Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.laptops > #1086 > unrolled thread

scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.laptops

Contents

  scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2012-01-31 12:58 -0800
    Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help retsuhcs@xinap.moc (Mike S.) - 2012-01-31 21:18 +0000
      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2012-01-31 13:30 -0800
        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2012-01-31 19:09 -0800
      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2012-01-31 14:44 -0800
    Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-01-31 15:33 -0600
      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-01-31 16:07 -0600
        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Dirk T. Verbeek" <dverbeek@xs4all.nl> - 2012-02-01 14:45 +0100
      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-01-31 23:55 +0100
        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> - 2012-02-01 04:17 -0800
          Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-01 17:08 -0600
            Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> - 2012-02-01 18:33 -0800
            Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2012-02-06 12:07 +0000
      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2012-02-06 11:29 +0000
        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra <GeorgeTirebiter@drmemory.org> - 2012-02-06 04:12 -0800
        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2012-02-06 12:46 +0000
          Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-06 11:09 -0600
            Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 12:42 -0800
        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-06 12:00 -0600
          Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2012-02-06 12:51 -0600
            Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-06 15:57 -0600
              Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 17:34 -0500
                Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-06 17:20 -0600
                  Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 21:03 -0500
                  Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> - 2012-02-06 15:40 -0800
                Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Harry Vaderchi" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2012-02-23 09:08 +0000
              Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-07 01:38 +0100
                Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-07 17:34 -0600
                  Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2012-02-07 19:10 -0500
                    Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-07 18:26 -0600
                      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Alias <aka@maskedandanonymous.net.invlad> - 2012-02-08 01:30 +0100
                      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> - 2012-02-07 16:59 -0800
                        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-07 19:49 -0600
                      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-08 06:38 +0100
                  Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help FatBytestard <PhatBytestard@somewheronyourharddrive.org> - 2012-02-07 18:44 -0800
                    Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-07 21:37 -0600
                      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2012-02-07 23:01 -0500
                        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-07 22:24 -0600
                          Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2012-02-08 00:10 -0500
                          Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@wizardstower> - 2012-02-08 00:20 -0600
                      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-08 06:44 +0100
                  Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-08 06:35 +0100
                Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-07 20:42 -0600
                  Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-08 06:57 +0100
          Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@wizardstower> - 2012-02-06 13:01 -0600
          Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> - 2012-02-06 23:18 +0000
            Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-06 17:39 -0600
              Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> - 2012-02-07 00:02 +0000
                Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-06 19:44 -0600
                  Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Dan C <youmustbejoking@lan.invalid> - 2012-02-07 02:31 +0000
                    Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2012-02-06 23:46 -0500
                    Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-07 17:10 -0600
                      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-08 07:05 +0100
                  Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@wizardstower> - 2012-02-06 23:48 -0600
                    Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-07 17:11 -0600
                      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra <GeorgeTirebiter@drmemory.org> - 2012-02-07 18:35 -0800
                        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-07 22:25 -0600
                          Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra <GeorgeTirebiter@drmemory.org> - 2012-02-07 21:45 -0800
                          Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Cybe R. Wizard" <cybe_r_wizard@wizardstower> - 2012-02-08 00:21 -0600
                      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-08 07:10 +0100
                  Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-07 09:26 +0100
              Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-07 01:46 +0100
              Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2012-02-06 23:43 -0500
                Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-07 09:40 +0100
                Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-07 17:11 -0600
                  Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-08 07:34 +0100
                    Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> - 2012-02-12 06:15 -0800
                      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "olfart" <olfart65@excite.com> - 2012-02-12 10:17 -0500
                        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Bob_Villa <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> - 2012-02-12 07:34 -0800
                Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2012-02-08 17:18 +0000
    Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help MarkA <someone@somewhere.invalid> - 2012-02-01 14:45 -0500
      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2012-02-01 12:25 -0800
        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help Aragorn <stryder@telenet.be.invalid> - 2012-02-01 22:02 +0100
    Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2012-02-01 22:06 +0000
      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2012-02-01 17:57 -0500
      Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2012-02-01 15:12 -0800
        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> - 2012-02-01 18:55 -0600
          Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2012-02-01 17:08 -0800
        Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat) - 2012-02-06 12:08 +0000
          Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help The_Giant_Rat_of_Sumatra <GeorgeTirebiter@drmemory.org> - 2012-02-06 04:15 -0800
            Re: scan apps fail to detect scanner device with headset plugged in - please help "Adam" <adam@no_thanks.com> - 2012-02-06 13:35 -0800

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#1135

On Tuesday 07 February 2012 02:44, BillW50 conveyed the following to 
alt.os.linux.ubuntu...

> On 2/6/2012 6:02 PM, Dan C wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:39:04 -0600, BillW50 wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/6/2012 5:18 PM, Dan C wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:00:10 -0600, BillW50 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Running Windows XP on a EeePC 701/2 with an external 1440x900
>>>>> monitor, it plays full screen videos and doesn't miss a beat.
>>>>> Trying Linux with the same exact hardware and it plays the same
>>>>> videos one fricken frame per 5 seconds. How wonderful! No video,
>>>>> just a slide show.
>>>>
>>>> Awwww, look!  Yet *another* drooling fucking ignorant stooge of a
>>>> Win- droid pops in to spew some drivel.
>>>>
>>>> Or is it just another nymshift of an existing troll-boi?
>>>>
>>>> Either way, bugger off, Win-droid troll.
>>>
>>> Ah... a true Linux zealot! Linux can never do anything wrong and if
>>> anybody believes that it can, it is always the users fault. How
>>> wonderful your life must be. Stay away from reality and life is just
>>> wonderful!
>>
>> Yes, I do have an excellent life, and it is firmly grounded in
>> reality. I also don't have trouble doing things with Linux, probably
>> because my IQ is MUCH higher than yours appears to be.
> 
> Really? Mine is 150. The same as Albert Einstein (which by the way
> isn't really that high).

