Will us elders soon be computerless?

Per Ken Springer:
The price has gone up since I used it. Any way you could share the
price of the system with a neighbor? I know you are in a rural
situation, as I am for practical purposes. But I have two neighbors
that are just as close as if I were in town, and certainly within range
of wireless, or possibly wired in one case.

I have a situation where a couple of radios carry a link for about .6
miles - and they're touted for much further. They are the most
el-cheapo offerings at something under a hundred bucks each. More
expensive ones go much, much further.

With 4 IP cams running at 720x1280, the channel still has about 20-45
megs/second left depending on time and how measured.

From experience, I know than any fool can set the things up.

Line-of-sight seems to be the critical factor.
--
Pete Cresswell

On 4/7/15 5:45 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| Curious here, how did you determine there's only 1/64 the number of
| colors? Not that I think it matters much, since I've read the human eye
| can only discern between 5k and 6k of colors.
|

A few years back Apple was sued by a graphics
company that had bought new Macs and found the
setting "millions of colors" was actually 18-bit color.
So 64 hues in 24-bit would be dithered into 1 in
18 bit.

Not a Mac user then, but I vaguely remember something along those lines.

I've got 32 bit color here. NVIDIA GeForce GT 120

There seem to be other issues, though. I know
that when I try installing Linux on my Windows
hardware the display just seems to look better.
And Apple screens I've seen have beautiful display.
So I'm guessing that how the drivers/OS use the
hardware must also make a big difference in how
the resulting display looks.

I am not surprised about that. It's only logical that when you are
creating hardware and drivers for an industry that often seems to put
low cost over quality the drivers would be "cheated" on, by not making
their best performance to be the top priority.

As I mentioned in another post, the quality of the display all but
totally sold me on getting a Mac, if I could fit it on my desktop.
Which, obviously, I have. LOL

Someone made the comment about childish looking icons in OS X. Have to
say, that's how I feel about Windows 8. I feel somehow cheated with the
UI, with the apparent pandering to smartphones and tablets. But I
wonder if it really has to be. My Win 7/8, iMac, and Nexus 7 all have
the same screen resolution... 1920 X 1200.

As for icons and their appearance, there are windows replacements I
think that far better looking than MS's. And I don't know why, but in
general I actually think Linux icons have the most appealing look.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On Mon, 06 Apr 2015 18:02:42 +0100, Good Guy
wrote:


Apart from books nothing in your list will ever come back. Even the
books are electronic these days!! Depending on your age, have you
thought of packing up everything and spend time talking rubbish about
how how wonderful life was in the 40s after the war and all that crap.
aren't there any old people's clubs in your area? You will find lots of
old people like you to talk to there.

On these forums we tend to see more and more octogenarians reminiscing
of their childhood.


By the way, you appear to be a youngster. So, I have to mention this.
You youngsters regularly talk about HIP-HOP. Just so you know, Hip-hop
is an old people's disease. It's when our hips become worn from age,
and they hop as we walk. Now you know!!!!

"Hip-Hop" is a disease, not a type of music....
Remember this the next time you say the words "Hip-Hop".

On 4/6/2015 2:16 PM, wrote:

I absolutely hate upgrading. I have my computer setup for my own needs
and likes, and to upgrade the OS means I wont have a usable computer for
weeks or months. The only way I finally went to XP, was to get another
computer, and not touch my Win98 one at all. The only problem there is
that I used (and still do), use the EASY one (Win98) most of the time.

Of I WANT to upgrade something, like a browser, I will, but I got so
****ed at websites that tell me "You must upgrade your browser". You
woukd not want to hear how many times I say out loud "F__K You!".
Particularly when I CANT upgrade in Win98.

You're right, back in the 80's and 90's there was not all this upgrade
insanity. While I still find Firefox to be the best browser, I cant
keep up with their upgrades anymore, nor would I want to. My XP machine
has FF 17.x, which was one of the latest versions just a year ago or so.
Just recently some sxite told me to upgrade it, and I used that 4 letter
word once again. It's just to bad they cant hear me!!!!!

You know what else sucks? Security. So many security problems, bugs,
etc. Back in the old days before Internet, it was harder to get
infected. Bah!
--
"Everyone knows an ant can't move a rubber tree plant." --Motto of FTL
Foundation (in Isaac Asimov book)
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) Chop ANT from its address if e-mailing privately.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

On 4/6/2015 4:41 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
philo wrote:
On 04/06/2015 04:30 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 06 Apr 2015 10:55:17 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:


I've said it here several times, but for anyone new here who doesn't
know it, the Metro interface is optional, and doesn't need to be any
sort of problem. I almost never use it.

