Windows Starter recovery w/o dvd

[BillW50]

AJL wrote on Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:27:05 -0700:
> BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> AJL wrote on Wed, 30 Jun 2010 15:403 -0700:
>
>>> And that may become necessary someday for my Xandros powered Eee PC 2G
>>> Surf netbook. It won't recognize my newer HP slimline external DVD
>>> drive. And I've never been able to find a driver to get it to work.
>>> But it still recognizes my several year old monster sized externally
>>> powered HP DVD drive so I'm OK for now...
>> Xandros doesn't recognize it or the BIOS doesn't?
>> You can tell if the BIOS sees it by hitting the ESC key before Linux
>> boots up. That kicks in the boot menu. And it will show up in the list
>> if the BIOS sees it.
>
> Just tried your suggestion. The boot menu *does show* the slimline
> drive. So Xandros is the culprit.
>
> I never worked on the problem too hard since my old HP external drive
> works fine so I just use it. Out of curiosity (at the time) I did a
> little research about using the slimline drive with the Surf but came
> up empty. And really I would hate to rock the boat installing and
> trying drivers even if I found one cause that little 7" box hasn't
> crashed in months, it really works well with the original setup.
> Course that just proves AJL's laptop theory#1...

Oh okay. My Samsung slimline SE-S084 DVD burner works fine under
Xandros. And it even plays non-copy protected DVDs too. Well smooth for
the first 5 seconds then choppy and the sound breaking up on this
1140x900 external monitor after that. Needs more CPU power is my guess.
Works fine with Windows XP on the same machine though.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)

 

[AJL]

BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>My Samsung slimline SE-S084 DVD burner works fine under
>Xandros. And it even plays non-copy protected DVDs too. Well smooth for
>the first 5 seconds then choppy and the sound breaking up on this
>1140x900 external monitor after that. Needs more CPU power is my guess.

Yes my Xandros powered 2G Surf is choppy on video also. But it works
well at what it was designed and named for: Surfing.
(email and Usenet too of course).

BTW I finally retired my Palms and got an iPod touch. It surfs,
emails, and Usenets as good as the 2G Surf (and the video's not choppy
either). I may just leave the Surf at home on the next trip...

>Works fine with Windows XP on the same machine though.

I have read of successful XP installs on the tiny 2G drive of the
Surf. However I don't own an XP copy and anyway as I said before, if
it ain't broke...

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 221:56 -0500, BillW50 wrote:

> Gene E. Bloch wrote on Wed, 30 Jun 2010 20:136 -0700:
> [...]
>> The other computers here have software to burn recovery DVDs, but I had to
>> supply my own blanks
>>
>> Two of them are not much good anyway - the computers stated out with
>> Windows Vista and I upgraded them to Win 7, so I'm not eager to recover to
>> factory status.
>>
>> I'll rely on backups - which I don't do often enough. Of course
>
> Well I personally value backups far superior to the recovery disc
> anyway. As once you have backups, the recovery disc is only good for if
> you want to sell or give your computer away anyway. As why would you
> want a system without your favorite applications and settings for? And
> in your case, a totally different OS to boot.

I agree -- I have used a recovery disc for just the purpose you mention,
with the addition of running a disk wipe program to clear the now unused
portion of the recovered disk (just for paranoia) before giving it away.

As for value of recovering to a totally different OS to boot (is the pun
intended?) and the value of backups, well, obviously we agree there too.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

 

[M.L.]

>> Get the DVD writer, you won't be sorry...
>
>I am seriously considering this but I'm a bit short of time as I am
>packing for a European jaunt and everything is last moment plus it would
>be nice not to carry more gear.

Yes, that extra 10 ounces of gear could really ruin your trip.

 

[Death]

M.L. wrote:

>
>
>>> Get the DVD writer, you won't be sorry...
>>
>>I am seriously considering this but I'm a bit short of time as I am
>>packing for a European jaunt and everything is last moment plus it would
>>be nice not to carry more gear.
>
> Yes, that extra 10 ounces of gear could really ruin your trip.

