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.

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).

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sun, 11 Feb 2018 12:44:49 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-02-11 10:51, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
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...

Most of the time, I don't want to know the time, but how much time is
left. Analogue shows that at a glance, and most of the time, one doesn't
need to know it to the minute, let alone the second, so digital
precision is just annoying overkill.

See?

And OTOH, when you are timing something to the second, analog is far far
better than digital.


(PS: Related: The reason I use both imperial and metric units is that
they are suited to different scales.)

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 17:43:21 -0500, micky
wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sun, 11 Feb 2018 12:44:49 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-02-11 10:51, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
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...

Most of the time, I don't want to know the time, but how much time is
left. Analogue shows that at a glance, and most of the time, one doesn't
need to know it to the minute, let alone the second, so digital
precision is just annoying overkill.

See?

And OTOH, when you are timing something to the second, analog is far far
better than digital.

I'm not sure where the bias comes from that suggests analog is 'better'
than digital, or vice versa. Surely, the format of the display has
nothing to do with either the accuracy or the resolution. On second
thought, digital can have far better resolution, but there should be no
assumption that digital (or analog) is inherently more accurate.

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sun, 11 Feb 2018 21:34:32 -0600, Char
Jackson wrote:

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 17:43:21 -0500, micky
wrote:

In alt.comp.os.windows-10, on Sun, 11 Feb 2018 12:44:49 -0500, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-02-11 10:51, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
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...

Most of the time, I don't want to know the time, but how much time is
left. Analogue shows that at a glance, and most of the time, one doesn't
need to know it to the minute, let alone the second, so digital
precision is just annoying overkill.

See?

And OTOH, when you are timing something to the second, analog is far far
better than digital.

I'm not sure where the bias comes from that suggests analog is 'better'
than digital, or vice versa. Surely, the format of the display has
nothing to do with either the accuracy or the resolution. On second
thought, digital can have far better resolution, but there should be no
assumption that digital (or analog) is inherently more accurate.

I should have explained that I meant one can keep his eye on what he is
timing, and only glance at the analog second hand and see in an
instantlif the time is up yet, and then look back at whatever he's
timing. With digital you have to stop to read the numbers.

It's like the difference between looking at a girl's figure and talking
to her.

On 02/11/2018 10:49 AM, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:

[snip]

Well, don't you want a 100% simulated pendulum clock!?

A pendulum was once the best thing we had for making an accurate clock.
Now it's an art object.

On 02/11/2018 11:19 AM, Paul wrote:
Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 11/2/2018 23:31, Peter Percival wrote:
In the lower right-hand corner of my screen is the time and date.Â* When
I left click on it I see a calender and a digital clock.Â* Under Win7, I
used to see an analogue clock.Â* 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...


Look at the subtle shading in that clock.
It's a work of art.

http://www.tech-recipes.com/wp-conte...2-42-03-PM.png


An analog clock implementation allows you to judge
the "RT" capabilities of the OS better. So you can
tell whether your OS is a slouch or not. That analog clock
display should be "as smooth as can be". And you can
see it jumps and jitters quite a bit.

Yes, that is one reason for using an analog clock. When I was testing
the one on my website, I noticed a big difference is smoothness between
different computers and browsers. I have an option for "smooth seconds"
which updates the screen every refresh interval (often 60Hz), so the
second hand should move smoothly.

Most of the time I do prefer the digital. Analog sort of has an
advantage for approximate time, but I find that advantage is canceled
out by the extra work of reading it (hand positions). It's faster and
easier to read digital and convert to approximate mentally.

Even on computers with relatively low power CPUs, I've
seen glassy smooth animations done. And that's because
they used hardware timers to keep it that way.

I bet Jeff Bezos has the analog clock showing on his computer.

http://www.businessinsider.com/every...r-clock-2013-8

That site is one of the annoying ones that lets you read for a second or
less, then blocks the page with a pop-up. You don't need to disable your
adblocker, disabling Javacript works better.

Â*Â* Paul


--
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]

On 02/11/2018 11:44 AM, Wolf K wrote:

[snip]

Most of the time, I don't want to know the time, but how much time is
left. Analogue shows that at a glance, and most of the time, one doesn't
need to know it to the minute, let alone the second, so digital
precision is just annoying overkill.

See?

I find it a lot easier to start with that "annoying overkill" and
mentally convert as appropriate.

BTW, I just looked at my digital clock and say "10:21" and really wanted
to know not that, but minutes until 11. It was quick, starting with the
approximation of 20 after and I already KNOW that means forty until. If
I needed it more exact (and I don't this time) I'd notice the one-minute
error and make that 39.

Estimated times:
1. doing what I just explained: 1 second
2. doing the equivalent on an analog clock: 3 seconds
3. EXPLAINING #1: 1.2 minutes


With digital, I spend much less time looking at the clock.

(PS: Related: The reason I use both imperial and metric units is that
they are suited to different scales.)

--
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]

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]

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]

On 02/11/2018 12:28 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:

[snip]

About 1980 I purchased an Apple 2+ it came loaded wit 16K of ram,Yes 16K.

I didn't get a computer until 1982 and it was a Commodore VIC-20 with 5K
RAM. However, later I did add a 24K expansion.

BTW, I wrote a BASIC expansion that fit in 8K. I got a lot in there.

I used to enter programs from various Apple magazines on the keyboard,
some were in basic and some were in machine language.
one day a magazine had a machine language program for an Analog clock,
But it required 24K of memory, I only had 16K.

I wonder how much memory a digital clock would take. Probably a lot less.

What to do? I agonized over it for a few days as I REALLY wanted that
clock.
So finally I went and bought the extra 8 1K chips I needed for $360.00
cdn, Well I got my clock and to this day I wear an analog wris****ch and
have an analog clock hanging in the living room. :-)

Rene

--
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]

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?Â* 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]

On 02/11/2018 01:52 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

[snip]

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."

Actually "much better".

[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]

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

On 02/12/2018 10:45 AM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 02/11/2018 12:28 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:

[snip]

About 1980 I purchased an Apple 2+ it came loaded wit 16K of ram,Yes 16K.

I didn't get a computer until 1982 and it was a Commodore VIC-20 with 5K
RAM. However, later I did add a 24K expansion.

BTW, I wrote a BASIC expansion that fit in 8K. I got a lot in there.

I used to enter programs from various Apple magazines on the keyboard,
some were in basic and some were in machine language.
one day a magazine had a machine language program for an Analog clock,
But it required 24K of memory, I only had 16K.

I wonder how much memory a digital clock would take. Probably a lot less.

What to do? I agonized over it for a few days as I REALLY wanted that
clock.
So finally I went and bought the extra 8 1K chips I needed for $360.00
cdn, Well I got my clock and to this day I wear an analog wris****ch
and have an analog clock hanging in the living room. :-)

Rene


We can still get the voice broadcasts of WWV and WWVH/nist on shortwave
radio

https://tf.nist.gov/stations/iform.html

Rene