it.
Some people seem to stick with what they are used to and don't consider
change. I grew up with analog clocks, then found something better. I can
still tell time with an analog clock, but with digital it' faster and
easier.

BTW, When I wrote clock code for my webpage, I found creating the analog
clock was much more work (including polar to rectangular transforms)
than digital (which wasn't much more than printing the result of the
DATE function).

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Who are you to criticize me for god's choice to make me an atheist?"
  #4  
Old February 11th 18, 05:55 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mr. Man-wai Chang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,941
Default Clock

On 12/2/2018 00:53, Mark Lloyd wrote:

BTW, When I wrote clock code for my webpage, I found creating the analog
clock was much more work (including polar to rectangular transforms)
than digital (which wasn't much more than printing the result of the
DATE function).


Your Honor:

If you wanted some challenges, create a screen-saver featuring 100%
ACCURATE physics of the whole Big Ben in London.

Meow....

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa
  #5  
Old February 11th 18, 06:38 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,221
Default Clock

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 10:53:37 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 02/11/2018 09:51 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

[snip]

Out of CURIOSITY: why do you want an analogue clock when a digital clock
spells all information precisely? You don't need to judge the positions
of two hands as in an traditional analog clock!

Just out of curiosity...


Yes, I find digital a lot easier to read. The time is already displayed
in a familiar format, especially compared to an analog clock, which is
complicated. One thing I noticed is (for example) at 1:59 the hour is 1
but the hour hand is MUCH closer to 2.




Sure. The hour hand is much closer to 2 because the time is much
closer to 2. At 1:59, the hour hand has progressed 59/60ths of the way
to 2.

In an analog clock, the hour hand tells the time by itself. The only
reason there's a minute hand is to make it easier to accurately tell
how far the hour hand has progressed between the numbers.

  #6  
Old February 11th 18, 06:50 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,221
Default Clock

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 10:53:37 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 02/11/2018 09:51 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

[snip]

Out of CURIOSITY: why do you want an analogue clock when a digital clock
spells all information precisely? You don't need to judge the positions
of two hands as in an traditional analog clock!

Just out of curiosity...


Yes, I find digital a lot easier to read. The time is already displayed
in a familiar format, especially compared to an analog clock, which is
complicated.



If you want to know the time very accurately, of course a digital
clock is more better. But rarely does any of us need that kind of
precision. Ask me what time it is, and if the analog watch on my wrist
points to 10:43‚ I'll say "a quarter to eleven."


One thing I noticed is (for example) at 1:59 the hour is 1
but the hour hand is MUCH closer to 2.

Analog does seem to have some advantages, but not enough to be worth it.
Some people seem to stick with what they are used to and don't consider
change. I grew up with analog clocks, then found something better. I can
still tell time with an analog clock, but with digital it' faster and
easier.



Not to me it isn't. There are only two or three advantages to digital
clocks/watches, as far as I'm concerned:

1. They're more accurate, if that's important (see above).

2. They are much easier to reset, when you are traveling and changing
time zones.

3. And if you're talking about wris****ches with a calendar feature,
they are easier to set the day of the month following a month that has
fewer than 31 days. In fact, most of them do that automatically.

I use an analog wris****ch, and it's one that doesn't even have
numbers on it. It's fine for me, and my only regrets are points 2 and
3 above.
  #7  
Old February 11th 18, 08:08 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Peter Percival
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Clock

Ken Blake wrote:

If you want to know the time very accurately, of course a digital
clock is more better.


How come? There is nothing about digit clocks that mean that they can't
be wrong.


  #8  
Old February 11th 18, 08:52 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,221
Default Clock

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 19:08:36 +0000, Peter Percival
wrote:

Ken Blake wrote:

If you want to know the time very accurately, of course a digital
clock is more better.




Ugh! Ugh! Ugh! Did I really type "more better." Just a guess, but it
probably was originally "more accurate" and I changed the "accurate"
to "better," without remembering to delete the "more."


How come? There is nothing about digit clocks that mean that they can't
be wrong.




Of course they can be wrong. But if it's a quality digital clock and
it's set correctly, it will tell you the time accurately to a second
(with some clocks, even better). Analog clocks are hardly ever that
precise. If they tell you the time accurately to the nearest minute,
and you can read it that accurately, you're doing well.

For example, I have two clocks on my monitor at this moment--one
analog and one digital. The digital clock on my task bar says
12:47:12. If I look at the analog clock, it's either 12:47 or 12:48;
I'm not sure which.
  #9  
Old February 12th 18, 05:47 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mark Lloyd[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,756
Default Clock

On 02/11/2018 01:08 PM, Peter Percival wrote:
Ken Blake wrote:

If you want to know the time very accurately, of course a digital
clock is more better.