This may come as a shock to you - and undoubtedly, to many US Americans 
here, even though it is not intended as an insult - but there is a 
discrepancy between US American IQ ratings and the international IQ 
ratings, due to the fact that the US American IQ meridian was calibrated 
against the US American population only.

On both scales, the meridian is always calibrated to be 100, but for IQs 
ranging between 100 and 115 on the international scale, the US American 
can reach a skew of up to 15 points.  So a person with an IQ of 115 on 
the European scale would score 130 on the US American scale.  Above 115, 
the skew is even bigger.

That said, I have always heard Albert Einstein's IQ to be 148, on the 
international scale.  150 is close enough to that - IQ test results can 
vary - but a US American IQ score of 150 isn't anywhere near the 
international IQ score of 150.  It would be more like somewhere between 
130 and 135.  Mind you, that is still a _very_ good score.

> And everything I have ever heard he ever said, I understand
> completely.

As do I.  I've also read Stephen Hawking's book "The Universe In A 
Nutshell" in one go - twice, but not on the same day, of course - 
although I must admit that I had given it two earlier tries when the 
book first came into my possession and I initially couldn't get past the 
first two chapters, but that was because Hawking - even though he does 
try to explain things rather well - on occasion forgets to explain 
things which may be obvious to a mathematician, but not quite so obvious 
to a layman.

> Although I don't agree with everything he ever said. Like for example
> he said nothing can travel faster than light. But even Einstein knew
> about what he called spooky actions at a distance and that traveled
> instantaneously.

No, that is not travel.  That's quantum entanglement.  Travel can only 
take place within the spacetime continuum, because at the quantum level, 
distance does not exist, and both space and time are "distances".

Einstein did not understand quantum entanglement at the time because 
quantum physics was still in its very early infancy.  So Einstein's 
solution was to explain "the spooky action at a distance" by way of a 
wormhole, which bridges two distant points in spacetime by way of a 
shortcut, in the form of a spacetime tunnel that itself runs through 
hyperspace.  

By connotation, this would mean that spacetime is curved, and in that, 
Einstein was correct, despite the fact that all experiments to measure 
or even observe the curve of spacetime have failed.  But then again, the 
reason why they have failed is because they are trying to measure or 
observe the curvature of spacetime from within spacetime itself.  That 
will never work, of course.  If spacetime is curved, then we ourselves 
would never notice it.  But the existence of wormholes - which has long 
been denied but now again revisited - proves that spacetime is indeed 
curved, and only forms a single "physical reality" among many other 
parallel realities in a hyperdimensional "hyperspace".

>>> Unfortunately some of us can't live with our head in the sand and
>>> must deal with reality. And dealing with reality, we must also deal
>>> with the problems that goes along with it.
>>
>> Yeah?  Well how about you take your bullshit made up problems over to
>> one of your Windoze newsgroups, and whine about how Linux sucks over
>> there? I'm sure they'll all agree with you and everyone can be happy!
>>
>> Or, how about you just fuck off and die, troll.  This is a Linux
>> newsgroup, and it's meant for those who actually *USE* Linux.
> 
> Really? First off I didn't cross post this message for starters. Nor
> do I want to be here (on the Linux side) because I know that dumbasses
> would reply. 

I guess I'd categorize as one of those "dumbasses" in your opinion, even 
though when you initially threw your obviously uninformed and 
misconstrued opinions on GNU/Linux into this thread, I set you straight 
on the facts, and you condescendingly told me that I could not 
substantiate my claims, which I subsequently did, thereby offering you 
the evidence that your opinions on GNU/Linux were all worthless.

> But this is reality and I must deal with it.

It is _one_ reality, yes - to stay with quantum physics.  But there is 
also such a thing as "subjective reality", and you've been given a wake-
up call about the subjectiveness of your reality view several times 
already now.

> And if you are as smart as you claim, you missed the boat *big* time.
> I hate Microsoft for one, and I hate anybody anybody who thinks I am.

That sentence does not grammatically compute.

> And second of all, if you were really smart, you would know this from
> the get go. So you can't be really smart as you claim, now can you?

I could not discern any hatred for Microsoft in your initial reply, nor 
in the follow-ups I've seen from you so far in the same thread.  I did 
however notice a very ostensible rejection of and hatred towards 
GNU/Linux, and even UNIX in general.

If anything, you were sending out the message that you absolutely 
_prefer_ Microsoft Windows over any other operating system in existence.  
And if I noticed that, then so did everyone else.  So you are now 
weaseling out of your own words.