It might be optional, but every store which sells computers has that
miserable Metro screen visible. Every advertisment for Win8 has that
same Metro screen showing. One day I played with it in a store and I
could not find the (Non-Metro) screen, and that thing had me totally
puzzled. That alone was enough to make me NOT want it.


Though I think Metro makes good sense for any touch screen computer, to
me it's rather useless otherwise.

An easy fix is the free utility Classic Shell

or for a small fee Start 8

An easier fix yet is Windows 7 or XP, n'est pas?

Windows XP is unsupported. 7, Mac OS X, Linux, etc. are good supported
alternatives assuming they have softwares that you need are in them.

--
"Forbear, thou great good husband, little ant." --Richard Lovelace
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) Chop ANT from its address if e-mailing privately.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

I've never tried Safari, but neither have I heard
any good reviews of it. There used to be a version
for windows, but I don't see it now on Apple's site.

I couldn't find it either. I never used it, simply didn't like the UI.

Same here. I never liked Safari, Opera, Firefox, etc. I use SeaMonkey
(same Gecko engine as Firefox's).
--
"When an ant gets wings, it loses its head." --Bosnian Proverb
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) Chop ANT from its address if e-mailing privately.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

Ant wrote:
On 4/6/2015 4:41 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
philo wrote:
On 04/06/2015 04:30 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 06 Apr 2015 10:55:17 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"

wrote:


I've said it here several times, but for anyone new here who doesn't
know it, the Metro interface is optional, and doesn't need to be any
sort of problem. I almost never use it.

It might be optional, but every store which sells computers has that
miserable Metro screen visible. Every advertisment for Win8 has that
same Metro screen showing. One day I played with it in a store and I
could not find the (Non-Metro) screen, and that thing had me totally
puzzled. That alone was enough to make me NOT want it.


Though I think Metro makes good sense for any touch screen computer, to
me it's rather useless otherwise.

An easy fix is the free utility Classic Shell
or for a small fee Start 8

An easier fix yet is Windows 7 or XP, n'est pas?

Windows XP is unsupported. 7, Mac OS X, Linux, etc. are good supported
alternatives assuming they have softwares that you need are in them.

For a business, I can see the "no longer supported" as an issue, but for a
home user, I don't see a big problem, so long as it does what you need. And
fortunately, there is a plethora of good software out there that runs on XP.

On Wed, 8 Apr 2015 00:19:29 -0600, "Bill in Co"
wrote:


An easier fix yet is Windows 7 or XP, n'est pas?

Windows XP is unsupported. 7, Mac OS X, Linux, etc. are good supported
alternatives assuming they have softwares that you need are in them.

For a business, I can see the "no longer supported" as an issue, but for a
home user, I don't see a big problem, so long as it does what you need. And
fortunately, there is a plethora of good software out there that runs on XP.


I fully agree. As a home user, I need nothing more than XP, and I have
all the programs that I will ever need too. In fact, aside from web
browser issues, Win98 dies everything I will ever need, and I have just
about every piece of older software I could ever need, because people
keep giving it to me, because they think it's obsolete.

As a home user, I dont need a $2000, power hungry photo editor that
sucks up every drip of CPU power and needs a half a gig of drive space
to install. I can edit photos and make some cartoon effects using my 20
year old version of Paint Shop Pro (made for Win95). I always say, the
less bloat, the more I can accomplish with software like this.
Otherwise i end up spending all my time trying to understand the
software and accomplish nothing.

Just because we live in a tiem where "more is better" and "bigger is
better", dont mean I need to follow. I think smaller and easier is
better.....

The good thing about Windows, (any version), is that there is plenty of
software for it. Linux seems to lack a lot of software. I guess the
Mac has plenty, but I am just starting to learn about that, so I wont
say more......

From what I've been hearing, the newer versions of Windows wont run most
of the older software, which means spending more money, and having to
relearn all the newer stuff. At least XP will run almost all the Win95
and Win98 software. In fact, aside from Windows Utilities which are
intended to modify the OS (such as Norton Utilities for Windows 9x), I
cant think of one piece of Win 9x software that wont run on XP.

On Tue, 07 Apr 2015 21:10:36 -0700, Ant wrote:

I've never tried Safari, but neither have I heard
any good reviews of it. There used to be a version
for windows, but I don't see it now on Apple's site.

