nemesis wrote:
>
> search that keeps getting in the way... more than that, the previous shortcut
> worked perfectly fine, why drop it?
> 

Or possibly... make it configurable?

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Yes, it's the most useless of all keys, as much as Scroll lock
>> perhaps! ;)

Scroll lock is surprisingly useful - many KVM switches use it as the
change button when pressed twice ;).

> I've actually used scroll lock on occasion. It's sysreq I've never had
> to use. :-)  That looked more like a function in search of a problem, to
> me. Multi-task switching functionality hardcoded into the keyboard,
> immediately followed by the release of Windows. Ouch. :-)
> 

Linux has support for Magic SysRq keys. I don't know how deep in they
actually are, but usually if you get the system to a state that'll make
you want to do a hard reset (cutting power), AltGr*+SysRq+S (emergence
Sync) and AltGr+SysRq+B (reBoot) at least seems less cruel way to do things.

*) Yes, it demands AltGr, I just tested - my laptop has SysRq at Fn+Del,
so I need to AltGr+Fn+SysRq+S (in that order) to do the sync.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Linux has support for Magic SysRq keys. 

So does Windows. So did DOS. :-) I think you have to be running a debug 
console on the serial port for sysreq to do anything with Windows. But 
basically the keycode does the same sort of magic "this isn't really a 
keycode" that ctl-alt-delete does.

Frighteningly enough, I used to actually know the details of this crap.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> search that keeps getting in the way... more than that, the previous shortcut
>> worked perfectly fine, why drop it?
> Or possibly... make it configurable?

Make too much stuff configurable, and you wind up with Linux user friendliness.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> The number of times Vista lets the focus get stolen is annoying too. XP
>> was real good at that, and I understand Vista tries to prevent
>> pop-unders or something by not letting you *not* steal the focus. Seems
>> like the wrong answer, to me.
>>
> 
> That one of the most annoying things with XP. Focus stealing, I mean.

Except you can turn that off at the window manager level, and it works 
almost 100% of the time.  With Vista, it works mainly when you didn't want 
it to work in the first place, somehow.

> IMO only the critical messages from OS should appear like that
> and have OK-button disabled for 5 secs oslt, so they could be even
> noticed before hitting enter.

Yeah, firefox does this pretty well.

> Of course configurability would be optimal
> choice - let everyone choose what level of focus stealing they want.

It's ... already there. :-) There's even a parameter that says "if I haven't 
typed in this many seconds, let apps steal the focus."

You might want to download TweakUI from Microsoft and look at all the stuff 
it makes easy to configure.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 
> Except you can turn that off at the window manager level, and it works
> almost 100% of the time.  With Vista, it works mainly when you didn't
> want it to work in the first place, somehow.

Ahh, I'll just need to find it. But running has more meaning if I know
there's a goal.

> It's ... already there. :-) There's even a parameter that says "if I
> haven't typed in this many seconds, let apps steal the focus."
> 
> You might want to download TweakUI from Microsoft and look at all the
> stuff it makes easy to configure.

I actually have used it (not sure if my work-laptop has it right now),
but never noticed such a choice. I'll need to check it up on thursday,
thanks.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen wrote:
> I actually have used it (not sure if my work-laptop has it right now),
> but never noticed such a choice. I'll need to check it up on thursday,
> thanks.

Sure thing. It's labeled something pretty obvious in the left pane, saying 
something about "focus". Just numpad-* at the top of the left pane and 
scroll down until you see it. I don't know exactly what top-level heading 
it's under.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 00:49:59 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>  
did spake thusly:

Not necessarily Vista only, but I've just got annoyed with a laptop  
downloading some AV update conking out because it went to sleep. I thought  
the point was it only did that when it wasn't doing anything; I'd say  
downloading counted as 'something'. Doubly annoying as the laptop's been  
disconnected from the 'net for a month so it's a huge update; and it had  
to restart from scratch.

Oh and yes the other laptop's screensaver still won't kick in when  
connected to a Microsoft mouse despite the 'fix'.

The latest nice bit was installing a 02 3G mobile modem that required UAC  
to be turned off before it'd install, thus requiring two reboots  
bookending the installation.

My current favourite is the resolution of an error from Microsoft  
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/950375/en-us/ 'Just ignore it' would have  
been a much shorter entry.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> And lo On Sat, 03 Jan 2009 00:49:59 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> 
> did spake thusly:
> 
> Not necessarily Vista only, but I've just got annoyed with a laptop 
> downloading some AV update conking out because it went to sleep. I 
> thought the point was it only did that when it wasn't doing anything; 
> I'd say downloading counted as 'something'.

Well, I think it's not supposed to sleep based on the timer, yes. It's 
usually some set of interrupts that restart the timer (as in, keyboard, 
mouse, disk, and network perhaps?)  Maybe if the download was being buffered 
in memory before being written out, and the network interrupt wasn't 
configured to keep your machine awake for some reason...?

I *do* know they reworked that whole part for Vista due to the complaints of 
programs and drivers needlessly turning off sleep capabilities.  People were 
tired of closing the lid on the laptop, only to open it a few hours later to 
see a dead battery and an "are you sure" dialog box. :-)

> The latest nice bit was installing a 02 3G mobile modem that required 
> UAC to be turned off before it'd install, thus requiring two reboots 
> bookending the installation.

Lots of broken stuff out there isn't the fault of Vista. You *could* have 
just logged in as the administrator in the first place, you know. :-)

> My current favourite is the resolution of an error from Microsoft 
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/950375/en-us/ 'Just ignore it' would 
> have been a much shorter entry.

Except that lots of people use Windows in real industrial settings where 
they actually monitor such things, ya know. If you get a pager alert every 
time something fails, "just ignore it" isn't a good answer.

I was amused when I found this one. I don't think you get a clearer answer 
than this:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/824511


-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 
> Make too much stuff configurable, and you wind up with Linux user
> friendliness.
> 

Exactly. That's one of the main reasons I haven't used Windows at home
for years.

-Aero

Post a reply to this message