https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GXTCSJY6/
What makes this one interesting, at that price, is it has the eight-thread CPU with 16 GB RAM 512 GB SSD.˙ Best deal I've seen, to date.
Paul wrote:
On Tue, 9/15/2026 9:48 PM, Joel W. Crump wrote:AMD do say 4C/8T ...
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GXTCSJY6/
What makes this one interesting, at that price, is it has the eight-thread CPU with 16 GB RAM 512 GB SSD.˙ Best deal I've seen, to date.
I think it's four threads.
<https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/laptop/ryzen/3000-series/amd-ryzen-5-3501u.html>
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GXTCSJY6/
What makes this one interesting, at that price, is it has the eight-thread CPU with 16 GB RAM 512 GB SSD.˙ Best deal I've seen, to date.
I think it's four threads. Compared to three other CPU
for fun. It's similar to an N150, and how much of the
multithread, might depend on the cooling provided.
https://www.techpowerup.com/cpu-specs/ryzen-5-3501u.c4442
3501u
Zen+ (Picasso) 12nm 2018 GlobalFoundaries
4C 4T 2.1/3.7GHz
DDR4-2400, dual channel
TDP 15W
Vega 8 iGPU
N150 N95 6600H 5700G=Mine 5950X
Single thread CPUMark 1805 1893 1890 3142 3281 3476
Multithread CPUMark 6195 5354 5285 18050 24218 45252
1805*4=7220 with perfect scaling, 6195 is a bit off (3.4 threads).
My 4930K has a similar problem. 6 cores, but depending on
the bench, only gives 4 to 5 cores of performance, and
that's because of the ring bus. The Zens might be a hypercube
or something. Intel put a bus-mesh in some of theirs,
like say five buses running horizontal, six buses running
vertical, which performs better than three coupled-on-the-ends
of their ring buses (a technique from previous generations, nasty).
Summary - a weak sauce, bound to annoy, and make you buy another.
- silicon too old, for safety reasons, like "buying a refurb" computer
- chances are, fine on Linux (browsers behave better on Linux)
- nice aluminum box
- whereas, a good single-thread, helps on Windows a bit. I would
move to the next tier up for Windows.
- measure twice, cut once, try to select the right mini-PC before
splashing the cash. I've made similar mistakes, back in the Core2 era,
always buying the wrong one, having regrets later. Lots of mistakes.
I don't expect the refurb-market can do much better. At one time, the
refurb market was a valid choice, especially when quad cores started
showing up there.
Paul
https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/laptop/ryzen/3000-series/amd-ryzen-5-3501u.html
It's eight.
https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/laptop/ryzen/3000-series/amd-ryzen-5-3501u.html
It's eight.
I found two reports of it being "slow" (3500u which is the same as 3501u
but with slightly different power tuning). One for Windows, one for Linux.
In neither case, was anyone able to explain why. The machines have
to throttle when they hit their power limit.
You own two mini-PCs, and you're able to tell us what the
difference is like between the "low-tier" one and the "mid-tier" one.
Would you, in good conscience, sell the weak one to a student ?
The numbers on that processor, make it "barely better" than the N150.
And it depends on the cooling, and how high they set the TDP, as
to whether it matches the N150.
When they don't state it, it is likely equipped as 1x16 instead
of 2x8. The 2x8 option gives more bandwidth to run the iGPU output.
But, it also wastes 1 watt of power, spinning up the second memory
interface. That's one of the reasons they configure for only
one DIMM when deciding what DIMMs to put in the box. The two options,
the 2x8 costs slightly more, because of the second DIMM PCB. When an
advert does not state the configuration, we assume it's the
stinky 1x16 option. But as the thing is short on power/TDP,
it's a matter of picking the best of the bad choices.
I have a laptop with a single core processor on it. The computer "works".
I took it out in the kitchen and tried to use it for a while.
I had to stop. That's how annoying that was. That's why I don't
like to see any material promoted, that's just going to be thrown
into the trash. If it can't run a browser, out the window it goes...
Paul
On 9/16/2026 7:24 AM, Paul wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GXTCSJY6/
What makes this one interesting, at that price, is it has the eight-
thread CPU with 16 GB RAM 512 GB SSD.˙ Best deal I've seen, to date.
I think it's four threads. Compared to three other CPU
for fun. It's similar to an N150, and how much of the
multithread, might depend on the cooling provided.
https://www.techpowerup.com/cpu-specs/ryzen-5-3501u.c4442
https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/laptop/ryzen/3000-series/amd- ryzen-5-3501u.html
It's eight.
On 9/17/26 12:20, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/16/2026 7:24 AM, Paul wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GXTCSJY6/
What makes this one interesting, at that price, is it has the eight- thread CPU with 16 GB RAM 512 GB SSD.˙ Best deal I've seen, to date.
I think it's four threads. Compared to three other CPU
for fun. It's similar to an N150, and how much of the
multithread, might depend on the cooling provided.
https://www.techpowerup.com/cpu-specs/ryzen-5-3501u.c4442
https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/laptop/ryzen/3000-series/amd- ryzen-5-3501u.html
It's eight.