> P.S. Once I was visiting some relative in the hospital who shared a
> room with a very old lady. I was very young back then and a grandchild
> or a nephew or something visited that older lady. What he was saying
> was really negative about the hospital, doctors, and everything.
> Everybody but me saw him as a super pain in the ass. Although I saw
> him differently and I saw him as a super smart individual. And
> everything he said I completely understood (others didn't get it).
> 
> I never interactive with him and I thought there would be a next time.
> But he never visited again while I was at the hospital. The older lady
> would apologize by saying that he is super smart and well meaning and
> all. But he rubs people the wrong way. [...]

Sounds like Asperger Syndrome.  And this is why I prefer to refer to 
myself as a high-functioning autistic rather than an Aspie.  Aspies do 
tend to sound terse and confrontational, even though they don't mean it 
that way.  I myself do get moments when people misconstrue my intent or 
tone, but this is rare.  

I generally get along fine with people.  Except with trolls, and we've 
got several of those in alt.os.linux.ubuntu already.

-- 
= Aragorn =
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1126

On Tuesday 07 February 2012 00:39, BillW50 conveyed the following to 
alt.os.linux.ubuntu...

> On 2/6/2012 5:18 PM, Dan C wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:00:10 -0600, BillW50 wrote:
>>
>>> Running Windows XP on a EeePC 701/2 with an external 1440x900
>>> monitor, it plays full screen videos and doesn't miss a beat. Trying
>>> Linux with the same exact hardware and it plays the same videos one
>>> fricken frame per 5 seconds. How wonderful! No video, just a slide
>>> show.
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> Awwww, look!  Yet *another* drooling fucking ignorant stooge of a
>> Win- droid pops in to spew some drivel.
>>
>> Or is it just another nymshift of an existing troll-boi?
>>
>> Either way, bugger off, Win-droid troll.
> 
> Ah... a true Linux zealot! Linux can never do anything wrong and if
> anybody believes that it can, it is always the users fault.

GNU/Linux isn't perfect, but nothing on this earth ever is, and when it 
comes to operating system technology, GNU/Linux is just about as good as 
it gets, and about 1'000 years worth of evolution more advanced than 
anything Microsoft can ever come up with.  That's why _real_ IT 
specialists prefer a UNIX-like operating system, be it a 
proprietary/commercial UNIX like Solaris, AIX, HP/UX or IRIX, or a Free 
& Open Source Software variant, like GNU/Linux or the various BSDs.

> How wonderful your life must be. Stay away from reality and life is
> just wonderful!

Maybe you should move a little /closer/ to reality instead.  You might 
actually learn something.

> Unfortunately some of us can't live with our head in the sand and must
> deal with reality. And dealing with reality, we must also deal with
> the problems that goes along with it.

You're not living in reality.  You don't even understand reality.  You 
live in Microsoft's make-believe "fake tits Barbie" world.  Either grow 
some neurons or stay with your MickeySoft toys, but make up your mind.  

You're spreading misinformation, and it's not the first time either.  If 
Wintendo is better for you, then stay with it, but then stop lying about 
your misunderstanding of technology.

-- 
= Aragorn =
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1130

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012, BillW50 wrote:

> On 2/6/2012 5:18 PM, Dan C wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:00:10 -0600, BillW50 wrote:
>> 
>>> Running Windows XP on a EeePC 701/2 with an external 1440x900 monitor,
>>> it plays full screen videos and doesn't miss a beat. Trying Linux with
>>> the same exact hardware and it plays the same videos one fricken frame
>>> per 5 seconds. How wonderful! No video, just a slide show.
>> 
>> <SNIP>
>> 
>> Awwww, look!  Yet *another* drooling fucking ignorant stooge of a Win-
>> droid pops in to spew some drivel.
>> 
>> Or is it just another nymshift of an existing troll-boi?
>> 
>> Either way, bugger off, Win-droid troll.
>
> Ah... a true Linux zealot! Linux can never do anything wrong and if anybody 
> believes that it can, it is always the users fault. How wonderful your life 
> must be. Stay away from reality and life is just wonderful!
>
> Unfortunately some of us can't live with our head in the sand and must deal 
> with reality. And dealing with reality, we must also deal with the problems 
> that goes along with it.
>
You seem to forget that 30 years ago, Unix appeared in the "hobby" 
computer magazines and was seen as The Thing to Get.

It had things that CP/M and MSDOS didn't have, such as multitasking and 
pipes and it was fairly easy to adapt to new hardware, and of course to 
scale up.  It was already ten years old about the point where it first 
appeared in the magazines, making it more stable than what was appearing.

It was also a time of lots of operating systems, not just CP/M and slowly 
MSDOS, but still lots of odd operating systems that were inherent to a 
given small computer.  CP/M only united things if you were running a 
computer with an 8080, it was way too difficult to port.  Relatively few 
applications fitted more than one operating system, so of course you had 
to match the application with the operating system.

Unix was portable, the problem was it expensive, as was the hardware to 
drive it.  But right from the start, there were "unix-like" operating 
systems.

Microware OS-9 for the 6809 arrived about 1981, multi-user, 
multitasking, included pipes and much of the general concept of Unix, but 
not compatible.

I got my third computer, a Radio Shack Color Computer, in 1984, because it 
would run OS-9, and that was within my reach.  27 years ago I had some of 
what users of Unix had.