I couldn't find it either. I never used it, simply didn't like the UI.

Same here. I never liked Safari, Opera, Firefox, etc. I use SeaMonkey
(same Gecko engine as Firefox's).

I've never used Safari, but it appears that of all the browsers I have
ever liked, were all Gecko based. Firefox, Seamonkey, and K-meleon have
always been my favorites. K-meleon is pretty much dead, but SeaMonkey
still works well, and is becoming more and more my favorite since
Firefox has gone insane with upgrades.

But going way back, Netscape was the best of the oldest browsers and I
*think* that was also Gecko based (correct me if wrong). I still
remember using that really old NCSA Mosaic browser for Win 3.x. That
thing was horrid, it crashed more often than it worked. Then there was
IE. from the earliest version up to IE6, I never found it to be stable
or work very well. (I have never used any version of IE above IE6).
Then there is Opera. I did not like it in the early 90's, and although
I tried it numerous times up until a few years ago, I never liked the
way it looked or worked, and found it fairly unstable too.

I also used to use Avant Browser, which was a front end for IE, but
worked better than IE, and was not all that bad.

There was also Slim Browser. Very similar to Avant (above). It too was
not bad.

But the very - very first browser I ever used was Slipknot. That was
pretty much where the Internet began, and it took a lot of tinkering to
make it work, It ran in Windows 3.x, but I think I also ran it from Dos
a few times (as far as I can recall). It was the first time I could see
images from the web, but it really lacked a lot of features. But for
it's time, it was "magic".
http://www.micromind.com/slipknot.htm

And finally, there is "OffByOne". A very simple web browser that does
not store any data, does not read script, but loads web pages real fast.
I still have it installed in Win98, and on occasion I use it to bypass
websites that will not load properly on any other browser. It just
shows basic text and pictures. The page formatting is usually screwed
up on modern web pages, but if all i want is text, I can copy and paste
the text to notepad and/or save the pictures.

I have never tried Chrome.

This is about it for my use of browsers since the internet began....

Il giorno Sun 05 Apr 2015 10:45:06p, ** inviava su
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general il messaggio
. Vediamo cosa scrisse:

what else will there be?

did you ever try a linux distribution?

--
/-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ /\/\ /\/\ /-\ T /-\
-=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- -=- - -=-
http://www.bb2002.it
............ [ al lavoro ] ...........

On 4/7/15 10:09 PM, Ant wrote:
On 4/6/2015 4:41 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
philo wrote:
On 04/06/2015 04:30 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 06 Apr 2015 10:55:17 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:


I've said it here several times, but for anyone new here who doesn't
know it, the Metro interface is optional, and doesn't need to be any
sort of problem. I almost never use it.

It might be optional, but every store which sells computers has that
miserable Metro screen visible. Every advertisment for Win8 has that
same Metro screen showing. One day I played with it in a store and I
could not find the (Non-Metro) screen, and that thing had me totally
puzzled. That alone was enough to make me NOT want it.


Though I think Metro makes good sense for any touch screen computer, to
me it's rather useless otherwise.

An easy fix is the free utility Classic Shell

or for a small fee Start 8

An easier fix yet is Windows 7 or XP, n'est pas?

Windows XP is unsupported. 7, Mac OS X, Linux, etc. are good supported
alternatives assuming they have softwares that you need are in them.

No offense intended, Ant, but your statement is misleading. It would be
more accurate to say some versions of Windows are supported, some
versions of OS X are supported, and some versions of Linux are
supported. In all cases, only a select few of the newer versions are
supported.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

But going way back, Netscape was the best of the oldest browsers and I
*think* that was also Gecko based (correct me if wrong). I still

IIRC, Gecko was from Mozilla based on Mozilla suite. AOL's Netscape used
it when Firefox was around. Before them, it was something else like
Netscape Navigator, Communicator, etc. Hence why I still love SeaMonkey.


remember using that really old NCSA Mosaic browser for Win 3.x. That
thing was horrid, it crashed more often than it worked. Then there was
IE. from the earliest version up to IE6, I never found it to be stable
or work very well. (I have never used any version of IE above IE6).
Then there is Opera. I did not like it in the early 90's, and although
I tried it numerous times up until a few years ago, I never liked the
way it looked or worked, and found it fairly unstable too.

I only know one guy who loves Opera. Ha. Everyone else is using Chrome. Meh!