That's why Death doesn't carry anything smaller than a $50.
Those $20's get heavy.
Airport bums will relieve you of the small bills.
Wad 'em up in a ball, and toss 'em, watch a drunken bum take a face
plant trying to fetch 'em.

--
Vita brevis breviter in brevi finietur,
Mors venit velociter quae neminem veretur.

 

[felmon]

On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 20:59:49 -0500, M.L. wrote:


>>> Get the DVD writer, you won't be sorry...
>>
>>I am seriously considering this but I'm a bit short of time as I am
>>packing for a European jaunt and everything is last moment plus it would
>>be nice not to carry more gear.
>
> Yes, that extra 10 ounces of gear could really ruin your trip.

I'm glad you understand!

Felmon

 

[AJL]

BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>>Works fine with Windows XP on the same machine though.

Bill:
I came into possession of a 'copy' of xp professional so thought what
the heck I'll give it a try on the Eee PC 2G Surf. I was much
surprised when it installed without a hitch, and with 300M of drive
space left over after the installation. (That is about the same amount
of total free drive space I had with Xandros after installation.)
However after killing virtual memory, system restore, adjusting IE,
and moving other functions to the SD drive I'm up over a whopping 1GB
of free C: drive space!! I have to tell you I'm quite amazed after
reading all the problems others have had squeezing xp into this
machine. Asus of course has XP drivers so everything else is working
just fine. I hate to admit it (after our recent xp/linux wars) but it
does seem a bit more snappy under xp. Course I've only been using it
for a few hours now so we'll have to see...

 

[BillW50]

In news:5ir136t5qcs80ehqtjftedi1q1nm62rdbd@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:506 -0700:
> BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>>> Works fine with Windows XP on the same machine though.
>
> Bill:
> I came into possession of a 'copy' of xp professional so thought what
> the heck I'll give it a try on the Eee PC 2G Surf. I was much
> surprised when it installed without a hitch, and with 300M of drive
> space left over after the installation. (That is about the same amount
> of total free drive space I had with Xandros after installation.)
> However after killing virtual memory, system restore, adjusting IE,
> and moving other functions to the SD drive I'm up over a whopping 1GB
> of free C: drive space!! I have to tell you I'm quite amazed after
> reading all the problems others have had squeezing xp into this
> machine. Asus of course has XP drivers so everything else is working
> just fine. I hate to admit it (after our recent xp/linux wars) but it
> does seem a bit more snappy under xp. Course I've only been using it
> for a few hours now so we'll have to see...

Well that is good to hear and to be honest, I am not surprised.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2

 

[BillW50]

In news:i0sdfn$ra$1@news.eternal-september.org,
BillW50 typed on Mon, 5 Jul 2010 05:51:48 -0500:
> In news:5ir136t5qcs80ehqtjftedi1q1nm62rdbd@4ax.com,
> AJL typed on Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:506 -0700:
>> BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>
>>>> Works fine with Windows XP on the same machine though.
>>
>> Bill:
>> I came into possession of a 'copy' of xp professional so thought what
>> the heck I'll give it a try on the Eee PC 2G Surf. I was much
>> surprised when it installed without a hitch, and with 300M of drive
>> space left over after the installation. (That is about the same
>> amount of total free drive space I had with Xandros after
>> installation.) However after killing virtual memory, system restore,
>> adjusting IE, and moving other functions to the SD drive I'm up over
>> a whopping 1GB of free C: drive space!! I have to tell you I'm quite
>> amazed after reading all the problems others have had squeezing xp
>> into this machine. Asus of course has XP drivers so everything else
>> is working just fine. I hate to admit it (after our recent xp/linux
>> wars) but it does seem a bit more snappy under xp. Course I've only
>> been using it for a few hours now so we'll have to see...
>
> Well that is good to hear and to be honest, I am not surprised.