There were endless Unix clones, some close or identical in operation, some 
only vaguely like it.  Unix was coming to the commercial segment, so there 
were regular reviews in Byte about the latest Unix system, puny systems in 
retrospect but large at the time.  There were lots of books about Unix by 
the end of the eighties, a good portion of them were about using Unix, 
since there were far more users than administrators.

I remember when "MSDOS' was improved, so it had more things that unix had, 
like pipes, and subdorectories, but still no multi-tasking, though you 
could add things that would allow some of it in limited form.

Then 1986, Richard Stallman has his GNU Manifesto published in Dr. Dobbs. 
Wow, maybe we will get Unix.  But it took its time.  Then Dr. Dobbs runs 
an article about a complete sort of unix, I think it wsa 386BSD or 
something like that.  Of course, the hardware was still expensive, but 
less so than circa 1981.

Minix comes along, buy the book and you get the disk and while the package 
is about $80, you get a "unix-like" operating system.  It was available 
for the "IBM PC" but also the Atari ST.

About that time, I got a C compiler for the Atari ST. It didn't have 
anything to do with Unix, but the compiler clearly was derived from the 
Unix compiler, and the package did include a shell that was very much 
intended to be like a Unix shell.  It even included a subset of 
Emacs. That's when I started buying Unix books,  it was getting close.

Then suddenly there's talk of Linux, succeeding where GNU had stalled, 
though of course making use of the work done by the GNU foundation since
they had worked on making "free" versions of the utilities and such that 
did come with Unix. So Linus supplied the kernel, and GNU supplied the 
rest, and suddenly we had a free Unix that would run on reasonably priced 
equipment.  No, it took time to become more compatible, but it was there.

Unix was used early for typesetting, and so a lot of those tools migrated 
to other operating systems early.

I remember BBSs and the kludges they had to do to address more than a 
small amount of RAM, ot deal with Usenet, to have sort of multitasking. 
For all that period of BBSs, there was Unix out there doing the same thing 
without kludges.  Indeed, Fidonet may have been trying to emulate Usenet.

In 1996 I got full internet access, a "mainframe" running Linux.  It was a 
limited subset of Unix/Linux that I could use, yet those same tools, lynx 
the text only browser and Pine the mail/newsreader, I still use to this 
day, over fifteen years later.  When I finally did run Linux for the first 
time in mid-2001, I was less interested in spending money on new 
computers, so it took time for something decent to become cheap, I 
suddenly had what was "mainframe" 5 years before.

I got my first computer in 1979, a decade after I decided I wanted my own 
computer (I have no idea what I was thinking, since of course the concept 
didn't exist in 1969).  I waited 20 years from the first time I read about 
Unix till the time I actually ran it (well, Linux which derives from 
Unix).  In all that time I never ran MSDOS or Windows, except to sample 
them.  You could do that when you started early enough, you saw an initial 
field of all kinds of different computers competing and running different 
software, so the idea that "everyone must run Windows" is a foreign 
concept.

When I was given this hand me down computer in 2003, I had Windows off it 
within 2 days, deciding it didn't matter and I don't care, and I don't 
want it.  When I got a netbook in 2008, it was right when the ones with 
hard drives and Windows were coming in, I deliberately chose to get one of 
the older ones that came with Linux.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1136

On Tuesday 07 February 2012 05:43, Michael Black conveyed the following 
to alt.os.linux.ubuntu...

> On Mon, 6 Feb 2012, BillW50 wrote:
> 
>> Unfortunately some of us can't live with our head in the sand and
>> must deal with reality. And dealing with reality, we must also deal
>> with the problems that goes along with it.
>>
> You seem to forget that 30 years ago, Unix appeared in the "hobby"
> computer magazines and was seen as The Thing to Get.
> 
> It had things that CP/M and MSDOS didn't have, such as multitasking
> and pipes and it was fairly easy to adapt to new hardware, and of
> course to scale up.  It was already ten years old about the point
> where it first appeared in the magazines, making it more stable than
> what was appearing.
> 
> [...]
> When I was given this hand me down computer in 2003, I had Windows off
> it within 2 days, deciding it didn't matter and I don't care, and I
> don't want it.  When I got a netbook in 2008, it was right when the
> ones with hard drives and Windows were coming in, I deliberately chose
> to get one of the older ones that came with Linux.

Excellent post.  Thank you. ;-)

-- 
= Aragorn =
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1138

Michael Black wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2012, BillW50 wrote:
> 
>> On 2/6/2012 5:18 PM, Dan C wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:00:10 -0600, BillW50 wrote:
>>>
>>>> Running Windows XP on a EeePC 701/2 with an external 1440x900 monitor,
>>>> it plays full screen videos and doesn't miss a beat. Trying Linux with
>>>> the same exact hardware and it plays the same videos one fricken frame
>>>> per 5 seconds. How wonderful! No video, just a slide show.
>>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> Awwww, look!  Yet *another* drooling fucking ignorant stooge of a Win-
>>> droid pops in to spew some drivel.
>>>
>>> Or is it just another nymshift of an existing troll-boi?
>>>
>>> Either way, bugger off, Win-droid troll.
>>
>> Ah... a true Linux zealot! Linux can never do anything wrong and if 
>> anybody believes that it can, it is always the users fault. How 
>> wonderful your life must be. Stay away from reality and life is just 
>> wonderful!
>>
>> Unfortunately some of us can't live with our head in the sand and must 
>> deal with reality. And dealing with reality, we must also deal with 
>> the problems that goes along with it.
>>
> You seem to forget that 30 years ago, Unix appeared in the "hobby" 
> computer magazines and was seen as The Thing to Get.