How come?* There is nothing about digit clocks that mean that they can't
be wrong.


Sorry, I used the wrong work there. It should be "precision".

However, some clocks are now controlled by internet or radio, and are
more accurate.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Formerly, when religion was strong and science weak, men mistook magic
for medicine; now, when science is strong and religion weak, men mistake
medicine for magic." [Thomas Szasz]
  #10  
Old February 12th 18, 10:00 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Peter Percival
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Clock

Peter Percival wrote:
Ken Blake wrote:

If you want to know the time very accurately, of course a digital
clock is more better.


How come?* There is nothing about digit clocks that mean that they can't


meant digit*al* sorry

be wrong.



  #11  
Old February 12th 18, 05:34 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mark Lloyd[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,756
Default Clock

On 02/11/2018 11:50 AM, Ken Blake wrote:

[snip]

3. And if you're talking about wris****ches with a calendar feature,
they are easier to set the day of the month following a month that has
fewer than 31 days. In fact, most of them do that automatically.


I had one defective calendar watch that thought every month has 32 days.

[snip]

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Formerly, when religion was strong and science weak, men mistook magic
for medicine; now, when science is strong and religion weak, men mistake
medicine for magic." [Thomas Szasz]
  #12  
Old February 12th 18, 05:38 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mark Lloyd[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,756
Default Clock

On 02/11/2018 11:50 AM, Ken Blake wrote:

[snip]

If you want to know the time very accurately, of course a digital
clock is more better. But rarely does any of us need that kind of
precision. Ask me what time it is, and if the analog watch on my wrist
points to 10:43‚ I'll say "a quarter to eleven."

With analog, "to the minute" precision means looking at the clock
longer, so it makes sense to use approximate when you can.

With digital, one look gives you "to the minute" precision. It's extra
work to make it less precise (10:43 quicker than "a quarter to eleven").

[snip]

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Formerly, when religion was strong and science weak, men mistook magic
for medicine; now, when science is strong and religion weak, men mistake
medicine for magic." [Thomas Szasz]
  #13  
Old February 12th 18, 06:17 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,221
Default Clock

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 10:38:19 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

On 02/11/2018 11:50 AM, Ken Blake wrote:

[snip]

If you want to know the time very accurately, of course a digital
clock is more better. But rarely does any of us need that kind of
precision. Ask me what time it is, and if the analog watch on my wrist
points to 10:43‚ I'll say "a quarter to eleven."


With analog, "to the minute" precision means looking at the clock
longer



I don't agree.


so it makes sense to use approximate when you can.



I use approximations because they are usually easy to say, and because
they are usually good enough for the person who asked.


With digital, one look gives you "to the minute" precision.



At least. Some digital clocks (for example the one on my task bar)
give you "to the second" precision.

  #14  
Old February 11th 18, 11:35 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Micky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,528
Default Clock

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sun, 11 Feb 2018 10:53:37 -0600, Mark
Lloyd wrote:

On 02/11/2018 09:51 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

[snip]

Out of CURIOSITY: why do you want an analogue clock when a digital clock
spells all information precisely? You don't need to judge the positions
of two hands as in an traditional analog clock!

Just out of curiosity...


Yes, I find digital a lot easier to read. The time is already displayed
in a familiar format, especially compared to an analog clock, which is


Au contraire. An analog clock has a familiar format, a more familiar
format.

I didn't know there were any youngin's on Usenet.

Though when I use watch with no numbers, I'm always 3 or 4 hours late.


complicated. One thing I noticed is (for example) at 1:59 the hour is 1
but the hour hand is MUCH closer to 2.


Because the time is much closer to 2.

Analog does seem to have some advantages, but not enough to be worth it.
Some people seem to stick with what they are used to and don't consider
change. I grew up with analog clocks, then found something better. I can
still tell time with an analog clock, but with digital it' faster and
easier.

BTW, When I wrote clock code for my webpage, I found creating the analog
clock was much more work (including polar to rectangular transforms)


That doesn't surprise me, but I'm not writing clock code for no stinkin'
webpage.

than digital (which wasn't much more than printing the result of the
DATE function).


  #15  
Old February 12th 18, 05:54 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
hah[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 74
Default Clock

On 02/11/2018 04:35 PM, micky wrote:

[snp]

That doesn't surprise me, but I'm not writing clock code for no stinkin'
webpage.


I do know a webpage with a brown background and a picture of bovine
excrement. The stinkin' is imaginary.

--
"nullifidian n. & a. (Person) having no religious faith or belief," --
f. med. L nullifidius fr L nullus none + fides faith; see IAN
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.