• Welcome to Tux Reports: Where Penguins Fly. We hope you find the topics varied, interesting, and worthy of your time. Please become a member and join in the discussions.

Windows Starter recovery w/o dvd

B

BillW50

Flightless Bird
In news:4k8736dr4qqaq9d6bdhd1f95lkbp03g530@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Tue, 06 Jul 2010 15:54:15 -0700:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> which Windows Media Player version came with your SP3 install?

>
> WMP version 9.00.00.4503


Oh nice! I do have a retail version of Windows XP SP2 and I don't recall
what WMP that one has. As I use OEM versions of Windows XP SP2 and they
all have WMP v10. Which you cannot go back to WMP v9 with.

>> 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.


VLC is pretty nice, but I use a multimedia keyboard a lot and use pause
and play a lot. And only WMP works with multimedia keyboards. Why I
don't know?

>> 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.


Oh I didn't know your cache is disabled.

>> 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 would normally too. But when I am out I use my netbook like a Palm. As
I turn it on for a few seconds typing or checking on something and then
put it back in standby again a lot.

>> 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?


Well that one 10440mah battery has enough power to get me through the
whole day alone. But since I don't carry the AC adapter with me anymore,
I carry a spare battery instead, just in case. The batteries are pretty
light and small anyway.

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

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


Some websites use WMP instead Flash within a browser. And the CPU usage
is much lower than Flash. I have no idea why users are not jumping all
over Adobe for creating such a CPU hog?

>> 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.


Does that use Flash too? Or some other player? Or does Adobe make a
special low CPU use Flash for the iPod?

>> 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... ;)


Oh I wouldn't like that very much.

>> 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... ;)


Oh nice!

>> 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).


Sounds good to me. ;-)

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

AJL

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

>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


Thanks, that was the site I was looking at yesterday. After reading
many of the posts there today I think I will pass on this utility.
After messing with some of the other resolutions I think that the
native resolution is the best for my use (as it usually is) on this
little 7" screen. What I really needed (that started this inquiry) was
a way to move too large off screen windows around to get at the ok
button and you already supplied that trick.
 
A

AJL

Flightless Bird
Re: Windows Starter...(OT side thread, should die soon...)

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

>Does that [iPod touch] use Flash too?


No, the iPod touch can't use flash. (The new iPad tablet and iPhone
don't have flash either.)

>special low CPU use Flash for the iPod?
>Or some other player?


Each app handles its own video, but I don't know how it works
internally. For example I have a You Tube app that looks nothing like
the site but plays all the videos there. Most all the news outlets
(NPR, ABC, NY Times, ect) have free apps and they run print articles,
pictures and videos. Also I have rented a full length movie at the
iTunes store and watched it using the included video app.

>Or does Adobe make a special low CPU use Flash for the iPod?


Adobe and Apple are at war over flash right now. Steve Jobs has said
that flash is buggy, uses too many resources, and he won't use it. He
wants the standard to become HTML 5. If he gets enough
iPads/touchs/iPhones out there he may be able to swing it...

(Check Google for lots of interesting articles on this.)
 
B

BillW50

Flightless Bird
In news:q1u9365f5n6e0t2deghrvnqdo8ksuvjp63@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:09:59 -0700:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> 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

>
> Thanks, that was the site I was looking at yesterday. After reading
> many of the posts there today I think I will pass on this utility.
> After messing with some of the other resolutions I think that the
> native resolution is the best for my use (as it usually is) on this
> little 7" screen. What I really needed (that started this inquiry) was
> a way to move too large off screen windows around to get at the ok
> button and you already supplied that trick.


Really? I am sure there is page after page about it in the forum. But
can you sum up what you had learned in a sentence or two?

And I don't see the big deal. It is so small it doesn't take up any
room. And you don't have to run it at boot either. As you can start it
manually too. And you can exit from the system tray. So it is there when
you need it and not there when you don't. That is how I use it anyway.

Heck I am running it right now in compressed (downscaling) at 1024x600
and it looks good to me. I think it is worth it as you can run it only
when you want too anyway.

So you like the native 800x480? Wow that one is the worst for me! As I
use 800x600 scrollable the most (I wish Linux offered this res on the
EeePC 7 inch). But sometimes it is easier to have a larger desktop. And
AsTray Plus is the way to go IMHO. Especially for those very wide
webpages. And it is nice for having multiple windows opened like I am
doing right now too. I dunno, I would rethink about this one.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2
 
B

BillW50

Flightless Bird
Re: Windows Starter...(OT side thread, should die soon...)

