Start Menu 8 or Start10?

"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
news
One of the unspoken advantages of a manual over an automatic is that it
requires more of your attention, or does not allow you to become
distracted from the task at hand, driving the car.

With an automatic, you put it in drive an think you can then play with the
radio, talk on your cellphone, put on make up, etc. With an manual it
limits your ability to do this as you are required to change gears.

This is my fear with self-driving cars that may in theory require the driver
to take over if the computer can't cope with an unusual set of road
conditions. Once the car is driving itself, the driver will switch off from
concentrating on the road and will change radio channels, find another CD
and put it in the drive, make and receive mobile phone calls - and who
knows, maybe start bonking his wife. Suddenly the car will say (effectively)
"right, over to you - you have control... NOW!"

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 17:37:01 +0100, NY wrote:

Indeed. With Classic Shell you get asked two post-installation questions -
which style of start menu (XP, Vista or 7) do you want, and what icon do you
want on the taskbar as the start button. Having chosen, you press the start
button and up pops a familiar start menu. Sanity has been resumed!

Not that important, but does Classic Shell offer to use the same Start
button/icon as W7? The website shows a shell.

--
s|b

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 17:33:10 +0100, "NY" wrote:

"Ken Blake" wrote in message
.. .
In the UK, people are strongly encouraged to take their driving test in a
manual car because that qualifies them to drive both automatic and manual,
whereas if you take your test in an automatic (maybe because you only ever
intend to drive automatics), that is all you are allowed to drive;


In the US (at least in all the states I know about) a license
qualifies you to drive either. There aren't two different kinds of
licenses.

Interesting that in the US you are allowed to drive a manual having (in all
probability) only ever driven an automatic.


Your way is better than ours, as far as I'm concerned.


I wonder how many people who
drive a manual for the first time are able to set off without stalling and
to do a hill start. (*)


If it's isn't zero, it's got to be very close to that. On the rare
occasions when I drive a car with a manual transmission, even I often
stall. I'm just not used to it anymore.

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 12:52:18 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

One of the unspoken advantages of a manual over an automatic is that it
requires more of your attention, or does not allow you to become
distracted from the task at hand, driving the car.

With an automatic, you put it in drive an think you can then play with
the radio,


Rarely, but I do it sometimes.


talk on your cellphone,



Rarely, but I do it sometimes. Most often, I pull over to the side if
I need to do that.


put on make up, etc.


I *never* do that. g


With an manual
it limits your ability to do this as you are required to change gears.


Maybe. If you're driving on a highway, you almost never need to change
gears, so your ability to do the things you mention above isn't really
limited by a manual transmission.

On 8/27/2017 12:56 PM, NY wrote:
"Rene Lamontagne" wrote in message
news
Take a browse for the Ford model T and its transmission, A very
interesting read for car buffs and mechanically inclined people.
Three pedals, Planetary gears, Bands and drums, Clutch disc pack.
the precursor to the automatic transmission way back in the early 1900s.
My dad drove one for many years up to 1940,I remember it well.

Yes, car designers have been though a number of iterations with gearboxes:

- manually-selected planetary

- straight-cog with no synchromesh ("Moss gearbox")

- helical cog with synchromesh (initially not on first or reverse)

- pre-selector (as on Citroen DS)

- manually-selected automatic with torque converter (eg Citroen's
"C-Matic", as on the Citroen GS)

- conventional automatic

- continuously-variable (the famous "rubber-band" transmission of the
Dutch Daf Daffodil and later the Volvo 340)

- VW's DSG which is two synchromesh gearboxes which do 1, 3, and 5 on
one box and 2, 4 and 6 on the other, and the gearbox pre-selects the
next gear in anticipation and then a gearchange consists of the gearbox
automatically disengaging the clutch on one box and engaging the one on
the other, either under manual or automatic control, with the engine
speed computer-controlled to exactly match to the road speed in the new
gear, to provide a very smooth gearchange without the energy losses and
variable engine-to-road-speed mapping that a torque converter gives you.

And now you've got hybrid cars which change between petrol engine via
continuously-variable transmission and electric motor, with the engine
charging a battery as it is driving the car, so it has a limited
electric-only range within a city where pollution is more of a problem.
My parents have just got a Toyota Auris like this. They like it, but
I've heard rumours that like all cars with CVT gearboxes the engine runs
very fast until the car is up to steady speed, so I imagine it's a bit
noisy as you set off.

I'd be interested to try a DSG and a hybrid. The beauty of an electric
car is that the motor provides torque right from being stationary so it
only needs a single-speed gearbox and so your accelerator pedal is
directly controlling the road speed rather than controlling road speed
indirectly via the engine speed in a variety of different gears.
And I could not drive the nearly 300 miles round trip to my mother in
laws in a day, as they do not have the range.