No I remember.

> It had things that CP/M and MSDOS didn't have, such as multitasking and 
> pipes and it was fairly easy to adapt to new hardware, and of course to 
> scale up.  It was already ten years old about the point where it first 
> appeared in the magazines, making it more stable than what was appearing.
> 
> It was also a time of lots of operating systems, not just CP/M and 
> slowly MSDOS, but still lots of odd operating systems that were inherent 
> to a given small computer.  CP/M only united things if you were running 
> a computer with an 8080, it was way too difficult to port.  Relatively 
> few applications fitted more than one operating system, so of course you 
> had to match the application with the operating system.

And Linux is doing the CP/M thing all over again. Just because an
application is available for Linux, it doesn't mean it will run under
your Linux. I hated that about CP/M and I hate that for Linux. And the
way I see it, Linux will never get out of the niche arena until this is
fixed.

> Unix was portable, the problem was it expensive, as was the hardware to 
> drive it.  But right from the start, there were "unix-like" operating 
> systems.
> 
> Microware OS-9 for the 6809 arrived about 1981, multi-user, 
> multitasking, included pipes and much of the general concept of Unix, 
> but not compatible.
> 
> I got my third computer, a Radio Shack Color Computer, in 1984, because 
> it would run OS-9, and that was within my reach.  27 years ago I had 
> some of what users of Unix had.

I was more interested back then with RT-11, CP/M 2.2 and 3, and MS-DOS
myself.

> There were endless Unix clones, some close or identical in operation, 
> some only vaguely like it.  Unix was coming to the commercial segment, 
> so there were regular reviews in Byte about the latest Unix system, puny 
> systems in retrospect but large at the time.  There were lots of books 
> about Unix by the end of the eighties, a good portion of them were about 
> using Unix, since there were far more users than administrators.
> 
> I remember when "MSDOS' was improved, so it had more things that unix 
> had, like pipes, and subdorectories, but still no multi-tasking, though 
> you could add things that would allow some of it in limited form.
> 
> Then 1986, Richard Stallman has his GNU Manifesto published in Dr. 
> Dobbs. Wow, maybe we will get Unix.  But it took its time.  Then Dr. 
> Dobbs runs an article about a complete sort of unix, I think it wsa 
> 386BSD or something like that.  Of course, the hardware was still 
> expensive, but less so than circa 1981.
> 
> Minix comes along, buy the book and you get the disk and while the 
> package is about $80, you get a "unix-like" operating system.  It was 
> available for the "IBM PC" but also the Atari ST.
> 
> About that time, I got a C compiler for the Atari ST. It didn't have 
> anything to do with Unix, but the compiler clearly was derived from the 
> Unix compiler, and the package did include a shell that was very much 
> intended to be like a Unix shell.  It even included a subset of Emacs. 
> That's when I started buying Unix books,  it was getting close.
> 
> Then suddenly there's talk of Linux, succeeding where GNU had stalled, 
> though of course making use of the work done by the GNU foundation since
> they had worked on making "free" versions of the utilities and such that 
> did come with Unix. So Linus supplied the kernel, and GNU supplied the 
> rest, and suddenly we had a free Unix that would run on reasonably 
> priced equipment.  No, it took time to become more compatible, but it 
> was there.
> 
> Unix was used early for typesetting, and so a lot of those tools 
> migrated to other operating systems early.
> 
> I remember BBSs and the kludges they had to do to address more than a 
> small amount of RAM, ot deal with Usenet, to have sort of multitasking. 
> For all that period of BBSs, there was Unix out there doing the same 
> thing without kludges.  Indeed, Fidonet may have been trying to emulate 
> Usenet.
> 
> In 1996 I got full internet access, a "mainframe" running Linux.  It was 
> a limited subset of Unix/Linux that I could use, yet those same tools, 
> lynx the text only browser and Pine the mail/newsreader, I still use to 
> this day, over fifteen years later.  When I finally did run Linux for 
> the first time in mid-2001, I was less interested in spending money on 
> new computers, so it took time for something decent to become cheap, I 
> suddenly had what was "mainframe" 5 years before.
> 
> I got my first computer in 1979, a decade after I decided I wanted my 
> own computer (I have no idea what I was thinking, since of course the 
> concept didn't exist in 1969).  I waited 20 years from the first time I 
> read about Unix till the time I actually ran it (well, Linux which 
> derives from Unix).  In all that time I never ran MSDOS or Windows, 
> except to sample them.  You could do that when you started early enough, 
> you saw an initial field of all kinds of different computers competing 
> and running different software, so the idea that "everyone must run 
> Windows" is a foreign concept.
> 
> When I was given this hand me down computer in 2003, I had Windows off 
> it within 2 days, deciding it didn't matter and I don't care, and I 
> don't want it.  When I got a netbook in 2008, it was right when the ones 
> with hard drives and Windows were coming in, I deliberately chose to get 
> one of the older ones that came with Linux.
> 
>   Michael

Wow, I guess you don't know then. Back in the 70's, my mentors were
saying to pick the applications that you want to run. Then pick the OS
that would run them. And Unix never came up for me. CP/M and MS-DOS had
the applications that I wanted to run. So it was so obvious for me.
Later, Windows had applications I wanted to run. Picking the OS first,
is a terrible way! I know, I have tried that too. You miss out on so
much doing things that way.