Just curious! What SP version is on that Windows XP Pro install disc?

Retired your Palms? <sigh> I still use mine, although not a lot. I
actually use the Palm Desktop v4.0.1 on the PCs a lot more. Older and
newer versions of the Palm Desktop I didn't care too much for.

iPod? Congratulations! I guess they are nice, never used one myself. I
guess you really need a very large pocket before you can slip it into
one, eh?

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2

 

[AJL]

"BillW50" wrote:

>> AJL typed:

>>> I came into possession of a 'copy' of xp professional so thought what
>>> the heck I'll give it a try on the Eee PC 2G Surf.

>Just curious! What SP version is on that Windows XP Pro install disc?

Version 2002 SP3.

My biggest complaint so far would be hibernation. It takes 1.5 minutes
to hibernate and 30 seconds to revive. Heck it only takes 40 seconds
to boot from scratch so not much of an advantage there. I imagine it's
because of the slow (read cheap) write speed of the SSDs that Asus
soldered into this model. But with drive space at a premium I can get
an extra 500M by disabling hibernate anyway. So even if it was super
fast I probably wouldn't have used it.

My second complaint is that the video is still choppy. But with a
500MHz processor that probably is a given no matter what OS it runs.

Otherwise the Surf is running fine on XP. I have everything I use most
often installed now and it left a leeway of 300M on the drive. Just
like the old days I have to keep a close eye on what the apps are
doing on the drive. For example one wanted to install MS NET @
100M+... =8-O

>Retired your Palms? <sigh> I still use mine, although not a lot.

My Palm TX is over 3 years old now and the old Blazer browser was
having trouble getting into some of the local hotspots. That's the
last of the Palm PDAs so I had to make a change eventually anyway.

>iPod? Congratulations! I guess they are nice, never used one myself.

It does everything my Palm did only better and faster. (It was a
hundred bucks cheaper too.)

>guess you really need a very large pocket before you can slip it into
>one, eh?

Were you thinking of the iPad tablet? My iPod (touch) is smaller and
lighter than the TX with about the same size screen so actually a
better pocket carry. Also it has much better battery life so things
have improved all around.

 

[AJL]

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>AJL typed on Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:506 -0700:

>> BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>> I came into possession of a 'copy' of xp professional so thought what
>> the heck I'll give it a try on the Eee PC 2G Surf. I hate to admit it
>>(after our recent xp/linux wars) but it
>> does seem a bit more snappy under xp. Course I've only been using it
>> for a few hours now so we'll have to see...

>Well that is good to hear and to be honest, I am not surprised.

I wonder if there is a key combination in XP that allows moving a too
large window around on a small screen so that I can get to an 'ok'
button that is off the bottom of the screen? In Xandros it is to hold
the alt and left mouse buttons down while dragging the widow up. But
I've been unable to find anything like that in XP. I do have an Asus
app on the tray that changes the screen resolution and thus allows
scrolling up and down the larger resolution to expose the 'ok' button,
but I liked the Xandros way better. Surely Bill would have thought of
this in his OS...

 

[BillW50]

In news:t0p436l1tjb64linp6d1jja907u7mp87hk@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Mon, 05 Jul 2010 16:492 -0700:
> "BillW50" wrote:
>
>>> AJL typed:
>
>>>> I came into possession of a 'copy' of xp professional so thought
>>>> what the heck I'll give it a try on the Eee PC 2G Surf.
>
>> Just curious! What SP version is on that Windows XP Pro install disc?
>
> Version 2002 SP3.

Oh ok. SP2 would have been good too IMHO, but SP3 is pretty stable too.
Btw, which Windows Media Player version came with your SP3 install? All
of the ones that includes SP2 I have seen has WMP v10. For me
personally, I like WMP v9 and WMP v10 the best. The newer ones I don't
care much for.

