|
| 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 |
|
#31
May 27th 20, 08:45 PM
posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,free.spam
|
|||
|
|||
New monitor
We're obviously not talking about HUBS.
The communication between a monitor and a PC is not even a handshake, let alone talking. This Apple reject troll is clueless... -- nospam wrote: Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: nospam Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general Subject: New monitor Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 15:19:34 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 11 Message-ID: References: s.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="80846b62b0848d44182b549ac3bf2848"; logging-data="29829"; "; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+jrSr1r9g4Qy31b4aq4+wZ" User-Agent: Thoth/1.9.0 (Mac OS X) Cancel-Lock: sha1:xd9BhDRQWskrptwWodbMPm2uIj4= Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:118676 alt.windows7.general:190050 In article , John Doe wrote: The only monitors that "talk" are touchscreen monitors (and anything similar), not conventional monitors. Monitors are just output devices like printers. false. displays can 'talk' to the host, not just for resolution and timing, but also rotation, clut and other data, and any peripherals plugged into the display must be able to talk to the host. 
|
| Ads |
|
#32
May 27th 20, 09:00 PM
posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
New monitor
On Wed, 27 May 2020 11:59:40 -0700, Stan Brown
wrote: On Wed, 27 May 2020 08:46:14 -0500, Rene Lamontagne wrote: On 2020-05-27 5:49 a.m., Stan Brown wrote: On Wed, 27 May 2020 06:37:26 -0000 (UTC), John Doe wrote: If you use Chrome, you can customize almost anything on any webpage by using the add-on "Stylebot". Don't leave home without it. Helps to use the Chrome "Inspect" tool in combination with Stylebot. Changing the style, color, and size of fonts is easy. For both Chrome and Firefox, Ctrl+plus and Ctrl+minus are worth trying first. They won't change fonts or colors, just font size, but if that's enough for readability then that's one less add-in needed. Thanks Stan, that is a great , simple and very welcome fix. Periodically I see articles on various sites giving keyboard shortcuts for browsers, and the ones I use stick in my head. Frex, if you close a browser tab by mistake, Ctrl+Shift+W will bring it back. Did you mean Ctrl-Shift-T? That reopens a tab that was just closed. Ctrl-Shift-W looks like it will close all tabs in the selected window. Or have I changed my defaults?
|
|
#33
May 27th 20, 10:35 PM
posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,free.spam
|
|||
|
|||
|
New monitor
In article , John Doe
wrote: We're obviously not talking about HUBS. nobody said anything about hubs. The communication between a monitor and a PC is not even a handshake, let alone talking. false.
|
|
#34
May 28th 20, 01:43 AM
posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
New monitor
On 27/05/2020 20.41, John Doe wrote:
Paul wrote: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: John Doe wrote: The monitor doesn't "talk" it just listens. Is that entirely true? In context, Yes. I don't consider walking up to somebody and saying "Hi" to be "talking". it tells you the supported formats as well as clock rates That isn't necessary. Those of us who are old enough to know, know that we didn't even depend on monitor communication for set up, until more recently. That was then, this is now. Now the operating system finds out without configuration what modes the monitor supports and chooses the correct one automatically, by talking to the monitor. Today connect a monitor that doesn't talk to a modern computer, and you are in trouble. -- Cheers, Carlos.
|
|
#35
May 28th 20, 01:43 AM
posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.computer.workshop,alt.windows7.general,free.spam
|
|||
|
|||
|
New monitor
On 27/05/2020 20.23, John Doe wrote:
The only monitor that talks is a touch screen. The context is general use, not set up. This is nonsense... Your opinion is noted and ignored. :-) -- Cheers, Carlos.
|
|
#36
May 28th 20, 02:01 AM
posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
New monitor
On 05/27/2020 11:41 AM, John Doe wrote:
Paul wrote: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: John Doe wrote: The monitor doesn't "talk" it just listens. Is that entirely true? No, but moving the goalpost fixes Doe's problem. In context, Yes. I don't consider walking up to somebody and saying "Hi" to be "talking". it tells you the supported formats as well as clock rates That isn't necessary. Those of us who are old enough to know, know that we didn't even depend on monitor communication for set up, until more recently. The poster wrote... I do care, deeply, about good colour response, and those three ports, as the monitor must talk to three machines. That's referring to use, not setup. The poster doesn't require "three ports" just so the monitors can set themselves up. The reason "the poster" wants 3 ports is irrelevant. The only monitors that "talk" are touchscreen monitors (and anything similar), not conventional monitors. Monitors are just output devices like printers. Printers must also talk, when they report ink levels remaining. Your new 3-D printer probably talks behind your back. Where was it made?
