A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Clock



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old February 12th 18, 06:11 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,221
Default Clock

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 10:50:48 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

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".



OK, no argument from me.

Ads
  #32  
Old February 12th 18, 06:17 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,221
Default Clock

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 10:38:19 -0600, Mark Lloyd
wrote:

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



I don't agree.


so it makes sense to use approximate when you can.



I use approximations because they are usually easy to say, and because
they are usually good enough for the person who asked.


With digital, one look gives you "to the minute" precision.



At least. Some digital clocks (for example the one on my task bar)
give you "to the second" precision.

  #33  
Old February 12th 18, 06:29 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Rene Lamontagne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,549
Default Clock

On 02/12/2018 11:09 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
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


Timepieces are really *necessary* couldn't live without one'
Ferinstance I just did a series of time checks on my PC with these results.

Boot time to desktop 56 seconds
time to awake from sleep 3 seconds
Time to shutdown 6 seconds

Now I can spend the rest of the day knowing that the universe in general
is running as it should. :-)

Rene






  #34  
Old February 12th 18, 06:53 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Ron C[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 78
Default Clock

On 2/12/2018 11:18 AM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
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.* 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...


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.


Ah the fun of clocks and mental gymnastics! Not saying that
I'm, like, real old or anything, but the clocks in my primary
weren't just analog but the numbers were Roman numerals. :-)

...snip...

*** Paul


==
--
Later...
Ron C
--



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

  #35  
Old February 12th 18, 07:12 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Clock

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.


In the old days, there were different tradeoffs.

Making an analog watch hand might be nasty, if you
needed to do sin() or cos(). So you might use pre-computed
tables, pre-computed bitmaps, and so on, so that the CPU
doesn't have to work as hard at runtime.

When I wrote an electric organ to run on
a CPU without a lot of horsepower, I precomputed
a sine wave table, and interpolated to get the
values I needed (standard practice back then).
Because the integer math used was "cheaper" than
just writing sin(kt) in some code, and making
the CPU grunt to do it.

I could imagine that 24KB of code, being mostly quadrants
of a bitmap clock face. To make drawing the hands easier.
You could probably step through the binary with a hex
editor, and spot the presence of some sort of "table"
as opposed to the more random looking "pure code", to understand
what percentage of the program was pre-computed tables.

To make a digital clock back in that era, you'd probably
keep the digits 0..9 as a "font" stored as bitmaps. Because
you might not have any platform routines to do otherwise.

Paul
  #36  
Old February 12th 18, 07:15 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Ron C[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 78
Default Clock

On 2/12/2018 11:29 AM, Mark Lloyd wrote:
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.)


I spend a lot more time searching for my reading glasses so I can
do said ~4 second calculation above. I can read my analog watch
without reading glasses. :-)

I'm not even going to estimate how long it takes when I'm on the
ski lift: Remove goggles, unzip jacket, pull out glasses, put on glasses,
look at watch, remove glasses, put in pocket, zip up, goggles back on. :-)

[YMMV]
==
--
Later...
Ron C
--


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

  #37  
Old February 12th 18, 08:25 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Clock

Mark Lloyd wrote:
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? 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.


The radio are really the best, because you never have
to adjust them. All they need is a source of power, and
they don't need a 60Hz reference to keep time.

The radio that does that, is at low frequency, like 60KHz.
The frequency used, varies with country or locale.
(And this is not GPS either. This works even if GPS
was knocked out. The reason for not using GPS, is the
GPS constellation might not be receive-able inside your house.
60KHz penetrates buildings a lot better.)

You may not get a usable signal during the entire 24 hour day, but
in good circumstances, your "radio clock" is synced at least once
a day. Even if your clock has a 100ppm xtal, it doesn't matter,
because the radio sync will bring it back to where it should be.
You don't have to have an atomic clock in the box.

The antennas used, come two ways. You can use a wire loop with
huge dimensions (i.e. you'd better be on a farm). However,
using ferrite rods, you can make a compact design that
is just as good. The one pictured here, might have been
removed from the back of a commercial wall clock. That's to give
an idea of how big a non-hobbyist one is.

https://electronics.stackexchange.co...-wwvb-receiver

The Russians make the best ferrite rods for this.
Ferrites are available in a number of compositions, and
I don't think there's much commercial interest in making
the rods for this application. But I've seen hobbyists
who claim some Russian-sourced rods worked well.
I've seen some designs, that have multiple ferrite rods
with the wire wrapped around the whole bundle.