> My biggest complaint so far would be hibernation. It takes 1.5 minutes
> to hibernate and 30 seconds to revive. Heck it only takes 40 seconds
> to boot from scratch so not much of an advantage there. I imagine it's
> because of the slow (read cheap) write speed of the SSDs that Asus
> soldered into this model. But with drive space at a premium I can get
> an extra 500M by disabling hibernate anyway. So even if it was super
> fast I probably wouldn't have used it.

Yes I have talked about this before. And I was hibernating 2GB worth of
RAM. And SLC SSD are faster at writing than the newer more common
nowadays MLC SSD. And yours I am sure is a SLC type. But even still the
speed just isn't as good as a mechanical hard drive at writing anyway.

Yes booting up is fast enough. Although what I like better is just using
standby. I have six EeePC batteries and I usually take two with me
during the day. And even the smallest one 4400mah I believe will run in
standby for 12 or more hours. I don't know, I should check this to make
sure. But it seems that long anyway.

Then I have one of those larger 10440mah batteries too. And it will run
5 to 6 hours straight on that one alone with the WiFi running. And it
has to last over 24 hours on just standby for sure.

> My second complaint is that the video is still choppy. But with a
> 500MHz processor that probably is a given no matter what OS it runs.

Are you talking about using the Flash Player within a browser? That is
the worst CPU hogging player I ever have seen! It takes 3 times more CPU
power than WMP does. And other players are not as bad as the Flash
Player either. Have you checked the CPU usage during playback? If it
pegs or even runs above 80%, playback is going to suffer.

Older versions of the Flash Player are much better for slower CPUs.
Although if you go too old, they won't work for many websites. And the
best bet either way is to use another player besides Flash. I download
most of the streams and play them through WMP using K-Lite codecs. They
play just fine without pegging the CPU.

Under Linux though, all players I have used use the CPU very heavy. So I
don't know what you can do about it there.

> Otherwise the Surf is running fine on XP. I have everything I use most
> often installed now and it left a leeway of 300M on the drive. Just
> like the old days I have to keep a close eye on what the apps are
> doing on the drive. For example one wanted to install MS NET @
> 100M+... =8-O

Yes on my 4G EeePCs, I keep about 200MB free on them running Windows XP
SP2. And the OEM Windows for the EeePC has .Net v1.1 installed (which
you can uninstall) and MS Works v9, and some other stuff you can dump
too.

>> Retired your Palms? <sigh> I still use mine, although not a lot.
>
> My Palm TX is over 3 years old now and the old Blazer browser was
> having trouble getting into some of the local hotspots. That's the
> last of the Palm PDAs so I had to make a change eventually anyway.

Yep, I had wireless with my Palm IIIc using my Kyocera cell phone and a
data cable. And have a nice wallet that holds both. Although the
wireless was cellular and only at 14k4 speed. Email was ok, but web
browsing wasn't so hot. This was like 8 years ago. I don't use that
phone anymore and I now live in the fringe area of cellular anyway. I do
still have a Palm modem for them too. Didn't use it much though. Only
got 4 hours per 2xAA batteries. Using rechargeables, I only got about 2
hours.

>> iPod? Congratulations! I guess they are nice, never used one myself.
>
> It does everything my Palm did only better and faster. (It was a
> hundred bucks cheaper too.)

Oh nice!

>> guess you really need a very large pocket before you can slip it into
>> one, eh?
>
> Were you thinking of the iPad tablet? My iPod (touch) is smaller and
> lighter than the TX with about the same size screen so actually a
> better pocket carry. Also it has much better battery life so things
> have improved all around.

Oh yeah, I was thinking of the iPad. So how is the iPod for typing? I
sure liked my folding keyboard for my Palm IIIc and IIIxe. Although you
need a flat surface to use it. As your lap didn't work too well. A
briefcase would have been ok though.

My Epson PX-8 from '84 ran for 12 hours and 40 days on standby. It is
very much like a netbook, but with a far better keyboard. Heavier too,
but about the same size. And screens were horrible back in '84.