I don't know what kind of netbook you got. But Asus EeePC 700 series was
the first netbooks which started back in 2007. And they only had Xandros
installed on them. But they also came with Windows XP drivers for them.
And most people dumped Linux and installed their own Windows on them.
Later Asus started selling them with either Windows XP or Xandros. And
the Windows ones had taken off and selling like hotcakes. And the ones
with Linux, just didn't sell. And it didn't take long before you
couldn't buy a netbook with Linux. There is so little demand for Linux
netbooks they just faded away.

I wish I could go back to Xandros instead of this Ubuntu. As Ubuntu is
so bloated compared to Xandros. This Ubuntu pushes the CPU usually at
50% CPU usage just by using USENET. That is just as bad as Windows 7 did
when I threw it on one of these things (yes I have a bunch of EeePCs).
Although I can't go back to Xandros unless I recompile the kernel. As
that kernel only supports up to FF2 and TB1.5. And browsing with FF2 is
far worse than using IE6 for websites.

Since you avoided Windows in your life. I can tell you that there is so
much more available under Windows than there is for Linux. For example,
Linux only does 5% of what I want to do vs. Windows XP which does 100%.
Big difference, eh? And Linux drivers and applications are so plain jane
without much features compared to Windows.

-- 
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Ubuntu 9.10 Netbook Remix Linux

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1163

On Wednesday 08 February 2012 00:11, BillW50 conveyed the following to 
alt.os.linux.ubuntu...

> I wish I could go back to Xandros instead of this Ubuntu. As Ubuntu is
> so bloated compared to Xandros. This Ubuntu pushes the CPU usually at
> 50% CPU usage just by using USENET.

If that is the case, then there is something seriously wrong, and I 
suspect that you've got a stuck process somewhere eating up all your CPU 
cycles.  It happens sometimes.

One possible cause might be that you didn't check the md5sums on the 
CD/DVD images you downloaded before you burned them.  They must _always_ 
be identical to the ones on the website.  If not, then the download was 
corrupted.

> That is just as bad as Windows 7 did when I threw it on one of these
> things (yes I have a bunch of EeePCs). Although I can't go back to
> Xandros unless I recompile the kernel. As that kernel only supports up
> to FF2 and TB1.5.

That has nothing to do with the kernel.  It /could/ (and probably would) 
however be related to the version of glibc.  

Just about everything in userspace uses the central UNIX C library, 
which in GNU/Linux is GNU libc - or "glibc" in short.  Running a system 
with too old a glibc will prevent you from using more recent software.

-- 
= Aragorn =
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1169

On Feb 8, 12:34 am, Aragorn <stry...@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 February 2012 00:11, BillW50 conveyed the following to
> alt.os.linux.ubuntu...
>
> > I wish I could go back to Xandros instead of this Ubuntu. As Ubuntu is
> > so bloated compared to Xandros. This Ubuntu pushes the CPU usually at
> > 50% CPU usage just by using USENET.
>
> If that is the case, then there is something seriously wrong, and I
> suspect that you've got a stuck process somewhere eating up all your CPU
> cycles.  It happens sometimes.
>
> One possible cause might be that you didn't check the md5sums on the
> CD/DVD images you downloaded before you burned them.  They must _always_
> be identical to the ones on the website.  If not, then the download was
> corrupted.
>
> > That is just as bad as Windows 7 did when I threw it on one of these
> > things (yes I have a bunch of EeePCs). Although I can't go back to
> > Xandros unless I recompile the kernel. As that kernel only supports up
> > to FF2 and TB1.5.
>
> That has nothing to do with the kernel.  It /could/ (and probably would)
> however be related to the version of glibc.
>
> Just about everything in userspace uses the central UNIX C library,
> which in GNU/Linux is GNU libc - or "glibc" in short.  Running a system
> with too old a glibc will prevent you from using more recent software.
>
> --
> = Aragorn =
> (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

WOW, Bill actually didn't get the last word!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1170

"Bob_Villa" <pheeh.zero@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:066fa2b9-e38e-4469-b652-8a8f9a60adc5@h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 8, 12:34 am, Aragorn <stry...@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 February 2012 00:11, BillW50 conveyed the following to
> alt.os.linux.ubuntu...
>
> > I wish I could go back to Xandros instead of this Ubuntu. As Ubuntu is
> > so bloated compared to Xandros. This Ubuntu pushes the CPU usually at
> > 50% CPU usage just by using USENET.
>
> If that is the case, then there is something seriously wrong, and I
> suspect that you've got a stuck process somewhere eating up all your CPU
> cycles. It happens sometimes.
>
> One possible cause might be that you didn't check the md5sums on the
> CD/DVD images you downloaded before you burned them. They must _always_
> be identical to the ones on the website. If not, then the download was
> corrupted.
>
> > That is just as bad as Windows 7 did when I threw it on one of these
> > things (yes I have a bunch of EeePCs). Although I can't go back to
> > Xandros unless I recompile the kernel. As that kernel only supports up
> > to FF2 and TB1.5.
>
> That has nothing to do with the kernel. It /could/ (and probably would)
> however be related to the version of glibc.
>
> Just about everything in userspace uses the central UNIX C library,
> which in GNU/Linux is GNU libc - or "glibc" in short. Running a system
> with too old a glibc will prevent you from using more recent software.
>
> --
> = Aragorn =
> (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