When we go grocery shopping I drive nearly 100 miles round trip.

It is easier to put 15 gallons of gas in the tank, go where and when I
want, top the tank in about 10 minutes and be off to go somewhere else.

If your driving is only a couple of blocks in a city and you never leave
that area and electric may work, if you have family that you visit
regular several hundred miles away, or live 10 miles from no where like
I do electrics are just not practical.

--
2017: The year we learn to play the great game of Euchre

On 27/08/2017 19:49, Keith Nuttle wrote:


When we go grocery shopping I drive nearly 100 miles round trip.

I knew something is seriously wrong with you. Only an idiot would
travel 100 miles to do shopping.




--
With over 500 million devices now running Windows 10, customer
satisfaction is higher than any previous version of windows.

"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
news
The beauty of an electric car is that the motor provides torque right
from being stationary so it only needs a single-speed gearbox and so your
accelerator pedal is directly controlling the road speed rather than
controlling road speed indirectly via the engine speed in a variety of
different gears.

And I could not drive the nearly 300 miles round trip to my mother in laws
in a day, as they do not have the range.

When we go grocery shopping I drive nearly 100 miles round trip.

It is easier to put 15 gallons of gas in the tank, go where and when I
want, top the tank in about 10 minutes and be off to go somewhere else.

If your driving is only a couple of blocks in a city and you never leave
that area and electric may work, if you have family that you visit regular
several hundred miles away, or live 10 miles from no where like I do
electrics are just not practical.

When I said "electric car" I should really have been more specific and said
"hybrid car" - meaning one that does not need to be charged from the mains
but is charged as the petrol engine is driving the car by mechanical
(usually CVT) means.

Hybrids are feasible today, without needing a radical overhaul both to the
electrical power distribution to houses and an even more radical overhaul to
the way we use cars.

Purely electric cars are fine for short journeys but current ones would be
useless for a journey of a couple of hundred miles (eg when travelling to
stay with relatives or to go on holiday) when you don't want to have to stop
for several hours to add another 200 miles range. And who wants to have to
replace one car with two: an electric for in-town driving and a conventional
petrol for longer journeys in a less urban environment.

There's no contest: many hours to add 200 miles range (which is more like
100 as the battery gets older and if you need heating or aircon) versus five
minutes to add 700 miles range. 60 litres of diesel gives me 700 miles in my
car - I get about 55 mpg (UK gallon) which is equivalent to 4/5 of 55 = 44
mpg (US gallon).

The calculations are mind-blowing. The calorific value of petrol or diesel
and the rate at which it can fill your tank equates to energy being supplied
to your car at a rate of about 3 MW when you fill the tank. You can't do
that with a 13 A mains lead plugged into your garage :-) And the battery
wouldn't like it either. And a few people doing that at the same time would
make the power station start to panic.


This topic was discussed a lot in the last few weeks in the UK because our
government announced that production of new purely petrol/diesel-mechanical
cars would be banned after 2040, and that only petrol (but not diesel)
hybrids or purely electric cars would be allowed after that, with many
cities imposing electric (or hybrid in electric mode) restrictions before
that. Typical scaremongering stuff which depends critically on improvements
in technology. And a complete reversal of the policy in the 1990s and 2000s
when the government encouraged people to switch from petrol to diesel
because of the much better fuel economy and therefore lower pollution in
terms of CO2 - before that realised that PM10 particulates and NOx emissions
from diesels are a problem in dense traffic in cities.

Who knows what we'll all be driving in 20 years' time. Will we have
computer-driven cars working in convoys. Will we still be able to drive
where we want, when we want, without having to file a "flight plan" in
advance and be given a time-slot when we can use the road? Will people start
moving back into the towns and cities, and live closer to relatives, to cut
down on the distance we need to travel before we can make an overnight stop
to recharge the battery? Life in 2040 (if I'm still alive) could be very
restrictive...

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 20:32:38 +0100, "NY" wrote:

Purely electric cars are fine for short journeys but current ones would be
useless for a journey of a couple of hundred miles (eg when travelling to
stay with relatives or to go on holiday) when you don't want to have to stop
for several hours to add another 200 miles range.


The range of the 2017 Tesla Model S 100D is 335 miles. That sounds
good to me. I wish I could afford to buy one (or two--one for me, one
for my wife).

On 8/27/2017 3:50 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 20:32:38 +0100, "NY" wrote:

Purely electric cars are fine for short journeys but current ones would be
useless for a journey of a couple of hundred miles (eg when travelling to
stay with relatives or to go on holiday) when you don't want to have to stop
for several hours to add another 200 miles range.


The range of the 2017 Tesla Model S 100D is 335 miles. That sounds
good to me. I wish I could afford to buy one (or two--one for me, one
for my wife).


Yes, battery and electric motor technology seem to be slowly improving,
and price is slowly falling.

