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 | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|