Stop Windows 10 grouping taskbar buttons?

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 19:06:41 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

My video card has VGA, DVI, and HDMI, and I have all three connected,
but it only allows two to be used at a time.

Fun fact: The motherboard has on board video but it needs a CPU
which has a GPU. The i5 I'm using does not have a GPU so I'm
using a separate video card.

On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 02:05:21 +0100, Lucifer wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 19:06:41 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

My video card has VGA, DVI, and HDMI, and I have all three connected,
but it only allows two to be used at a time.

Both my cards allow 3 to be used, and both have 3 connectors (DVI, HDMI, displayport). Damn annoying actually, as it refuses to let me plug three displayport monitors into the displayport output with an adapter. I had previously thought they were all multichannel, apparently not. Want to buy a displayport adapter? Not sure if it's of use to anyone really, as the only graphics card I saw that would allow lots of displayport monitors (6) had 6 sockets anyway.

Fun fact: The motherboard has on board video but it needs a CPU
which has a GPU. The i5 I'm using does not have a GPU so I'm
using a separate video card.

Yeah that ****es me off too - my motherboard has 2 onboard connectors and I think my CPU can use them, but I didn't think of those when buying a 2nd graphics card to support the 4th and 5th monitors. Oh well, I got an old 7970 which is damn fast at Milkyway@home calculations. They don't make cards with tremendously fast double precision floating point anymore, as they realised that games don't use it much (and most are sold for games).

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 02:05:21 +0100, Lucifer
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 19:06:41 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

My video card has VGA, DVI, and HDMI, and I have all three connected,
but it only allows two to be used at a time.

Both my cards allow 3 to be used, and both have 3 connectors (DVI, HDMI,
displayport). Damn annoying actually, as it refuses to let me plug
three displayport monitors into the displayport output with an adapter.
I had previously thought they were all multichannel, apparently not.
Want to buy a displayport adapter? Not sure if it's of use to anyone
really, as the only graphics card I saw that would allow lots of
displayport monitors (6) had 6 sockets anyway.

Fun fact: The motherboard has on board video but it needs a CPU
which has a GPU. The i5 I'm using does not have a GPU so I'm
using a separate video card.

Yeah that ****es me off too - my motherboard has 2 onboard connectors
and I think my CPU can use them, but I didn't think of those when buying
a 2nd graphics card to support the 4th and 5th monitors. Oh well, I got
an old 7970 which is damn fast at Milkyway@home calculations. They
don't make cards with tremendously fast double precision floating point
anymore, as they realised that games don't use it much (and most are
sold for games).

If you need FP, you could look at a card (Radeon VII) like this. The HBM2 on this
card gives the memory a 1TB/sec bandwidth.

https://techgage.com/article/testing...l-performance/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comment...at_352_tflops/

"FP64 on Radeon VII is 1:4 at 3.52 TFLOPS"

Paul

On Wed, 23 Oct 2019 00:45:40 +0100, Paul wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2019 02:05:21 +0100, Lucifer
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 19:06:41 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

My video card has VGA, DVI, and HDMI, and I have all three connected,
but it only allows two to be used at a time.

Both my cards allow 3 to be used, and both have 3 connectors (DVI, HDMI,
displayport). Damn annoying actually, as it refuses to let me plug
three displayport monitors into the displayport output with an adapter.

On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 01:14:15 +0100, Paul wrote:

Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Sat, 19 Oct 2019 00:04:46 +0100, Shadow wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 22:34:22 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 20:58:14 +0100, Shadow wrote:

On Fri, 18 Oct 2019 19:10:12 +0100, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 09:38:39 +0100, Paul
wrote:

~BD~ wrote:

What experience do you have of Apple operating systems?

......CUT_OT

Why did you delete one of the groups from the crosspost?

Because BD had changed the thread to Apple machines, which is
obviously OT in a Win 10 group in a thread about taskbars. The usual
phishing.
If the text deviates from the subject line, you should start a
new topic in the appropriate group(s).

No, you shouldn't. You're breaking up the conversation and people
following it no longer see it. Grow up.

Completely OT phishing in a technical group?
The thread was " Stop Windows 10 grouping taskbar buttons?"

Do you not understand that in the English language sometimes the
conversation drifts a bit? Do you get out ever?

I'm not the troll. Paul was correct in clipping the
follow-ups.

Followups should never ever be clipped. You **** up the conversation.
Some of the people you're replying to won't even see what you said,
therefore you're wasting your time.

Do you know the *history* of alt.computer.workshop ?

I know the guy who created it, yes.

It's a fair number of years ago now, but I wouldn't be caught
dead posting there.

It's a charterless group,

All the more reason to use it. Things with rules and regulations (eg. the EU) are best avoided.

and in the past it had some obnoxious troublemakers in it.

That's what killfiles are for.

There were no posts related to computers
or workshops, at all in the group.

There are now.

In short, it was a dumpster
fire, and I have *zero interest* in adding that group to
my Subscribed list.

Then don't, which doesn't mean you have to avoid crossposts to it.

Consequently I *clip that group* based on its unsavory history.

If my response is lost, big deal.

If you notice my posting history, I quite frequently
preserve the Newsgroup line, even though I shouldn't,
and it's precisely to retain continuity. Other times,
I remove stuff. For example, if a user adds "Alt.test"
to a Newgroups, I remove that. Nobody carries out a
"conversation" in alt.test.

I don't see the point in bothering. I just click reply and it goes where it goes. With one exception, I ignore "follow up to" requests. They are stupid and only used by trolls.