WOW, Bill actually didn't get the last word!

so I guess you win the covetted "2012 Last Word" award for this NG   (:>) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1171

On Feb 12, 9:17 am, "olfart" <olfar...@excite.com> wrote:
> "Bob_Villa" <pheeh.z...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:066fa2b9-e38e-4469-b652-8a8f9a60adc5@h3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 8, 12:34 am, Aragorn <stry...@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wednesday 08 February 2012 00:11, BillW50 conveyed the following to
> > alt.os.linux.ubuntu...
>
> > > I wish I could go back to Xandros instead of this Ubuntu. As Ubuntu is
> > > so bloated compared to Xandros. This Ubuntu pushes the CPU usually at
> > > 50% CPU usage just by using USENET.
>
> > If that is the case, then there is something seriously wrong, and I
> > suspect that you've got a stuck process somewhere eating up all your CPU
> > cycles. It happens sometimes.
>
> > One possible cause might be that you didn't check the md5sums on the
> > CD/DVD images you downloaded before you burned them. They must _always_
> > be identical to the ones on the website. If not, then the download was
> > corrupted.
>
> > > That is just as bad as Windows 7 did when I threw it on one of these
> > > things (yes I have a bunch of EeePCs). Although I can't go back to
> > > Xandros unless I recompile the kernel. As that kernel only supports up
> > > to FF2 and TB1.5.
>
> > That has nothing to do with the kernel. It /could/ (and probably would)
> > however be related to the version of glibc.
>
> > Just about everything in userspace uses the central UNIX C library,
> > which in GNU/Linux is GNU libc - or "glibc" in short. Running a system
> > with too old a glibc will prevent you from using more recent software.
>
> > --
> > = Aragorn =
> > (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
>
> WOW, Bill actually didn't get the last word!
>
> so I guess you win the covetted "2012 Last Word" award for this NG   (:>)

No, it's Aragorn...mine is just an aside!  B^P

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1167

In article <Pine.LNX.4.64.1202062308140.17120@darkstar.example.net>,
Michael Black  <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>
>You seem to forget that 30 years ago, Unix appeared in the "hobby" 
>computer magazines and was seen as The Thing to Get.
>

	I'm sorry, but 30 years ago UNIX was widely used as a development
Plaltform as well as for production systems.  As of 1982 or so commercially 
supported and open source UNIX and derivatives included  AIX, XENIX, Eunice,
2 versions of Berkeley, SunOS, PC/IX, QNX, UniPlus, System III, Ultrix, 
and probably others.

	Prior to 1992 when the ATT suit was settled, there was no free UNIX.
I don't recall it ever being "the thing to get" until Linux began to grab
headlines, and then of course people wanted Linux.  What would have been the
point of putting it in a hobbyist magazine?  You needed real hardware to run 
it, DEC or IBM or TI or some such...  3B1 was the smallest thing I know that
ran UNIX in those days.  Weco chip...  You could run Xenix or Microsoft UNIX
on a 386 but it kinda sucked.


>It had things that CP/M and MSDOS didn't have, such as multitasking 

	And 32 bit words.

>Unix was coming to the commercial segment, so there 

	UNIX didn't exist other than in the commercial segment, excepting
the work at Berkeley.  The reason Linus wrote Linux was because there was 
no available UNIX.

>In 1996 I got full internet access, a "mainframe" running Linux.  It was a 

	????  What mainframe was that?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1096

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:58:48 -0800, Adam wrote:

> Host OS:    Ubuntu 10.04 LTS
> System:    ASUS N61JQ (laptop)
> 
> Scan apps (like gscan2pdf, XSane Image Scanner, etc.) fail to
> detect scanner device (HP ScanJet 6350Cxi) with headset plugged in.
> As soon as I unplug the headset, scan apps work fine.
> 
> Any ideas?

Cool.  Does the scanner still show if you run lspci or lsusb?

-- 
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1097

"MarkA" <someone@somewhere.invalid> wrote in message 
news:pan.2012.02.01.19.45.08.447152@somewhere.invalid...
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:58:48 -0800, Adam wrote:
>
>> Host OS:    Ubuntu 10.04 LTS
>> System:    ASUS N61JQ (laptop)
>>
>> Scan apps (like gscan2pdf, XSane Image Scanner, etc.) fail to
>> detect scanner device (HP ScanJet 6350Cxi) with headset plugged in.
>> As soon as I unplug the headset, scan apps work fine.
>>
>> Any ideas?
>
> Cool.  Does the scanner still show if you run lspci or lsusb?
>
> -- 
> MarkA
>
> If you can read this, you can stop reading now.
>

Yes, scanner shows each time "lsusb" is run.
Just can't get scan apps to detect scanner device reliably.
And then, when the device is detected, it may still get I/O error in
the middle of a scan.  But, when I'm really lucky, it scans successfully. 
:-)
So, a wide range of possibilities but I can't pinpoint the cause.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1098

On Wednesday 01 February 2012 21:25, Adam conveyed the following to 
alt.os.linux.ubuntu...