My Palm IIIc from '99 runs for 12 hours too and about 10 days on
standby. My Palm IIIxe on rechargeable AA batteries I don't recall how
long it ran for. About 12 hours is my guess. And maybe 10 to 20 days on
standby.

My Gateway M-465e laptop from '06 with an extended battery and a second
battery runs for about 7 hours straight. But I think we are talking
almost 8 lbs here. Not very light. Only has a 15.1 inch screen too.

And then all of my EeePCs. Which everybody already knows about.

So running time on batteries on these devices are very close throughout
the years IMHO. So what does all of yours look like for running and
standby times?

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2

 

[BillW50]

In news:2ik636thpocd7qt07ufeotesqs076cg1dp@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Tue, 06 Jul 2010 090:12 -0700:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> AJL typed on Sun, 04 Jul 2010 13:506 -0700:
>
>>> BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>>> I came into possession of a 'copy' of xp professional so thought
>>> what the heck I'll give it a try on the Eee PC 2G Surf. I hate to
>>> admit it (after our recent xp/linux wars) but it
>>> does seem a bit more snappy under xp. Course I've only been using it
>>> for a few hours now so we'll have to see...
>
>> Well that is good to hear and to be honest, I am not surprised.
>
> I wonder if there is a key combination in XP that allows moving a too
> large window around on a small screen so that I can get to an 'ok'
> button that is off the bottom of the screen? In Xandros it is to hold
> the alt and left mouse buttons down while dragging the widow up. But
> I've been unable to find anything like that in XP. I do have an Asus
> app on the tray that changes the screen resolution and thus allows
> scrolling up and down the larger resolution to expose the 'ok' button,
> but I liked the Xandros way better. Surely Bill would have thought of
> this in his OS...

The only one I know of is ALT-Space and press M (M=move) and then use
the arrow keys. And I like Windows allowing you to use higher
resolutions on small screens. I can't get Linux to do this without
hooking up an external monitor and using both. But then what is the
point if you need an external monitor to pull this off anyway?

Our Intel video also allows higher resolutions compressed on our smaller
screens (I think some other manufactures allow this too sometimes). And
yes it works if the resolution isn't too big and no scrolling around the
desktop. But scrolling through documents or webpages are slow. And small
print is hard or impossible to read. So I used it for awhile and I later
gave this up. I believe it is a third party Astray replacement called
AsTray2 or something.

I don't use either anymore, but just eeectl instead. It doesn't have the
resolution stuff, but the CPU temp, fan control, CPU speed (you might
like that one to speed up video playing), and full control over the
brightness of the display. The latter gives you a super bright display
(higher than stock) that I need sunglasses just to view the screen with.
lol

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2

 

[BillW50]

In news:i0vqhu$1ub$1@news.eternal-september.org,
BillW50 typed on Tue, 6 Jul 2010 12:47:07 -0500:
> Our Intel video also allows higher resolutions compressed on our
> smaller screens (I think some other manufactures allow this too
> sometimes). And yes it works if the resolution isn't too big and no
> scrolling around the desktop. But scrolling through documents or
> webpages are slow. And small print is hard or impossible to read. So
> I used it for awhile and I later gave this up. I believe it is a
> third party Astray replacement called AsTray2 or something.

Ok I fired up AsTray2 (you can't run both versions at the same time,
just one or the other). And I can run compressed (no scrolling in the
desktop) in the following modes:

800x600
900x540
1024x600
1024x768

AsTray2 calls compressing as Downscaling. And any higher resolution goes
back to non-compression and scrolling around the desktop. Regardless if
you have Downscaling selected or not.

You can edit an ini file and create a Quickswitch. Why the author didn't
do this I have no idea. But once you create all of your favorite
resolutions, you are all set. I think without Quickswitch, you have a
list of every possible resolution and fresh rates. Which is a list of
too many to quickly switch between.

