Hello Raymund,
Friday, February 4, 2011, 11:48:59 PM, you wrote:
RT> I had that problem on three different PCs now. It always was the DMA
RT> mode. For some reasons Windows believed the disk wasn't able to do DMA
RT> and fall back to PIO which is incredibly slow.
RT> Check your controller if it
Hello Jernej,
Friday, February 4, 2011, 1:00:51 PM, you wrote:
JS> Make sure your hard drive isn't dying - slow boot up is often a
JS> symptom of that (of course, if that VPN software you installed has
JS> broken drivers, that's not Windows' problem). I don't have any XP
JS> machines anymore (ex
Hi Mark,
> This PC (XP): 8 minutes to boot. Sometimes it takes 3 boots
> before it starts up, because it hangs twice (almost at the
> end of booting).
I had that problem on three different PCs now. It always was the DMA
mode. For some reasons Windows believed the disk wasn't able to do DMA
and
On Thursday, February 3, 2011, 16:32:34, Mark Partous wrote:
> This PC (XP): 8 minutes to boot. Sometimes it takes 3 boots
> before it starts up, because it hangs twice (almost at the
> end of booting). If that happens I have lost half an hour. Problem
> first occurred after Professional insuran
On Thursday, February 3, 2011, 3:10:05 PM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> You can't fatten a tiger for Easter :-)
why not? my house cats always get fat
--
Dwight A. Corrin
316.303.9385 phone ahead to fax
dcorrin at fastmail.fm
photo galleries at http://dcorrin.smugmug.com
photo blog at htt
Hello Jeff,
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 21:10:05 + GMT (04/Feb/11, 4:10 AM +0700 GMT),
Jeff Gaines wrote:
>> According to a news-item I was lead to believe that many Chinese
>> have bought / will buy a rabbit now.
>> Was there any particular reason why they did not do that with last year's
>> animal
Hello Mark
On Thursday, February 3, 2011, 7:19:24 PM, you wrote:
> According to a news-item I was lead to believe that many Chinese
> have bought / will buy a rabbit now.
> Was there any particular reason why they did not do that with last year's
> animal? :-)
You can't fatten a tiger for Eas
Hello Thomas,
Thursday, February 3, 2011, 5:09:10 PM, you wrote:
TF> Happy New Year of the Rabbit to all! :-)
According to a news-item I was lead to believe that many Chinese have bought /
will buy a rabbit now.
Was there any particular reason why they did not do that with last year's
animal
On Thursday, February 3, 2011, 16:35:38, Jonathan Bayer wrote:
> You may work in a corporate environment, but half the world is not
> corporate. I include small businesses in that.
What's small business for you? We mostly deal with small businesses
(3-30 computers, most under 10).
> Configurati
On Thursday, February 3, 2011, 15:58:08, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> Not in the Program Files directory since the days of Vista though!
Actually, Program Files never was the right place for configuration
(or any other kind of volatile data) - even Windows NT 4 (released in
1996) did not let non-admin us
Hello Jernej,
Thursday, February 3, 2011, 6:39:12 AM, you wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 2, 2011, 21:59:04, Jonathan Bayer wrote:
>> Hello Jernej,
>> Wednesday, February 2, 2011, 3:46:51 PM, you wrote:
>>> Err, what's the point of Registry then?
>> Something to hide parameters, configuration it
Hello Mark,
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 16:38:31 +0100 GMT (03/Feb/11, 22:38 PM +0700 GMT),
Mark Partous wrote:
MP> Are there people who read all pages of a law-book when they only
MP> need the text of some sections of the law?
I read all of the pages of a contract even if I only need some
sections. That
Hallo Jonathan,
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 10:35:38 -0500GMT (3-2-2011, 16:35, where I live),
you wrote:
JBB> indows when it is necessary and appropriate, and recommend Linux the
JBB> same way
JBB> JBB
JBB> I will agree that it is much better than the days of 9x, but it
JBB> Thursday, February 3, 20
Hello Jernej,
Thursday, February 3, 2011, 3:49:36 PM, you wrote:
JS> Who says all data is loaded?
It is being read, isn't it?
Are there people who read all pages of a law-book when they only need the text
of some sections of the law?
--
Best Wishes,
Mark
using Th
Hello Jernej,
You may work in a corporate environment, but half the world is not
corporate. I include small businesses in that.
Configuration files are not written to that often, so your comment
about flushing misuscule changes is irrelevent.
I'd rather have a single conf file corrupted rather
Hello Jeff,
Thursday, February 3, 2011, 3:58:08 PM, you wrote:
JG> Windows may be daft but it's not that daft :-)
JG> The registry is only read when data is needed from it, admittedly quite a
lot at boot time, but after that only when a program needs it.
