XP desktop Time/Date
in [Customize Windows]
|
From: Nil on 17 Mar 2010 22:31 On 17 Mar 2010, "Tim Meddick" <timmeddick(a)gawab.com> wrote in microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize: > Judging by what "Nil" wrote in his reply, that "TClockEx" has a > "Pop-up calendar", I am thinking the most obvious difference > between it and "TClock.exe" is probably going to be that it is > much lighter [smaller] and therefore tend to be more reliable, not > least on display quality (video memory). TClockEx is perfectly stable. It has never been any kind of problem for me.
From: Tim Meddick on 18 Mar 2010 15:28
Sounds very much like you were calling me a liar!....., you wrote, and I quote : "I use TClockEX, and it works fine for me. Some slight display issues, but nothing I can't live with." So what does "slight display issues" mean? You actually meant to write "it has no issues at all" did you? I can only go on the information you supplied, as I have not used this program myself. Since you *did* originally say there were some [slight] issues with TClockEX and display, I protracted that the program may use more memory resources than TClock does. TClock light has no issues with display, slight or otherwise, and is as reliable and unobtrusive as a background application can be... == Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-) "Nil" <rednoise(a)REMOVETHIScomcast.net> wrote in message news:Xns9D3EE5148FC41nilch1(a)130.133.4.11... > On 17 Mar 2010, "Tim Meddick" <timmeddick(a)gawab.com> wrote in > microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize: > >> Judging by what "Nil" wrote in his reply, that "TClockEx" has a >> "Pop-up calendar", I am thinking the most obvious difference >> between it and "TClock.exe" is probably going to be that it is >> much lighter [smaller] and therefore tend to be more reliable, not >> least on display quality (video memory). > > TClockEx is perfectly stable. It has never been any kind of problem for > me. |