And I have no idea why AsTray2 does this (it claims it doesn't). But it
always defaults to 800x480 from the start. And I hate that one. And this
is what Linux uses too. And without any AsTray version, I have Windows
using 800x600 and I just scroll up and down to see the whole desktop
(thus why I stopped using AsTray2). And no compression (downscaling)
either. As most of the time I am not interested in the top of a window
anyway and I don't mind to scroll for the few times I want too.

I am playing around with AsTray2 right now using compressed
(downscaling) at 1024x768 once again and it isn't as bad as I remember
it. And it is slower too than without downscaling, but not as bad as I
remember. And the tiny text I can still read. Maybe it is the really
tiny text I can't read. Or maybe my eyes are better now. lol

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2

 

[AJL]

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>which Windows Media Player version came with your SP3 install?

WMP version 9.00.00.4503

>The newer ones I don't care much for.

I don't use WMP much. I use the VLC media player. But I'm not going to
upgrade anything that came on this XP version (and works ok) on the
theory that newer is bigger, drive space being at a premium.

>yours [Surf's SSD] I am sure is a SLC type.

Of course, this being the elcheapo the bare bones model. The SSD is
soldered in saving the price of a socket. BTW the cache is disabled
also which makes things even slower. I'm not sure that was done to be
cheaper or to make the more expensive models (like yours) run faster
in comparison.

>Yes booting up is fast enough. Although what I like better is just using
>standby.

I would prefer waiting the extra half minute or so to boot and arrive
with a full battery.

>I have six EeePC batteries and I usually take two with me
>during the day.

That kind of ruins the reason for carrying a tiny netbook does't it?

>Are you talking about using the Flash Player within a browser?

Yes. It chops mostly when internet streaming. Local video file
playback is ok.

>That is the worst CPU hogging player I ever have seen!

Yes, with a faster CPU it could likely handle it. Or maybe just a
better hardware/software design. My new iPod seems to handle video
streaming just fine on a 300MHz processor.

>So how is the iPod for typing?

Terrible. It's a pain just to type a URL. This is a capacitive screen
(the TX was resistive) that uses no stylus. So you have to type with
your fat thumbs on the 3.5" screen. (The screen won't even react to a
stylus push, it needs your body capacitance to sense a push.) The
software is pretty good at guessing what you want but still it
requires a lot of concentration. Fortunately I don't need to do a lot
of typing. Bookmarks are a blessing...

>sure liked my folding keyboard for my Palm IIIc and IIIxe.

I don't know if keyboards are available for the iPod but probably. Its
a popular gadget and can run the same software as an iPhone. And there
are over 100,000 apps (many free and most under $5) in the Apple app
store so a bit more choice of software than the Palms had. (One of my
favorite free apps is called BJ, it's 75 blond jokes, very popular
with my grandkids...except for the blonds...

>So what does all of yours look like for running and
>standby times?

Course running time depends on what you're doing. Video is rough on
batteries. But I mostly surf, email, Usenet, and read ebooks. I
figured about 5 hours on the TX and 8 hours on the iPod. But that is
an estimate since I seldom let the battery run lower than 75% (about 2
hours on the iPod) in keeping with treating my Li-ion battery well.
I'm not sure on standby time as I charge it often (75% rule).

 

[AJL]

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>AJL typed on Tue, 06 Jul 2010 090:12 -0700:

>> I wonder if there is a key combination in XP that allows moving a too
>> large window around on a small screen so that I can get to an 'ok'
>> button that is off the bottom of the screen?

>The only one I know of is ALT-Space and press M (M=move) and then use
>the arrow keys.

That works! Thank's Bill, that's lots easier than changing
resolutions.

>And I like Windows allowing you to use higher
>resolutions on small screens.

How do you get more resolution choices? I only have a choice of
800x480 (native) and 800x600 (makes you scroll vertically). I figured
it came with the Asus XP driver.

>I believe it is a third party Astray replacement called
>AsTray2 or something.

Ah, I see an AsTray Plus on eeeuser.com, I'll check it out later,
gotta head for a birthday party now.