JG> I have to say I long for the days
Hello Mark
On Thursday, February 3, 2011, 1:32:33 PM, you wrote:
> Reading / loading the data of all programs that reside on a
> computer at startup is overkill, particularly those programs
> of which one knows, even at the time they are being installed,
> that they will only be used a few ti
Hello MFPA,
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 19:36:00 + GMT (03/Feb/11, 2:36 AM +0700 GMT),
MFPA wrote:
>> Are we ready for a bug report yet? Or at least a
>> wish-list item for user-friendliness? ;-)
M> A wish list item makes sense to me. I have one about search strings at
M> https://www.ritlabs.com/bt
On Thursday, February 3, 2011, 14:32:33, Mark Partous wrote:
> Reading / loading the data of all programs that reside on a
> computer at startup is overkill, particularly those programs
> of which one knows, even at the time they are being installed,
> that they will only be used a few times (
Hello Jernej,
Thursday, February 3, 2011, 12:39:12 PM, you wrote:
JS> Times of Windows 9x and it's fragile registry are long in the past. I
JS> haven't seen registry corruption (that wasn't a direct result of
JS> hardware failure) on Windows 2000 or newer. If everything that's
JS> currently read
On Wednesday, February 2, 2011, 21:59:04, Jonathan Bayer wrote:
> Hello Jernej,
> Wednesday, February 2, 2011, 3:46:51 PM, you wrote:
>> Err, what's the point of Registry then?
> Something to hide parameters, configuration items, etc from the
> general user. It is fragile, and the system won't bo
Hello Jernej,
Wednesday, February 2, 2011, 3:46:51 PM, you wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 2, 2011, 20:36:00, MFPA wrote:
>> but also believe such
>> settings should be stored in the software's own settings files rather
>> than clogging up the registry.
> Err, what's the point of Registry the
Hello Jernej,
Wednesday, February 2, 2011, 9:46:51 PM, you wrote:
JS> Err, what's the point of Registry then?
There isn't any! :-)
--
Best Wishes,
Mark
using The Bat! 4.2.33.1 Beta
32 days remaining in 2010.
Actually it's 33 days) + less than 24 hours.
Yours truly
On Wednesday, February 2, 2011, 20:36:00, MFPA wrote:
> but also believe such
> settings should be stored in the software's own settings files rather
> than clogging up the registry.
Err, what's the point of Registry then?
--
< Jernej Simončič ><><><><>< http://eternallybored.org/ >
The publ
Hi
On Wednesday 2 February 2011 at 3:07:28 PM, in
, Thomas Fernandez
wrote:
> As a user I object to having to hack the registry. This
> should be possible from within the user interface of
> the software.
I agree it should be in the user interface but also believe such
settings should be store
Hello MFPA,
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 02:48:32 + GMT (02/Feb/11, 9:48 AM +0700 GMT),
MFPA wrote:
>> I can add more by clicking on the "New Condition" button below
>> that. However, I cannot reduce the number of conditions to only
>> three or two.
M> For 4.0.38 this can be achieved by editing the re
Hello all,
Wednesday, February 2, 2011, Dwight Corrin wrote:
> What is really the problem is that you can search for A and B and C,
> or you can search for A or B or C
> but there is no way to search for A and B and C or D
there are 3 modes for searching in Message Finder, swtich from this
"Simp
On Tuesday, February 1, 2011, 7:51:06 PM, Thomas Fernandez wrote:
> In fact, no we are talking about different things. You have just
> described "search string".
> I have four "search conditions". These are:
> Header contains
> Sender contains
> Subject contains
> Text contains
> I can add more
Hi
On Wednesday 2 February 2011 at 1:51:06 AM, in
, Thomas
Fernandez wrote:
> Hello MFPA,
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 00:18:18 + GMT (02/Feb/11, 7:18
> AM +0700 GMT), MFPA wrote:
>>> I think we are talking about different things. I am
>>> talking about search conditions (and header contains
>>>
Hello MFPA,
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 00:18:18 + GMT (02/Feb/11, 7:18 AM +0700 GMT),
MFPA wrote:
>> I think we are talking about different things. I am
>> talking about search conditions (and header contains or
>> text contains etc) while you are talking about search
>> strings, methinks.
M> We a
Hi
On Tuesday 1 February 2011 at 2:20:26 AM, in
, Thomas
Fernandez wrote:
> Hello MFPA,
> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:57:33 + GMT (01/Feb/11, 2:57
> AM +0700 GMT), MFPA wrote:
>>> I have ever only set up two, and only these two
>>> conditions will be displayed.