˙ Could get MUCH better deals in mini-boxes just
˙ two years ago - more RAM and CPU. Bought FOUR
˙ of them, room to fit one SATA SSD too. Near
˙ but not exact CPUs. The latest 'N' series Intel
˙ required the MX "Advanced Hardware" edition that
˙ uses a newer, 7.x.x, kernel.
˙ Alas inflation and the tariff wars ......
˙ Still have ONE "in waiting". Not THE best but
˙ plenty good for Linux. Comes with Winders, will
˙ make sure that never runs for one microsecond !
˙ A matter of pride !!!
˙ Within a range of applications, the Mini-Boxes
˙ are just GREAT. They have ENOUGH power but are
˙ minimal enough to be affordable. Have one set
˙ up as a little NAS, another on my TV to stream
˙ video (rarely do). Set up a third with BSD but
˙ haven't found a good use for it yet.
˙ Think - DO you need an I9 superbox for what
˙ YOU normally do ? If not, then these laptop-
˙ power mini-boxes may be yer salvation.
Think - DO you need an I9 superbox for what
YOU normally do ? If not, then these laptop-
power mini-boxes may be yer salvation.
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 08:10:02 -0400, Paul wrote:
The industry has always had a "lowest tier" that can only be described
as "trash". We had people buying $100 Black Friday Tablets, and throwing
them right into the trash. When you're shopping for a mini-PC, you might
not need an i9 (and an i9 isn't going to exactly have a quiet fan), but
you should at least buy a box with enough horsepower.
When I bought my Beelink SER4 it was around $350 iirc with a AMD Ryzen 7 4700U. It has worked out well. I knew what I was getting since I'd bought
an Acer Swift 3 in 2020 with the same processor.
On 2026/9/18 5:49:33, c186282 wrote:
[]
Think - DO you need an I9 superbox for whatDo you use them without a screen? If not, then rather than a
YOU normally do ? If not, then these laptop-
power mini-boxes may be yer salvation.
"laptop-power mini-box" (plus monitor), why not use a laptop?
J. P. Gilliver wrote on 9/18/2026 3:20 PM:
On 2026/9/18 5:49:33, c186282 wrote:
˙˙˙ Think - DO you need an I9 superbox for whatDo you use them without a screen? If not, then rather than a
˙˙˙ YOU normally do ? If not, then these laptop-
˙˙˙ power mini-boxes may be yer salvation.
"laptop-power mini-box" (plus monitor), why not use a laptop?
Because laptops have small screens and keyboards are also usually crummy.
On 9/18/2026 5:05 PM, Hank Rogers wrote:
J. P. Gilliver wrote on 9/18/2026 3:20 PM:
On 2026/9/18 5:49:33, c186282 wrote:
˙˙˙ Think - DO you need an I9 superbox for whatDo you use them without a screen? If not, then rather than a
˙˙˙ YOU normally do ? If not, then these laptop-
˙˙˙ power mini-boxes may be yer salvation.
"laptop-power mini-box" (plus monitor), why not use a laptop?
Because laptops have small screens and keyboards are also usually crummy.
Laptops are great on airplanes.˙ Anywhere else in the world, they're already less so.˙ They're pretty good on couches.˙ Decent on toilets. Useful in media-displaying rooms.˙ But at the end of the day, nothing is going to replace the box unit of a "computer" (with monitor and keyboard, etc.).
On 9/18/2026 4:01 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 08:10:02 -0400, Paul wrote:
The industry has always had a "lowest tier" that can only be described
as "trash". We had people buying $100 Black Friday Tablets, and throwing >>> them right into the trash. When you're shopping for a mini-PC, you might >>> not need an i9 (and an i9 isn't going to exactly have a quiet fan), but
you should at least buy a box with enough horsepower.
When I bought my Beelink SER4 it was around $350 iirc with a AMD Ryzen 7
4700U. It has worked out well. I knew what I was getting since I'd bought
an Acer Swift 3 in 2020 with the same processor.
Forget Beelink, the clones are where the action really is.
On 9/18/2026 5:05 PM, Hank Rogers wrote:
J. P. Gilliver wrote on 9/18/2026 3:20 PM:
On 2026/9/18 5:49:33, c186282 wrote:
˙˙˙ Think - DO you need an I9 superbox for whatDo you use them without a screen? If not, then rather than a
˙˙˙ YOU normally do ? If not, then these laptop-
˙˙˙ power mini-boxes may be yer salvation.
"laptop-power mini-box" (plus monitor), why not use a laptop?
Because laptops have small screens and keyboards are also usually crummy.
Laptops are great on airplanes. Anywhere else in the world, they're
already less so. They're pretty good on couches. Decent on toilets.
Useful in media-displaying rooms. But at the end of the day, nothing is going to replace the box unit of a "computer" (with monitor and
keyboard, etc.).