|
|
#37
May 28th 20, 05:17 AM
posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
New monitor
Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 27/05/2020 20.41, John Doe wrote: Paul wrote: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: John Doe wrote: The monitor doesn't "talk" it just listens. Is that entirely true? In context, Yes. I don't consider walking up to somebody and saying "Hi" to be "talking". it tells you the supported formats as well as clock rates That isn't necessary. Those of us who are old enough to know, know that we didn't even depend on monitor communication for set up, until more recently. That was then, this is now. Now the operating system finds out without configuration what modes the monitor supports and chooses the correct one automatically, by talking to the monitor. Today connect a monitor that doesn't talk to a modern computer, and you are in trouble. I wouldn't couch the topic in quite that way. The hardwares have a certain degree of tolerance. Both the video card, and the monitor. ******* Perhaps we could start with an "objective". We want the computer and monitor to "always work". We want the monitor to display the desired image, without triggering an OSD "out of range" message. We *don't* want to intimidate "grandma" by having the screen turn black (which happens all too frequently on the Test Machine by the way!). The video card can output any horizontal resolution which is a multiple of 8 pixels. It can do any vertical resolution which is a multiple of 2 pixels. The multisync on the computer monitor, can handle a front porch 30% wide, all the way downto almost 0%. The 0% case is CRTRB (reduced blanking), since an LCD monitor does not have a flyback, a vacuum tube, or a beam to steer. The monitor can also be fed a great range of resolutions. For example, right now, if I wanted, I could set it to 278 x 78 pixels, and it would light up, it would look like ****, but... it would work. It would not be useful, but it would pass the bar bet we set for it. The monitor eats that request, like a packet of sweets. Yum! If you had a copy of the Entechtaiwan programming utility, you could test these if you wanted. The monitor will strive to make a working image, out of the worst possible materials. The EDID on the other hand, has a table of "nice" values. In particular, we know the "native" value works "extra nice", and gives the sharpest possible picture, with the least resampling artifacts. Some monitors actually support resolutions larger than native. They will accept 1920x1080 and display it on a 1366x768 native panel. They support resizing to make that happen. Those two choices, should have the same aspect ratio. You would expect video to look decent when doing that, but the resampling might make text or lines look a bit off. While both pieces of hardware support a large amount of choice (before something wobbles, you get "Out of Range" and the screen goes dark), the EDID helps guide some good choices. ******* One of the big improvements in Windows, was the fifteen second automatic recovery option in the Display settings panel. As long as you don't hit "OK", your mis-chosen resolution or mode line will back out, and you will be returned to the previous (working) choice. But what that doesn't cover, is certain cases of Registry trouble, where say, the refresh changed from 60FPS to 135FPS, and the monitor is going "out of range", and because at that particular point in time, the user is not using that 15 second long dialog, the setup is now scuppered. It's very hard for the user to figure out what offline Registry value needs to be reprogrammed, to make the screen work again. Every time the user boots up the computer, the screen stays black, making usage of the Display control panel impossible. ******* Summary: While the PNP system guides relatively logical behavior with relatively good looking screen images, there are still a few cases where it's "grandma versus the black screen". For example, on the Test Machine, in Linux, the Nouveau driver doesn't get along with my NVidia card, they seem to lose the ability to communicate (according to what I can see in "dmesg"), and as a grandma, I'm left with an annoying black screen to fix. Despite having a PNP subsystem, not all the worlds problems have been solved quite yet. Paul
|
|
#39
May 28th 20, 08:46 AM
posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,free.spam
|
|||
|
|||
|
New monitor
An ordinary monitor does not talk to a computer.
Reading a configuration file is not even a handshake. As anyone giving advice in this group should know... An ordinary monitor is an OUTPUT device. -- "Carlos E.R." wrote: Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "Carlos E.R." Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general Subject: New monitor Date: Thu, 28 May 2020 02:43:11 +0200 Lines: 30 Message-ID: References: s.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net wLGitJ8sVIyEE9q4wZD32A6+2fcw2uVQ6dp9vKUcZUHkKD7Kik X-Orig-Path: Telcontar.valinor!not-for-mail Cancel-Lock: sha1:LWjR85/e+FsPK5ajuhVkNfa/e2c= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-CA Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:118689 alt.windows7.general:190056 On 27/05/2020 20.41, John Doe wrote: Paul wrote: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: John Doe wrote: The monitor doesn't "talk" it just listens. Is that entirely true? In context, Yes. I don't consider walking up to somebody and saying "Hi" to be "talking". it tells you the supported formats as well as clock rates That isn't necessary. Those of us who are old enough to know, know that we didn't even depend on monitor communication for set up, until more recently. That was then, this is now. Now the operating system finds out without configuration what modes the monitor supports and chooses the correct one automatically, by talking to the monitor. Today connect a monitor that doesn't talk to a modern computer, and you are in trouble. -- Cheers, Carlos.
|
|
#40
May 28th 20, 08:51 AM
posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,free.spam
|
|||
|
|||
|
New monitor
see also...