>I don't use either anymore, but just eeectl instead. It doesn't have the
>resolution stuff, but the CPU temp, fan control, CPU speed (you might
>like that one to speed up video playing), and full control over the
>brightness of the display. The latter gives you a super bright display
>(higher than stock) that I need sunglasses just to view the screen with.
>lol

That one too, thanks again Bill.

 

[AJL]

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>In news:i0vqhu$1ub$1@news.eternal-september.org,
>BillW50 typed on Tue, 6 Jul 2010 12:47:07 -0500:
>> Our Intel video also allows higher resolutions compressed on our
>> smaller screens (I think some other manufactures allow this too
>> sometimes). And yes it works if the resolution isn't too big and no
>> scrolling around the desktop. But scrolling through documents or
>> webpages are slow. And small print is hard or impossible to read. So
>> I used it for awhile and I later gave this up. I believe it is a
>> third party Astray replacement called AsTray2 or something.
>
>Ok I fired up AsTray2 (you can't run both versions at the same time,
>just one or the other). And I can run compressed (no scrolling in the
>desktop) in the following modes:
>
>800x600
>900x540
>1024x600
>1024x768
>
>AsTray2 calls compressing as Downscaling. And any higher resolution goes
>back to non-compression and scrolling around the desktop. Regardless if
>you have Downscaling selected or not.
>
>You can edit an ini file and create a Quickswitch. Why the author didn't
>do this I have no idea. But once you create all of your favorite
>resolutions, you are all set. I think without Quickswitch, you have a
>list of every possible resolution and fresh rates. Which is a list of
>too many to quickly switch between.
>
>And I have no idea why AsTray2 does this (it claims it doesn't). But it
>always defaults to 800x480 from the start. And I hate that one. And this
>is what Linux uses too. And without any AsTray version, I have Windows
>using 800x600 and I just scroll up and down to see the whole desktop
>(thus why I stopped using AsTray2). And no compression (downscaling)
>either. As most of the time I am not interested in the top of a window
>anyway and I don't mind to scroll for the few times I want too.
>
>I am playing around with AsTray2 right now using compressed
>(downscaling) at 1024x768 once again and it isn't as bad as I remember
>it. And it is slower too than without downscaling, but not as bad as I
>remember. And the tiny text I can still read. Maybe it is the really
>tiny text I can't read. Or maybe my eyes are better now. lol

Oops, just saw this post as I was about to shut down. Will check this
out tomorrow too and see how I fare...

 

[AJL]

AJL <923@fakeaddress.com> wrote:

>"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>How do you get more resolution choices? I only have a choice of
>800x480 (native) and 800x600

Ah, figured it out.
Display props>settings>advanced>list all modes
Gets me 13 modes, all but the native mode scroll..

>>it is a third party Astray replacement called
>>AsTray2

I've found lots of references to AsTray2 but no source yet.

 

[AJL]

AJL <923@fakeaddress.com> wrote:

>there are over 100,000 apps (many free and most under $5) in the Apple app
>store so a bit more choice of software than the Palms had.

I just read that there actually are over 250,000 apps in the app store
so I though I better correct my post in the interest of accuracy. I
haven't checked them all out yet though...

 

[BillW50]

In news:ha383651m5e972g6o3i524edunpckcie17@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Tue, 06 Jul 2010 22:26:25 -0700:
> AJL <923@fakeaddress.com> wrote:
>
>> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> How do you get more resolution choices? I only have a choice of
>> 800x480 (native) and 800x600
>
> Ah, figured it out.
> Display props>settings>advanced>list all modes
> Gets me 13 modes, all but the native mode scroll..

Yes that is one way to do it.

>>> it is a third party Astray replacement called
>>> AsTray2
>
> I've found lots of references to AsTray2 but no source yet.

Oh sorry, try looking for AsTray Plus v1.4beta. I believe that was the
last version anyway. And I believe AsTray Plus replaced AsTray2.

http://wiki.eeeuser.com/astrayplus

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2