M>> I didn't "set up" anything,
Hello Thomas,
On Tuesday, February 01, 2011 you wrote:
TF> Hello Jack,
TF> On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:24:32 -0600 GMT (31/Jan/11, 22:24 PM +0700 GMT),
TF> Jack S. LaRosa wrote:
RT Well, there is a button on the right hand side of the edit field of
RT the condition. It is labeled '-'.
TF>>>
Hello Jack,
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 09:24:32 -0600 GMT (31/Jan/11, 22:24 PM +0700 GMT),
Jack S. LaRosa wrote:
RT>>> Well, there is a button on the right hand side of the edit field of
RT>>> the condition. It is labeled '-'.
TF>> Yes, but: The next time I open Search, the deleted items is shown
TF>>
Hello MFPA,
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 19:57:33 + GMT (01/Feb/11, 2:57 AM +0700 GMT),
MFPA wrote:
>> I have ever only set up two, and only these two conditions will be
>> displayed.
M> I didn't "set up" anything, just did some message searches and then
M> later found they had been retained in a "hi
Hi
On Monday 31 January 2011 at 2:10:41 PM, in
, Thomas Fernandez
wrote:
> I have ever only set up two, and
> only these two conditions will be displayed.
I didn't "set up" anything, just did some message searches and then
later found they had been retained in a "history" without my
permissi
Hello Thomas,
On Monday, January 31, 2011 you wrote:
TF> Hello Raymund,
TF> On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 12:56:21 +0100 GMT (30/Jan/11, 18:56 PM +0700 GMT),
TF> Raymund Tump wrote:
>>> In the Message Finder, there is a "New Condition" button to increase
>>> the number of search conditions. Is there a wa
Test for On---
On Monday, January 31, 2011, at 8:04:39 AM, Jernej Simončič wrote:
> The Search window will always display at least 4 conditions when opened.
I get only one condition when I open the message finder from the toolbar.
--
Jim Kyle
Using The Bat! v4.2.36.4 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2
Hello Jernej,
On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:04:39 +0100 GMT (31/Jan/11, 21:04 PM +0700 GMT),
Jernej Simončič wrote:
>> Yes, but: The next time I open Search, the deleted items is shown
>> again.
JS> The Search window will always display at least 4 conditions when
JS> opened.
Not true: On one of my oth
On Monday, January 31, 2011, 14:19:18, Thomas Fernandez wrote:
> Yes, but: The next time I open Search, the deleted items is shown
> again.
The Search window will always display at least 4 conditions when
opened.
--
< Jernej Simončič ><><><><>< http://eternallybored.org/ >
Build a system that
Hello Raymund,
On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 12:56:21 +0100 GMT (30/Jan/11, 18:56 PM +0700 GMT),
Raymund Tump wrote:
>> In the Message Finder, there is a "New Condition" button to increase
>> the number of search conditions. Is there a way to reduce the number
>> other than editing the registry?
RT> Well,
Hi
On Sunday 30 January 2011 at 9:16:37 PM, in
, Marek Mikus wrote:
> all history entries including Message Finder are stored
> in Account.his file
Thank you - search strings are present in plain text in account.his.
Windows's search function is very poor at looking for text contained
in a
Hello all,
Sunday, January 30, 2011, MFPA wrote:
> In the absence of this option, I don't suppose you have any idea where
> TB! stores these search strings? I have searched without success for
> the text string and the hex string, in files and in the registry.
all history entries including Messag
Hi
On Sunday 30 January 2011 at 11:56:21 AM, in
, Raymund Tump wrote:
> Well, there is a button on the right hand side of the
> edit field of the condition. It is labeled '-'.
That must be the enhancement Marek says was introduced in v4.2.12.
I'll see that when I am able to upgrade.
>> How
Hi
On Sunday 30 January 2011 at 12:01:19 PM, in
, Marek Mikus wrote:
> Hello all, Sunday, January 30, 2011, MFPA wrote:
>> Is
>> there a way to reduce the number other than editing
>> the registry?
> yes, since v4.2.12
That's good to hear; I look forward to not having to do this in
Regedit w
Hi MFPA,
> In the Message Finder, there is a "New Condition" button to increase
> the number of search conditions. Is there a way to reduce the number
> other than editing the registry?
Well, there is a button on the right hand side of the edit field of
the condition. It is labeled '-'.
> How do
Hello all,
Sunday, January 30, 2011, MFPA wrote:
> In the Message Finder, there is a "New Condition" button to increase
> the number of search conditions. Is there a way to reduce the number
> other than editing the registry?
yes, since v4.2.12
> Under Edit | Use previous conditions there is a l
Hi
In the Message Finder, there is a "New Condition" button to increase
the number of search conditions. Is there a way to reduce the number
other than editing the registry?
Under Edit | Use previous conditions there is a list of previous
search conditions. How do I delete the items from this li
47 matches
Mail list logo