In news:4qu936t2iahq1stbdv6lk5kltomo63sap0@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:51:16 -0700:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> Does that [iPod touch] use Flash too?

>
> No, the iPod touch can't use flash. (The new iPad tablet and iPhone
> don't have flash either.)
>
>> special low CPU use Flash for the iPod?
>> Or some other player?

>
> Each app handles its own video, but I don't know how it works
> internally. For example I have a You Tube app that looks nothing like
> the site but plays all the videos there. Most all the news outlets
> (NPR, ABC, NY Times, ect) have free apps and they run print articles,
> pictures and videos. Also I have rented a full length movie at the
> iTunes store and watched it using the included video app.
>
>> Or does Adobe make a special low CPU use Flash for the iPod?

>
> Adobe and Apple are at war over flash right now. Steve Jobs has said
> that flash is buggy, uses too many resources, and he won't use it. He
> wants the standard to become HTML 5. If he gets enough
> iPads/touchs/iPhones out there he may be able to swing it...
>
> (Check Google for lots of interesting articles on this.)


Oh ok, very interesting. Well at least Steve Jobs and I agree on the
Flash player anyway. ;-)

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2
 
A

AJL

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

>In news:q1u9365f5n6e0t2deghrvnqdo8ksuvjp63@4ax.com,
>AJL typed on Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:09:59 -0700:
>> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>
>>> 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

>>
>> Thanks, that was the site I was looking at yesterday. After reading
>> many of the posts there today I think I will pass on this utility.
>> After messing with some of the other resolutions I think that the
>> native resolution is the best for my use (as it usually is) on this
>> little 7" screen. What I really needed (that started this inquiry) was
>> a way to move too large off screen windows around to get at the ok
>> button and you already supplied that trick.

>
>Really? I am sure there is page after page about it in the forum. But
>can you sum up what you had learned in a sentence or two?


Mostly instability problems, and one guy who apparently damaged his XP
to the point of a reinstall. Course it could be op error and not the
utility. There's around 45 pages there and I don't remember exactly
all the specific problems cause I skimmed most of it. Just a general
bad feeling, like did I really want to mess with it... ;)

>
>And I don't see the big deal. It is so small it doesn't take up any
>room. And you don't have to run it at boot either. As you can start it
>manually too. And you can exit from the system tray. So it is there when
>you need it and not there when you don't. That is how I use it anyway.


Yes it would be easy to try, just disable the current utility from
startup. I use a free utility called Startup Cop Pro that keeps an eye
on what's being put in the registry. (Sneaky apps like Google Chrome
try to slip stuff in there.) It also has an easy way to disable
startups. (Even easier than msconfig.)
>
>Heck I am running it right now in compressed (downscaling) at 1024x600
>and it looks good to me. I think it is worth it as you can run it only
>when you want too anyway.


Admittedly I couldn't try 'downscaling'. by just changing the
resolution. I really didn't like the scrolling so maybe I will like
the larger resolution better if it doesn't scroll.
>
>So you like the native 800x480? Wow that one is the worst for me!


Well one part I didn't like with native res was when a webpage hung
over the screen edge and I had to scroll left and right to read a
paragraph. But I found that I could just use the browser zoom function
and the problem was solved with just a few key presses.

>As I
>use 800x600 scrollable the most (I wish Linux offered this res on the
>EeePC 7 inch). But sometimes it is easier to have a larger desktop. And
>AsTray Plus is the way to go IMHO. Especially for those very wide
>webpages. And it is nice for having multiple windows opened like I am
>doing right now too. I dunno, I would rethink about this one.


Ok, you talked me into it. Apparently from the discussion on the forum
some versions are more stable than others on the 701 series which is
probably the closest to mine (700). So which version are you using and
I will try and find it, or if you know where it is please point... ;)
 
A

AJL

Flightless Bird
AJL <923@fakeaddress.com> wrote:

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


>I dunno, I would rethink about this one. [Installing AsTray]


>you talked me into it....I will try and find it...


OK, I found it and have it working on my 2G Surf. As I suspected it is
a bit fuzzy on all but the native resolution. But I will use it awhile
before voicing my exalted opinion... ;)
 
A

AJL

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

Let me re-comment on an earlier post now that I've played with AsTray+
awhile.

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


I went for 1.7.3 as the AsTray author said that this was the more
stable version on the 701 models. So far I've not had one hiccup and
you can't get any more stable than that.