=?UTF-8?B?8J+QriBDb3dzIGFyZSBOaWNlIPCfkK4=?= Banders Corvid Cows Are Nice Cows are nice Cows are Nice dogs Great Pumpkin Jose Curvo Local Favorite Sea Standard Poodle and others. I didn't "move the goalpost". I had to point out the context. The explanation "there is a difference between talking and reading a configuration file" is too subtle for this nym-shifting Linux lunatic troll... -- Corvid wrote: Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED.yhxzq0GkjhLBn92zR4T lsw.user.gioia.aioe.org!not-for-mail From: Corvid Newsgroups: alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general Subject: New monitor Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 18:01:44 -0700 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 37 Message-ID: References: s.com NNTP-Posting-Host: yhxzq0GkjhLBn92zR4Tlsw.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0 Color: Monza Red X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2 Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org alt.comp.os.windows-10:118693 alt.windows7.general:190060 On 05/27/2020 11:41 AM, John Doe wrote: Paul wrote: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: John Doe wrote: The monitor doesn't "talk" it just listens. Is that entirely true? No, but moving the goalpost fixes Doe's problem. In context, Yes. I don't consider walking up to somebody and saying "Hi" to be "talking". it tells you the supported formats as well as clock rates That isn't necessary. Those of us who are old enough to know, know that we didn't even depend on monitor communication for set up, until more recently. The poster wrote... I do care, deeply, about good colour response, and those three ports, as the monitor must talk to three machines. That's referring to use, not setup. The poster doesn't require "three ports" just so the monitors can set themselves up. The reason "the poster" wants 3 ports is irrelevant. The only monitors that "talk" are touchscreen monitors (and anything similar), not conventional monitors. Monitors are just output devices like printers. Printers must also talk, when they report ink levels remaining. Your new 3-D printer probably talks behind your back. Where was it made?
|
|
#41
May 28th 20, 12:15 PM
posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
New monitor
On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 00:17:54, Paul wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote: On 27/05/2020 20.41, John Doe wrote: Paul wrote: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: John Doe wrote: The monitor doesn't "talk" it just listens. Is that entirely true? In context, Yes. I don't consider walking up to somebody and saying "Hi" to be "talking". it tells you the supported formats as well as clock rates That isn't necessary. Those of us who are old enough to know, know that we didn't even depend on monitor communication for set up, until more recently. That was then, this is now. (Don't bother trying to convince him/it; it has decided that what it says _is_ the situation, and isn't interested in hearing otherwise.) Now the operating system finds out without configuration what modes the monitor supports and chooses the correct one automatically, by talking to the monitor. Today connect a monitor that doesn't talk to a modern computer, and you are in trouble. Totally, or just lowest common denominator? Will some graphics cards actually shut off any video signal if no communication is received, or just put out a default? I wouldn't couch the topic in quite that way. The hardwares have a certain degree of tolerance. Both the video card, and the monitor. ******* Perhaps we could start with an "objective". We want the computer and monitor to "always work". We want the monitor to display the desired image, without triggering an OSD "out of range" message. Or, with some very old monitors (well back in the CRT era), even suffer harm! (I think that's ones before any form of OSD.) We *don't* want to intimidate "grandma" by having the screen turn black (which happens all too frequently on the Test Machine by the way!). The Standard Grandma is an interesting set of specifications (-:! [Don't forget the tea frequency.] The video card can output any horizontal resolution which is a multiple of 8 pixels. It can do any vertical resolution which is a multiple of 2 pixels. I'm not even sure those limitations apply. I once met someone involved with vintage TV, where most people who wanted to keep old sets going built (or bought) hardware to generate the relevant signals, had managed - with a Linux machine and a particular graphics card - to generate full-spec. "405-line" TV signals ("System A", as used in UK and Eire until I think 198x [alongside 625 from 196x of course!]). I saw it working, and it was fine. The multisync on the computer monitor, can handle a front porch 30% wide, all the way downto almost 0%. The 0% case is CRTRB (reduced blanking), since an LCD monitor does not have a flyback, a vacuum tube, or a beam to steer. I think you mean flyback or "sync" pulse rather than "front porch". The monitor can also be fed a great range of