This is one of those niche hobbyist activities (if
you want to build your own, rather than buy one). I think
most people who dabble in this, they want the sync info
to be available all day, and that's why they want their
design to be more sensitive than a store-bought one.

If the central transmitter goes down, then no more
sync for you. You're on your own then. An EMP could
easily knock out such a site. Or government cutbacks.

You can also buy the pre-built ones if you want. But you'll
need something to decode the serial output and actually use it.
You know, the rest of your "clock" :-)

https://www.ebay.com/p/3-Pcs-WWVB-60...38#UserReviews

Paul
  #38  
Old February 12th 18, 08:54 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Rene Lamontagne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,549
Default Clock

On 02/12/2018 1:25 PM, Paul wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote:
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.


The radio are really the best, because you never have
to adjust them. All they need is a source of power, and
they don't need a 60Hz reference to keep time.

The radio that does that, is at low frequency, like 60KHz.
The frequency used, varies with country or locale.
(And this is not GPS either. This works even if GPS
was knocked out. The reason for not using GPS, is the
GPS constellation might not be receive-able inside your house.
60KHz penetrates buildings a lot better.)

You may not get a usable signal during the entire 24 hour day, but
in good circumstances, your "radio clock" is synced at least once
a day. Even if your clock has a 100ppm xtal, it doesn't matter,
because the radio sync will bring it back to where it should be.
You don't have to have an atomic clock in the box.

The antennas used, come two ways. You can use a wire loop with
huge dimensions (i.e. you'd better be on a farm). However,
using ferrite rods, you can make a compact design that
is just as good. The one pictured here, might have been
removed from the back of a commercial wall clock. That's to give
an idea of how big a non-hobbyist one is.

https://electronics.stackexchange.co...-wwvb-receiver


The Russians make the best ferrite rods for this.
Ferrites are available in a number of compositions, and
I don't think there's much commercial interest in making
the rods for this application. But I've seen hobbyists
who claim some Russian-sourced rods worked well.
I've seen some designs, that have multiple ferrite rods
with the wire wrapped around the whole bundle.

This is one of those niche hobbyist activities (if
you want to build your own, rather than buy one). I think
most people who dabble in this, they want the sync info
to be available all day, and that's why they want their
design to be more sensitive than a store-bought one.

If the central transmitter goes down, then no more
sync for you. You're on your own then. An EMP could
easily knock out such a site. Or government cutbacks.

You can also buy the pre-built ones if you want. But you'll
need something to decode the serial output and actually use it.
You know, the rest of your "clock" :-)

https://www.ebay.com/p/3-Pcs-WWVB-60...38#UserReviews


Â*Â* Paul


My La Crosse weather forecast station has a built in one tuned to WWVB,
If I want to set all the other clocks in the house this is the reference
I use.

Rene


  #39  
Old February 12th 18, 10:00 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Peter Percival
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Clock

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


meant digit*al* sorry

be wrong.



  #40  
Old February 12th 18, 10:13 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Peter Percival
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default Clock

Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 12/2/2018 01:49, Peter Percival wrote:

It is a matter of taste and not subject to rational explanation.


Also a good excuse,


It wasn't meant to be an excuse. "I prefer analogue clocks to digital
ones" is a statement of taste just as is "I prefer green socks to red
ones" and is no more subject to rational explanation.


though not strong enough.



  #41  
Old February 13th 18, 12:36 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Clock

Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 02/12/2018 1:25 PM, Paul wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote:
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? 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.


The radio are really the best, because you never have
to adjust them. All they need is a source of power, and
they don't need a 60Hz reference to keep time.

The radio that does that, is at low frequency, like 60KHz.
The frequency used, varies with country or locale.
(And this is not GPS either. This works even if GPS
was knocked out. The reason for not using GPS, is the
GPS constellation might not be receive-able inside your house.
60KHz penetrates buildings a lot better.)

You may not get a usable signal during the entire 24 hour day, but
in good circumstances, your "radio clock" is synced at least once
a day. Even if your clock has a 100ppm xtal, it doesn't matter,
because the radio sync will bring it back to where it should be.
You don't have to have an atomic clock in the box.