Rene

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 16:18:44 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

On 8/27/2017 3:50 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 20:32:38 +0100, "NY" wrote:

Purely electric cars are fine for short journeys but current ones would be
useless for a journey of a couple of hundred miles (eg when travelling to
stay with relatives or to go on holiday) when you don't want to have to stop
for several hours to add another 200 miles range.


The range of the 2017 Tesla Model S 100D is 335 miles. That sounds
good to me. I wish I could afford to buy one (or two--one for me, one
for my wife).


Yes, battery and electric motor technology seem to be slowly improving,


Yes.


and price is slowly falling



Not for the 2017 Tesla Model S 100D. It starts at $97,500.

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 19:51:18 +0200, "s|b" wrote:

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 17:37:01 +0100, NY wrote:

Indeed. With Classic Shell you get asked two post-installation questions -
which style of start menu (XP, Vista or 7) do you want, and what icon do you
want on the taskbar as the start button. Having chosen, you press the start
button and up pops a familiar start menu. Sanity has been resumed!

Not that important, but does Classic Shell offer to use the same Start
button/icon as W7? The website shows a shell.

I use the Win7 Start button/icon. It's one of the options.

Replying to one of your earlier questions, none of these shell
replacements are a hassle to install. The total setup time will depend
on how many changes you want to make, but I think 10-30 seconds is
probably typical. At your leisure, you can go back later and wade
through the rest of the options.

On 8/27/2017 4:24 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 16:18:44 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote:

On 8/27/2017 3:50 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 20:32:38 +0100, "NY" wrote:

Purely electric cars are fine for short journeys but current ones would be
useless for a journey of a couple of hundred miles (eg when travelling to
stay with relatives or to go on holiday) when you don't want to have to stop
for several hours to add another 200 miles range.


The range of the 2017 Tesla Model S 100D is 335 miles. That sounds
good to me. I wish I could afford to buy one (or two--one for me, one
for my wife).


Yes, battery and electric motor technology seem to be slowly improving,


Yes.


and price is slowly falling



Not for the 2017 Tesla Model S 100D. It starts at $97,500.



Yikes!!! I thought I read about $70,000 but I guess I was mistaken and
that seems to be for the model s75.

Rene

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 14:49:03 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

On 8/27/2017 12:56 PM, NY wrote:

I'd be interested to try a DSG and a hybrid. The beauty of an electric
car is that the motor provides torque right from being stationary so it
only needs a single-speed gearbox and so your accelerator pedal is
directly controlling the road speed rather than controlling road speed
indirectly via the engine speed in a variety of different gears.
And I could not drive the nearly 300 miles round trip to my mother in
laws in a day, as they do not have the range.

Some might see that as an advantage.

"Why don't you guys visit more often?"
"We'd love to, but our car has limited range."

"Ken Blake" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 17:33:10 +0100, "NY" wrote:

"Ken Blake" wrote in message
. ..
In the UK, people are strongly encouraged to take their driving test in
a
manual car because that qualifies them to drive both automatic and
manual,
whereas if you take your test in an automatic (maybe because you only
ever
intend to drive automatics), that is all you are allowed to drive;


In the US (at least in all the states I know about) a license
qualifies you to drive either. There aren't two different kinds of
licenses.

Interesting that in the US you are allowed to drive a manual having (in
all
probability) only ever driven an automatic.


Your way is better than ours, as far as I'm concerned.

When I got my first license in '63, I used my dad's car, which was an
automatic ('58 Plymouth Fury, a lumbering beast). Since it was an automatic
and not a manual, my license was stamped "Automatic only." When I went back
and took another driving test with a manual about a year later (I bought a
'55 Chevy with 3 on the tree, LOL), they printed me another license without
the stamp. I moved before I had to get a renewal, and never saw that system
again, so I don't know if it was only for first-time drivers, or if the
practice of differentiating between the two transmissions was done away
with.
--

SC Tom

On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 07:42:15 -0400, "SC Tom" wrote:



"Ken Blake" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 17:33:10 +0100, "NY" wrote:

"Ken Blake" wrote in message
...
In the UK, people are strongly encouraged to take their driving test in
a
manual car because that qualifies them to drive both automatic and
manual,
whereas if you take your test in an automatic (maybe because you only
ever
intend to drive automatics), that is all you are allowed to drive;


In the US (at least in all the states I know about) a license
qualifies you to drive either. There aren't two different kinds of
licenses.

Interesting that in the US you are allowed to drive a manual having (in
all
probability) only ever driven an automatic.


Your way is better than ours, as far as I'm concerned.

When I got my first license in '63, I used my dad's car, which was an
automatic ('58 Plymouth Fury, a lumbering beast). Since it was an automatic
and not a manual, my license was stamped "Automatic only."



In the US? That's new to me. What state?