>As you can start it manually too. And you can exit from the system tray.


For now I put an AsTray+ shortcut in the Startup menu and disabled the
old AsTray in startup. I haven't decided on the final configuration
yet but I probably will keep both.

>Heck I am running it right now in compressed (downscaling) at 1024x600
>and it looks good to me. I think it is worth it as you can run it only
>when you want too anyway.


Interesting that my AsTray+ has over 300 resolution combinations to
choose from and 1024x600 is not one of them.

>So you like the native 800x480? Wow that one is the worst for me!


So far the native resolution is still best for me. The print becomes
fuzzy and even smaller at the larger resolutions. And on a 7" screen
at native resolution, most print is already almost too small for my
bionically enhanced plastic lens implants... ;)

>But sometimes it is easier to have a larger desktop. And
>AsTray Plus is the way to go IMHO.


Yes, when using a larger external monitor I could see where AsTray
would be of great help.

>Especially for those very wide webpages.


That can be solved by using the browser zoom function. And the result
looks the same to me as when I switch to a larger resolution. In both
the print (and the whole page for that matter) becomes smaller and
less clear.

>And it is nice for having multiple windows opened like I am
>doing right now too.


I Dunno, those multiple windows don't do me much good if I can't read
what's in them cause the print's too small. We are both still talking
about a 7" screen aren't we...
 
A

AJL

Flightless Bird
AJL <923@fakeaddress.com> wrote:

>I went for 1.7.3


That should read 1.3.7. Hope you didn't go looking for that
non-existant upgrade... ;)

>as the AsTray author said that this was the more
>stable version on the 701 models.
 
B

BillW50

Flightless Bird
In news:ettb365eu7jdh9v52jstmalporj9l7ibdb@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:01:35 -0700:
>> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:

>
> Let me re-comment on an earlier post now that I've played with AsTray+
> awhile.


Ok, so you don't need me to comment on that one?

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

>
> I went for 1.7.3 as the AsTray author said that this was the more
> stable version on the 701 models. So far I've not had one hiccup and
> you can't get any more stable than that.


Never tried that 1.3.7 one. Yes I saw your later post. ;-)

>> As you can start it manually too. And you can exit from the system
>> tray.

>
> For now I put an AsTray+ shortcut in the Startup menu and disabled the
> old AsTray in startup. I haven't decided on the final configuration
> yet but I probably will keep both.


Yes I have both too, but I don't run either at startup. The original
AsTray (from Asus) has no close, so you have to kill it from the Task
Manager or something.

>> Heck I am running it right now in compressed (downscaling) at
>> 1024x600 and it looks good to me. I think it is worth it as you can
>> run it only when you want too anyway.

>
> Interesting that my AsTray+ has over 300 resolution combinations to
> choose from and 1024x600 is not one of them.


Oh ok, it is in the 1.40 beta.

>> So you like the native 800x480? Wow that one is the worst for me!

>
> So far the native resolution is still best for me. The print becomes
> fuzzy and even smaller at the larger resolutions. And on a 7" screen
> at native resolution, most print is already almost too small for my
> bionically enhanced plastic lens implants... ;)


Yes, but 800x480 is a really small desktop and some things just won't
fit. But 800x600 works for most things and the resolution is the same
and you just scroll 120 pixels up or down and that is all. Using AsTray+
you can compress (downscaling) it of you want too.

>> But sometimes it is easier to have a larger desktop. And
>> AsTray Plus is the way to go IMHO.

>
> Yes, when using a larger external monitor I could see where AsTray
> would be of great help.


Oh no, I mean on the 7 inch screen and having a large desktop. Using an
external monitor AsTray+ is worthless. Unless your external monitor is a
7 inch too or something really small.

>> Especially for those very wide webpages.

>
> That can be solved by using the browser zoom function. And the result
> looks the same to me as when I switch to a larger resolution. In both
> the print (and the whole page for that matter) becomes smaller and
> less clear.


Well there are a number of zooms. I am curious which one you are using?
Most browser you can change the text size is one way. Another way is
holding the CTRL key and use a scroll wheel on a mouse. But this zooms
everything.

>> And it is nice for having multiple windows opened like I am
>> doing right now too.

>
> I Dunno, those multiple windows don't do me much good if I can't read
> what's in them cause the print's too small. We are both still talking
> about a 7" screen aren't we...


Oh bummer! I am lucky in that department seen I can see 10x up close
what normal people need 10x magnifying ability to see. And my eyes
haven't changed for 35+ years now. My left eye can focus as close as 4
inches away. My right can't do that good and I'm not as near sighted in
the right eye (but it too is still near sighted).

