1. Home
  2. UK Do-It-Yourself Forum
  3. Need 50 slick-looking sheets of letterhead [OT]
  4. Page 10

Need 50 slick-looking sheets of letterhead [OT]

Certainly not. But my spending on money and time on upating virus checkers over the last 5 years has been ...

.. nil.

So now you can tell us your costs over the same period of time.

Reply to
John Cartmell
Loading thread data ...

In message , John Cartmell writes

I remember the first computer virus I contracted . . . the "Joker" virus on RISC OS (though it may have been called Arthur at the time).

Reply to
bof

I hope I'm not teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, but it's probable that your new printer is defaulting to "letter" size paper. The combination of Microsoft Windows and an HP printer is really hard to force into defaulting to A4. I've taken to editing the PrintMediaReady registry key rather than wading through dialogue boxes that seem to return to letter as soon as I turn my back.

Reply to
Stephen Gower

In message , Stephen Gower writes

Got any more info on that?

Reply to
bof

"John Cartmell" wrote

Time costs : Nil (the software automatically updates itself whenever the machine is connected to internet).

Money costs : The total of hardware & antivirus is still much less than that for your systems!

Reply to
Tim

Thanks. Yes I thought it had to be a version of NT because Windows 2000 is sometimes referred to as NT 5.

Reply to
Amanda Angelika

I've never seen a RISC OS one in some 15 years of using Acorns. And of course the operating system being in ROM makes it more difficult for one to do so much harm.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

I've had none since the joker of an LEA IT advisor went around her schools with a floppy disc containing the icon virus - and insisting that every machine she visited had a copy of the (useless) software that she had.

Reply to
John Cartmell

And your machine is never 'out of commission' whilst downloading and checking?

Let's count one of my systems - seeing as the others are there for hardware checking as part of my job. The system I'm using for this work has a divisor of 10 (years) as part of the calculation for TCO. Do you want to continue with the comparison?

BTW Does your machine (ie all those you have owned over the 10 years I've owned my RiscPC) tend to slow down if you don't tidy it up on occasions? ;-)

NB As all I'm claiming is that the system is not dead and doesn't have a high TCO (both false claims from SF) we don't really need to enter a 'my system is better than yours' competition. Mine does good work for me, the system is still being developed, it isn't expensive to run, and those that declare it dead are plonkers. I'd expect you to say no less for your favourite computing system.

Reply to
John Cartmell

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:34:36 GMT "Amanda Angelika" waved a wand and this message magically appeared:

Windows 2000 *is* NT 5. XP is just 2000 with a shitload of security fixes and a GUI that was probably designed by Bill Gates' little daughter! ;o)

Reply to
Alex Buell

I thought they just swapped the heads around ...

Owain

Reply to
Owain

No, it's A4 paper, and the labels start at the top of the page alright, but Word doesn't seem to understand that labels aren't supposed to change size.

Typical Windows user's response: "It's just one of those things"

Owain

Reply to
Owain

"John Cartmell" wrote

Of course not! It does it all in the background - that's what multi-tasking is all about.

"John Cartmell" wrote

Well, I have a 10-year-old machine too, so we both have a divisor of 10.

"John Cartmell" wrote

Only a little; even 50% of the speed of something which is more than double as fast initially, is still faster after "slowing down"!!

Reply to
Tim

You've been reading figures again. It's no use having bigger numbers when they only show that you're doing nothing faster.

But as I said - we each like our own system and neither is trying to tell the other that 'your system doesn't exist'.

Reply to
John Cartmell

No, it's A4 paper, and the labels start at the top of the page alright, but Word doesn't seem to understand that labels aren't supposed to change size.

Typical Windows user's response: "It's just one of those things"

Owain

Reply to
Owain

Hence the TeleTubbyLand default wallpaper!

Reply to
Bob Eager

It also punishes you if you change more than three pieces of hardware i.e the Windows activations thing. Don't know if it still does that? Although I'm sure anyone who can change more than three pieces of hardware is quite capable of getting hold of a cracked version LOL

Reply to
Amanda Angelika

Pah! I've been using XP for ages now and I've never had any pr

Reply to
Morris Finsbury

No, that's profoundly incorrect.

Tsk, now a simply apology would have been more grown up.

Not that I expect someone who's still in school to have grown up yet.

Reply to
Steve Firth

Sounds more like a fault with the settings of the printer driver.

Well sometimes if you have things a bit close to the margins of the printable area, which is often the case with labels, a printer driver will automatically shrink the page to fit within the printable area. But of course if you have a very precise full-page design where the printable area has been taken into account in your design in any case, you want the printer to ignore the fact that part of the design is outside the printable area and print the design at 100% regardless.

You need to make sure the driver is printing at 100% and ignoring the fact that some blank or white graphic objects may lay outside the printable area.

So I doubt if it's a problem with Word. I would suspect the printer settings myself :)

Reply to
Amanda Angelika

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.