> "MarkA" <someone@somewhere.invalid> wrote in message
> news:pan.2012.02.01.19.45.08.447152@somewhere.invalid...
>
>> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:58:48 -0800, Adam wrote:
>>
>>> Host OS:    Ubuntu 10.04 LTS
>>> System:    ASUS N61JQ (laptop)
>>>
>>> Scan apps (like gscan2pdf, XSane Image Scanner, etc.) fail to
>>> detect scanner device (HP ScanJet 6350Cxi) with headset plugged in.
>>> As soon as I unplug the headset, scan apps work fine.
>>>
>>> Any ideas?
>>
>> Cool.  Does the scanner still show if you run lspci or lsusb?
> 
> Yes, scanner shows each time "lsusb" is run.
> Just can't get scan apps to detect scanner device reliably.
> And then, when the device is detected, it may still get I/O error in
> the middle of a scan.  But, when I'm really lucky, it scans
> successfully.
> :-)
> So, a wide range of possibilities but I can't pinpoint the cause.

Could be a wild goose chase, but given that your scanner seems to stop 
working normally when you plug in the headset, I suspect a hardware 
conflict.

Just for fun's sake, have you tried plugging in the scanner into another 
USB port, preferably on another USB hub of the motherboard?

-- 
= Aragorn =
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1099

In article <jg9km4$19k$1@dont-email.me>, Adam <adam@no_thanks.com> wrote:
>
>Any ideas?
>

	Resource conflict 
	Power (lack of sufficient)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1100

the wharf rat wrote:
> In article<jg9km4$19k$1@dont-email.me>, Adam<adam@no_thanks.com>  wrote:
>>
>> Any ideas?
>>
>
> 	Resource conflict
> 	Power (lack of sufficient)
>

That was going to be my guess. Some laptops are marginal on power to the 
usb ports. Some like mine have one powered usb port.

-- 
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1102

"the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message 
news:jgcd13$b88$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <jg9km4$19k$1@dont-email.me>, Adam <adam@no_thanks.com> wrote:
>>
>>Any ideas?
>>
>
> Resource conflict
> Power (lack of sufficient)
>

I usually have the power adapter connected so it's not running off of 
battery.
Will keep "resource conflict" in mind since the headset is no longer 
connected. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1103

In news:jgcgsu$dv0$1@dont-email.me,
Adam wrote:
> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:jgcd13$b88$1@reader1.panix.com...
>> In article <jg9km4$19k$1@dont-email.me>, Adam <adam@no_thanks.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Any ideas?
>>
>> Resource conflict
>> Power (lack of sufficient)
>
> I usually have the power adapter connected so it's not running off of
> battery.
> Will keep "resource conflict" in mind since the headset is no longer
> connected.

Devices with a headphone jack used to have a switch to disconnect the 
main speakers when you plugged something into the jack. Nowadays they 
have done away with the switch and a chip senses whether headphones or 
something else is plugged in. So I would be curious what happens when 
you plug in a patch cord? Then also check with external speakers.

-- 
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1104

"BillW50" <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote in message 
news:jgcmtt$g6c$1@dont-email.me...
> In news:jgcgsu$dv0$1@dont-email.me,
> Adam wrote:
>> "the wharf rat" <wrat@panix.com> wrote in message
>> news:jgcd13$b88$1@reader1.panix.com...
>>> In article <jg9km4$19k$1@dont-email.me>, Adam <adam@no_thanks.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Any ideas?
>>>
>>> Resource conflict
>>> Power (lack of sufficient)
>>
>> I usually have the power adapter connected so it's not running off of
>> battery.
>> Will keep "resource conflict" in mind since the headset is no longer
>> connected.
>
> Devices with a headphone jack used to have a switch to disconnect the main 
> speakers when you plugged something into the jack. Nowadays they have done 
> away with the switch and a chip senses whether headphones or something 
> else is plugged in. So I would be curious what happens when you plug in a 
> patch cord? Then also check with external speakers.
>
> -- 
> Bill
> Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
> Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

According to the User Manual for "Headphone Output Jack"

"The stereo headphone jack (1/8 inch) is used to connect
the Notebook PC's audio out signal to amplified speakers
or headphones. Using this jack automatically disables the
built-in speakers."

The jack is "currently" not used.

But, I could try plugging in external speakers.  I don't think I have a 
patch cord around.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1110

In article <jgcgsu$dv0$1@dont-email.me>, Adam <adam@no_thanks.com> wrote:
>
>> Power (lack of sufficient)
>
>I usually have the power adapter connected so it's not running off of 
>battery.

	Not system power.  Power to the USB port.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1112

On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 12:08:24 +0000 (UTC), wrat@panix.com (the wharf rat)
wrote:

>In article <jgcgsu$dv0$1@dont-email.me>, Adam <adam@no_thanks.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Power (lack of sufficient)
>>
>>I usually have the power adapter connected so it's not running off of 
>>battery.
>
>	Not system power.  Power to the USB port.  

  You know, old USB cables get a film on the outer shield sometimes, and
I have seen failures to communicate get solved by cleaning those shrouds
on both ends really well before insertion.

  It happens with HDMI even more often as it DOES look for that
continuity to be there.

  Give it a try.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.laptops

csiph-web