The antennas used, come two ways. You can use a wire loop with
huge dimensions (i.e. you'd better be on a farm). However,
using ferrite rods, you can make a compact design that
is just as good. The one pictured here, might have been
removed from the back of a commercial wall clock. That's to give
an idea of how big a non-hobbyist one is.

https://electronics.stackexchange.co...-wwvb-receiver


The Russians make the best ferrite rods for this.
Ferrites are available in a number of compositions, and
I don't think there's much commercial interest in making
the rods for this application. But I've seen hobbyists
who claim some Russian-sourced rods worked well.
I've seen some designs, that have multiple ferrite rods
with the wire wrapped around the whole bundle.

This is one of those niche hobbyist activities (if
you want to build your own, rather than buy one). I think
most people who dabble in this, they want the sync info
to be available all day, and that's why they want their
design to be more sensitive than a store-bought one.

If the central transmitter goes down, then no more
sync for you. You're on your own then. An EMP could
easily knock out such a site. Or government cutbacks.

You can also buy the pre-built ones if you want. But you'll
need something to decode the serial output and actually use it.
You know, the rest of your "clock" :-)

https://www.ebay.com/p/3-Pcs-WWVB-60...38#UserReviews


Paul


My La Crosse weather forecast station has a built in one tuned to WWVB,
If I want to set all the other clocks in the house this is the reference
I use.

Rene


Does it have a LED that indicates when the 60KHz carrier is present ?

There is a coverage map for the USA, and the signal strength
contours change with time of day.

Paul

  #42  
Old February 13th 18, 12:49 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mark Lloyd[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,756
Default Clock

On 02/12/2018 11:53 AM, Ron C wrote:

[snip]

Ah the fun of clocks and mental gymnastics! Not saying that
I'm, like, real old or anything, but the clocks in my primary
weren't just analog but the numbers were Roman numerals. :-)


IIRC, a lot of analog clocks use Roman numerals. Do you remember if 4
was IV or IIII?

* ...snip...

*** 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]
  #43  
Old February 13th 18, 12:52 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Clock

Peter Percival wrote:
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? There is nothing about digit clocks that mean that they can't


meant digit*al* sorry

be wrong.




They even make digit ones.

http://www.electronixandmore.com/pro...ock/index.html

That clock, the LED indicates which digit, the digit is showing
at the moment. So it's a multiplexed clock using a single
position of readout.

*******

I really like the VFD tubes and as a kid I made my
own clock with those for readouts. I think the VFD
were easier to get than Nixie tubes, and a bit more
practical. I got years of use from it. The only mistake
I made, is the copper tracks on the PCB weren't plated,
and the copper corroded on me, chewing the tracks to bits.
In university, we used to silver plate the copper, as one
form of protection. And in a real PCB shop, there are other
techniques you can use to protect the copper. But mine
is ruined now, and that's the end of that.

For the analog guys out there, they even make
a VFD analog clock. I've never seen a display like
that one. It must be fun figuring out a filament
scheme to do that. VFD tubes have filaments, but
the filament wires don't have to "glow" for the
thing to work. The filament current can be a lot
lower than old vacuum tube table radios.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Analog-styl...-/141587914193

Another neat thing about VFDs, is they're magnetic
field sensitive. If you hold a permanent magnet
near a VFD, you can cause the flow of electrons
to be pulled to the side, and it changes the appearance
of the segments a bit.

Paul
  #44  
Old February 13th 18, 12:56 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mark Lloyd[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,756
Default Clock

On 02/12/2018 12:15 PM, Ron C wrote:

[snip]

I spend a lot more time searching for my reading glasses so I can
do said ~4 second calculation above. I can read my analog watch
without reading glasses. :-)


OK. There are some situations where analog is better.

I'm not even going to estimate how long it takes when I'm on the
ski lift: Remove goggles, unzip jacket, pull out glasses, put on glasses,
look at watch, remove glasses, put in pocket, zip up, goggles back on. :-)

[YMMV]
==



--
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]
  #45  
Old February 13th 18, 01:01 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Mark Lloyd[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,756
Default Clock

On 02/12/2018 01:54 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:

[snip]

My La Crosse weather forecast station has a built in one tuned to WWVB,
If I want to set all the other clocks in the house this is the reference
I use.


I've been using a cell phone. It is a portable device that gets the time
automatically.

Usually it (setting all the clocks) isn't when I want to it's that &*$%!
DST.

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]
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.