I also used to use Avant Browser, which was a front end for IE, but
worked better than IE, and was not all that bad.

I use IE8 as a backup, but that's the highest in my updated Windows XP
SP3 machines.


There was also Slim Browser. Very similar to Avant (above). It too was
not bad.

I have never used it.


But the very - very first browser I ever used was Slipknot. That was
pretty much where the Internet began, and it took a lot of tinkering to
make it work, It ran in Windows 3.x, but I think I also ran it from Dos
a few times (as far as I can recall). It was the first time I could see
images from the web, but it really lacked a lot of features. But for
it's time, it was "magic".
http://www.micromind.com/slipknot.htm

And finally, there is "OffByOne". A very simple web browser that does
not store any data, does not read script, but loads web pages real fast.
I still have it installed in Win98, and on occasion I use it to bypass
websites that will not load properly on any other browser. It just
shows basic text and pictures. The page formatting is usually screwed
up on modern web pages, but if all i want is text, I can copy and paste
the text to notepad and/or save the pictures.

I have never tried Chrome.

I don't like Chrome. I just don't see why many people like it. I have it
on my Linux/Debian stable machine for testing purposes.


This is about it for my use of browsers since the internet began....

What about text web browsers like Lynx, Links, eLinks, etc.? [grin]

You know what I miss before the Internet? Bulletin board systems (BBSes)!
--
"Your mom's legs are so hairy, the ants think they're in a jungle."
--unknown
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) Chop ANT from its address if e-mailing privately.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

what else will there be?

did you ever try a linux distribution?

I use Debian stable. One thing I am hating about them is some GUI design
and usability issues like Ubuntu's Unity. Blah.
--
"Ever watch ants just crawling around? They walk in that single straight
line, a long, a long, long mile of ants. Sometimes they will walk over
and pick up their dead friends and carry those around. I'm pretty sure
it's because they can get in the carpool lane and pass up that line."
--Ellen DeGeneres
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) Chop ANT from its address if e-mailing privately.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

I've said it here several times, but for anyone new here who doesn't
know it, the Metro interface is optional, and doesn't need to be any
sort of problem. I almost never use it.

It might be optional, but every store which sells computers has that
miserable Metro screen visible. Every advertisment for Win8 has that
same Metro screen showing. One day I played with it in a store and I
could not find the (Non-Metro) screen, and that thing had me totally
puzzled. That alone was enough to make me NOT want it.


Though I think Metro makes good sense for any touch screen computer, to
me it's rather useless otherwise.

An easy fix is the free utility Classic Shell

or for a small fee Start 8

An easier fix yet is Windows 7 or XP, n'est pas?

Windows XP is unsupported. 7, Mac OS X, Linux, etc. are good supported
alternatives assuming they have softwares that you need are in them.

No offense intended, Ant, but your statement is misleading. It would be
more accurate to say some versions of Windows are supported, some
versions of OS X are supported, and some versions of Linux are
supported. In all cases, only a select few of the newer versions are
supported.

I meant the newer versions like Mac OS X v10.8.5, Windows Vista SP2, etc.
--
"He who cannot pick up an ant, and wants to pick up an elephant will
some day see his folly." --African
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / If crediting, then use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.
( ) Chop ANT from its address if e-mailing privately.
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on this computer.

On 4/8/15 6:56 AM, Ant wrote:
I've said it here several times, but for anyone new here who doesn't
know it, the Metro interface is optional, and doesn't need to be any
sort of problem. I almost never use it.

It might be optional, but every store which sells computers has that
miserable Metro screen visible. Every advertisment for Win8 has that
same Metro screen showing. One day I played with it in a store and I
could not find the (Non-Metro) screen, and that thing had me totally
puzzled. That alone was enough to make me NOT want it.


Though I think Metro makes good sense for any touch screen computer, to
me it's rather useless otherwise.

An easy fix is the free utility Classic Shell

or for a small fee Start 8

An easier fix yet is Windows 7 or XP, n'est pas?

Windows XP is unsupported. 7, Mac OS X, Linux, etc. are good supported
alternatives assuming they have softwares that you need are in them.

No offense intended, Ant, but your statement is misleading. It would be
more accurate to say some versions of Windows are supported, some
versions of OS X are supported, and some versions of Linux are
supported. In all cases, only a select few of the newer versions are
supported.

I meant the newer versions like Mac OS X v10.8.5, Windows Vista SP2, etc.

:-) I knew what you meant, just picking on sentence structure.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"