resolutions. For example, right now, if I wanted, I could set it to 278 x 78 pixels, and it would light up, it would look like ****, but... it would work. It would not be useful, but it would pass the bar bet we set for it. The monitor eats that request, like a packet of sweets. Yum! If you had a copy of the Entechtaiwan programming utility, you could test these if you wanted. The monitor will strive to make a working image, out of the worst possible materials. I think _some_ monitors (or monitor/graphic-card combinations, especially laptop built-in) sometimes display a pixel-matched image, i. e. if you give them a lower-resolution signal, you get a smaller image in the middle of the screen. The EDID on the other hand, has a table of "nice" values. In particular, we know the "native" value works "extra nice", and gives the sharpest possible picture, with the least resampling artifacts. Or integral sub-multiples, of course. Some monitors actually support resolutions larger than native. They will accept 1920x1080 and display it on a 1366x768 native panel. They support resizing to make that happen. Those two choices, should have the same aspect ratio. (Yes, I find wrong-aspect displays annoying. Especially on TVs.) You would expect video to look decent when doing that, but the resampling might make text or lines look a bit off. While both pieces of hardware support a large amount of choice (before something wobbles, you get "Out of Range" and the screen goes dark), the EDID helps guide some good choices. ******* One of the big improvements in Windows, was the fifteen second automatic recovery option in the Display settings Definitely! When did that come in - XP? (XP definitely had it; I can't remember whether '98SE, '98, or '95 did. 3.1 certainly didn't [I think that was the era when you could damage the monitor, too].) panel. As long as you don't hit "OK", your mis-chosen resolution or mode line will back out, and you will be returned to the previous (working) choice. But what that doesn't cover, is certain cases of Registry trouble, where say, the refresh changed from 60FPS to 135FPS, and the monitor is going "out of range", and because at that particular point in time, the user is not using that 15 second long dialog, the setup is now scuppered. It's very hard for the user to figure out what offline Registry value needs to be reprogrammed, to make the screen work again. Every time the user boots up the computer, the screen stays black, making usage of the Display control panel impossible. One of the things Safe Mode was invented for! It still (in 7, anyway - not sure about 10, or even if 10 _has_ a Safe Mode) uses a low_er_ resolution (and I assume frame rate, if you had a high one), though I think still at least SVGA (I know that went up from VGA with one of the versions of Windows). ******* Summary: While the PNP system guides relatively logical behavior with relatively good looking screen images, there are still a few cases where it's "grandma versus the black screen". For example, on the Test Machine, in Linux, the Nouveau driver doesn't get along with my NVidia card, they seem to lose the ability to communicate (according to what I can see in "dmesg"), and as a grandma, I'm left with an annoying black screen to fix. Despite having a PNP subsystem, not all the worlds problems have been solved quite yet. Paul I'd always assumed you were more a grandpa than grandma, from the name .... (-: -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Society has the right to punish wrongdoing; it doesn't have the right to make punishment a form of entertainment. This is where things have gone wrong: humiliating other people has become both a blood sport and a narcotic. - Joe Queenan, RT 2015/6/27-7/3
|
|
#42
May 28th 20, 12:46 PM
posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
New monitor
On 28/05/2020 13.15, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 00:17:54, Paul wrote: Carlos E.R. wrote: On 27/05/2020 20.41, John Doe wrote: Paul wrote: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: John Doe wrote: The monitor doesn't "talk" it just listens. Is that entirely true? In context, Yes. I don't consider walking up to somebody and saying "Hi" to be "talking". it tells you the supported formats as well as clock rates That isn't necessary. Those of us who are old enough to know, know that we didn't even depend on monitor communication for set up, until more recently. Â*That was then, this is now. (Don't bother trying to convince him/it; it has decided that what it says _is_ the situation, and isn't interested in hearing otherwise.) There is that. Â*Now the operating system finds out without configuration what modes theÂ* monitor supports and chooses the correct one automatically, by talkingÂ* to the monitor. Â*Today connect a monitor that doesn't talk to a modern computer, and youÂ* are in trouble. Totally, or just lowest common denominator? Will some graphics cards actually shut off any video signal if no communication is received, or just put out a default? I don't know if there is a standard. They could use VESA modes. Or