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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
XP desktop Time/Date
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). 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/t...t-040702-3.zip == Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-) "Binyamin Dissen" wrote in message ... clipped I have been using tclockex. What are the issues, and why do you recommend tclock above it (I have not examined tclock)? clipped Binyamin Dissen http://www.dissensoftware.com |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
XP desktop Time/Date
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). 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/t...t-040702-3.zip == Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-) "Binyamin Dissen" wrote in message ... clipped I have been using tclockex. What are the issues, and why do you recommend tclock above it (I have not examined tclock)? clipped Binyamin Dissen http://www.dissensoftware.com |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
XP desktop Time/Date
On 17 Mar 2010, "Tim Meddick" wrote in
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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
XP desktop Time/Date
On 17 Mar 2010, "Tim Meddick" wrote in
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
XP desktop Time/Date
Sounds very much like you were calling me a liar!....., you wrote, and I quote :
"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" wrote in message ... On 17 Mar 2010, "Tim Meddick" wrote in 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. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
XP desktop Time/Date
Sounds very much like you were calling me a liar!....., you wrote, and I quote :
"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" wrote in message ... On 17 Mar 2010, "Tim Meddick" wrote in 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. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
XP desktop Time/Date
On 18 Mar 2010, "Tim Meddick" wrote in
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. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
XP desktop Time/Date
In message , Nil
writes: On 17 Mar 2010, "Tim Meddick" 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 |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
XP desktop Time/Date
On 20 Mar 2010, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|