So if the native resolution is pushing the limits for you, maybe AsTray+
might not be a good thing. Although you don't need to use the
compression part (downscaling), but just use it to quickly change
resolution with that quick thing that you have to add to the ini file
for the resolutions it supports and you use. But you have to scroll
through the desktop to use that part. And you might not like that
either.

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

AJL

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

>Yes I have both too, but I don't run either at startup.


I've now set the Surf up to boot with the original AsTray. That way I
can use the 600x800 to scroll if I need to. I have both AsTray and
AsTray+ shortcuts in the Start menu so I can switch back and forth
easily if I want to play around with a particular screen.

>The original AsTray (from Asus) has no close,


Mine original Asus AsTray does. Its in the menu, bottom selection,
labeled 'Quit'.

>Well there are a number of zooms. I am curious which one you are using?


Control + + / Control + - or Ctrl + mouse wheel. If a web page
requires horizontal scrolling to read a paragraph I just zoom out to
fit the page to the screen. Looks exactly the same to me as if I
adjust the resolution to fit the page to the screen, extra distortion
and all.

>So if the native resolution is pushing the limits for you, maybe AsTray+
>might not be a good thing. Although you don't need to use the
>compression part (downscaling),


The whole reason I tried this was to avoid scrolling while using a
larger non-native resolution. I suspected that the distortion would be
worse and it was. It works for you, not so well for me...different
strokes. Anyway I thank you for putting me onto it, it has become an
interesting continuing experiment.

BTW I tried AsTray+ on my 1000HD and it works fine there too. But the
original AsTray already has compression available for the larger
resolution available (1024x768) so i already had my choice to scroll
or not to scroll... ;)
 
B

BillW50

Flightless Bird
In news:f8rc3614ph1fcr3o3nsp8948sscflnvt0q@4ax.com,
AJL typed on Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:28:55 -0700:
> "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>> Yes I have both too, but I don't run either at startup.

>
> I've now set the Surf up to boot with the original AsTray. That way I
> can use the 600x800 to scroll if I need to. I have both AsTray and
> AsTray+ shortcuts in the Start menu so I can switch back and forth
> easily if I want to play around with a particular screen.


Yes I normally don't use either. But I just started to run AsTray Plus
at start again.

>> The original AsTray (from Asus) has no close,

>
> Mine original Asus AsTray does. Its in the menu, bottom selection,
> labeled 'Quit'.


Oh mine isn't like that. It has toggles for WLAN, Webcam, 800x480 or
800x600 (uncompressed) and external monitor resolutions. No quit, about
or anything. And you can do the same thing from Windows anyway, so I
don't see the point of this AsTray from Asus.

>> Well there are a number of zooms. I am curious which one you are
>> using?

>
> Control + + / Control + - or Ctrl + mouse wheel. If a web page
> requires horizontal scrolling to read a paragraph I just zoom out to
> fit the page to the screen. Looks exactly the same to me as if I
> adjust the resolution to fit the page to the screen, extra distortion
> and all.


Oh I didn't know about the CTRL++/- hotkeys. Well that isn't working
here for me under MS Word or IE6 on this netbook.

>> So if the native resolution is pushing the limits for you, maybe
>> AsTray+ might not be a good thing. Although you don't need to use the
>> compression part (downscaling),

>
> The whole reason I tried this was to avoid scrolling while using a
> larger non-native resolution. I suspected that the distortion would be
> worse and it was. It works for you, not so well for me...different
> strokes. Anyway I thank you for putting me onto it, it has become an
> interesting continuing experiment.


And the distortion is ok on your other Asus netbook? The highest
compression I can use with AsTray Plus is 1024x768.

> BTW I tried AsTray+ on my 1000HD and it works fine there too. But the
> original AsTray already has compression available for the larger
> resolution available (1024x768) so i already had my choice to scroll
> or not to scroll... ;)


It does? Wow.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 (quit Windows updates back in May 2009)
 
A

AJL

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

>And the [non-native] distortion is ok on your other Asus netbook?


The supplied AsTray utility in my Eee PC 1000HD offers three
resolutions. 800x600, 1024x600, and 1024x768. Native is 1024x600 and
looks great as you would expect. 1024x768 in scroll mode looks just as
good because it is displayed in native. But 800x600 and 1024x768 in
compressed mode really sucks IMO. I have yet to find a good reason to
use them.
 
Top