just use plain VGA mode. I wouldn't couch the topic in quite that way. The hardwares have a certain degree of tolerance. Both the video card, and the monitor. ******* Perhaps we could start with an "objective". We want the computer and monitor to "always work". We want the monitor to display the desired image, without triggering an OSD "out of range" message. Or, with some very old monitors (well back in the CRT era), even suffer harm! (I think that's ones before any form of OSD.) I remember. Never saw a case, but it was documented. We *don't* want to intimidate "grandma" by having the screen turn black (which happens all too frequently on the Test Machine by the way!). The Standard Grandma is an interesting set of specifications (-:! [Don't forget the tea frequency.] :-) .... For example, right now, if I wanted, I could set it to 278 x 78 pixels, and it would light up, it would look like ****, but... it would work. It would not be useful, but it would pass the bar bet we set for it. The monitor eats that request, like a packet of sweets. Yum! If you had a copy of the Entechtaiwan programming utility, you could test these if you wanted. The monitor will strive to make a working image, out of the worst possible materials. I think _some_ monitors (or monitor/graphic-card combinations, especially laptop built-in) sometimes display a pixel-matched image, i. e. if you give them a lower-resolution signal, you get a smaller image in the middle of the screen. I've seen that, not only on laptops. The EDID on the other hand, has a table of "nice" values. In particular, we know the "native" value works "extra nice", and gives the sharpest possible picture, with the least resampling artifacts. Or integral sub-multiples, of course. Some monitors actually support resolutions larger than native. They will accept 1920x1080 and display it on a 1366x768 native panel. They support resizing to make that happen. Those two choices, should have the same aspect ratio. (Yes, I find wrong-aspect displays annoying. Especially on TVs.) Indeed. Years ago, when there was the form factor switch on TV (from 3/4 to... whatever, I have forgotten), people, specially coffee bars would set the TV sets to occupy the entire screen, resulting in distorted faces. Specially bad when the camera was moving, rotating. (talking of here, where "here" is Spain) Similar issue with places with old TV sets, 3/4, tuned to new stations airing in the new format. .... -- Cheers, Carlos.
|
|
#43
May 28th 20, 03:21 PM
posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
New monitor
On Wed, 27 May 2020 15:00:40 -0500, Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2020 11:59:40 -0700, Stan Brown wrote: Periodically I see articles on various sites giving keyboard shortcuts for browsers, and the ones I use stick in my head. Frex, if you close a browser tab by mistake, Ctrl+Shift+W will bring it back. Did you mean Ctrl-Shift-T? That reopens a tab that was just closed. Ctrl-Shift-W looks like it will close all tabs in the selected window. Or have I changed my defaults? Good catch, Char! That was a particularly unfortunate typo on my part. Ctrl+Shift+T is correct. Thanks for pointing it out. Ctrl+W, close current tab Ctrl+Shift+T, reopen closed tab (can be used multiple times to reopen a sequence of tabs closed with Ctrl+W) Ctrl+Shift+W, close all tabs Ctrl+T, open new tab -- Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/ https://OakRoadSystems.com/ Shikata ga nai...
|
|
#44
May 28th 20, 03:34 PM
posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
New monitor
On Thu, 28 May 2020 07:21:22 -0700, Stan Brown
wrote: On Wed, 27 May 2020 15:00:40 -0500, Char Jackson wrote: On Wed, 27 May 2020 11:59:40 -0700, Stan Brown wrote: Periodically I see articles on various sites giving keyboard shortcuts for browsers, and the ones I use stick in my head. Frex, if you close a browser tab by mistake, Ctrl+Shift+W will bring it back. Did you mean Ctrl-Shift-T? That reopens a tab that was just closed. Ctrl-Shift-W looks like it will close all tabs in the selected window. Or have I changed my defaults? Good catch, Char! That was a particularly unfortunate typo on my part. Ctrl+Shift+T is correct. Thanks for pointing it out. Ctrl+W, close current tab Ctrl+Shift+T, reopen closed tab (can be used multiple times to reopen a sequence of tabs closed with Ctrl+W) Ctrl+Shift+W, close all tabs Ctrl+T, open new tab Cool, thanks. We're in sync and I haven't done anything weird to my defaults.
|
|
#45
May 28th 20, 08:42 PM
posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
New monitor
On Wed, 27 May 2020 19:45:24 -0000 (UTC), John Doe wrote:
We're obviously not talking about HUBS. The communication between a monitor and a PC is not even a handshake, let alone talking. This Apple reject troll is clueless... And yet you top-posted, and put a signature delimiter before what you quoted, and added a fake group name to the newsgroups line. -- Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/ https://OakRoadSystems.com/ Shikata ga nai...
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Linear Mode