On Fri, 9/18/2026 5:09 PM, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/18/2026 5:05 PM, Hank Rogers wrote:
J. P. Gilliver wrote on 9/18/2026 3:20 PM:Laptops are great on airplanes.˙ Anywhere else in the world,
On 2026/9/18 5:49:33, c186282 wrote:
˙˙˙ Think - DO you need an I9 superbox for whatDo you use them without a screen? If not, then rather than a
˙˙˙ YOU normally do ? If not, then these laptop-
˙˙˙ power mini-boxes may be yer salvation.
"laptop-power mini-box" (plus monitor), why not use a laptop?
Because laptops have small screens and keyboards are also usually crummy. >>
they're already less so.˙ They're pretty good on couches.˙
Decent on toilets. Useful in media-displaying rooms.˙ But at
the end of the day, nothing is going to replace the box unit of
a "computer" (with monitor and keyboard, etc.).
Some computing devices, are designed to bolt to the VESA four hole
pattern on the back of the monitor. Don't do that unless you know
the stand for the monitor is stable and can handle that. That's
how call centers arrange a PC, they bolt it to the back of the monitor.
And there are different VESA patterns. On a large screen TV set, the
VESA hole pattern can be twice as big as the typical computer
monitor 100mmx100mm pattern. And you have to know the screw type
and thread pitch, to pick up some screws for it at the hardware
store. It doesn't always come with the screws to do that.
The VESA pattern can be used to hold a monitor on a wall,
or it can be used (with some effort) to hold a mini-PC to
the back of the monitor. Some monitors have a cylindrical
shaft and heavy duty mount, so they can hold up a heavy load.
But the typical monitors we get in N.A. the stand is pretty
flimsy.
Paul
Joel W. Crump wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed):
On 9/18/2026 4:01 PM, rbowman wrote:
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 08:10:02 -0400, Paul wrote:
The industry has always had a "lowest tier" that can only be described >>>> as "trash". We had people buying $100 Black Friday Tablets, and throwing >>>> them right into the trash. When you're shopping for a mini-PC, you might >>>> not need an i9 (and an i9 isn't going to exactly have a quiet fan), but >>>> you should at least buy a box with enough horsepower.
When I bought my Beelink SER4 it was around $350 iirc with a AMD Ryzen 7 >>> 4700U. It has worked out well. I knew what I was getting since I'd bought >>> an Acer Swift 3 in 2020 with the same processor.
Forget Beelink, the clones are where the action really is.
Clones of what?
On Fri, 9/18/2026 5:09 PM, Joel W. Crump wrote:mmy.
On 9/18/2026 5:05 PM, Hank Rogers wrote:
J. P. Gilliver wrote on 9/18/2026 3:20 PM:
On 2026/9/18 5:49:33, c186282 wrote:
˙˙˙ Think - DO you need an I9 superbox for whatDo you use them without a screen? If not, then rather than a
˙˙˙ YOU normally do ? If not, then these laptop-
˙˙˙ power mini-boxes may be yer salvation.
"laptop-power mini-box" (plus monitor), why not use a laptop?
Because laptops have small screens and keyboards are also usually cru
Tiny ones, yes. But since the switch to shortscreen (which I think
're already less so.˙ They're pretty good on couches.˙ Decent o
Laptops are great on airplanes.˙ Anywhere else in the world, they
I was forgetting that your micro-box also needs a keyboard as well as a monitor.
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 17:45:10 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
:-D I've used a laptop on a toilet. There, I read a book or a phone.
A kindle has replaced most of my throne side reading matter.
When I was a kid we had a magazine box? holder? I don't know what to call it. It was a piece of mahogany furniture probably meant for the living room. Along with the magazine selection it had the Montgomery Ward catalog.
Times change so now people might shop Amazon on their phones.
On Fri, 9/18/2026 12:49 AM, c186282 wrote:
On 9/17/26 12:20, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/16/2026 7:24 AM, Paul wrote:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GXTCSJY6/
What makes this one interesting, at that price, is it has the eight- thread CPU with 16 GB RAM 512 GB SSD.˙ Best deal I've seen, to date.
I think it's four threads. Compared to three other CPU
for fun. It's similar to an N150, and how much of the
multithread, might depend on the cooling provided.
https://www.techpowerup.com/cpu-specs/ryzen-5-3501u.c4442
https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/laptop/ryzen/3000-series/amd- ryzen-5-3501u.html
It's eight.
˙ Could get MUCH better deals in mini-boxes just
˙ two years ago - more RAM and CPU. Bought FOUR
˙ of them, room to fit one SATA SSD too. Near
˙ but not exact CPUs. The latest 'N' series Intel
˙ required the MX "Advanced Hardware" edition that
˙ uses a newer, 7.x.x, kernel.
˙ Alas inflation and the tariff wars ......
˙ Still have ONE "in waiting". Not THE best but
˙ plenty good for Linux. Comes with Winders, will
˙ make sure that never runs for one microsecond !
˙ A matter of pride !!!
˙ Within a range of applications, the Mini-Boxes
˙ are just GREAT. They have ENOUGH power but are
˙ minimal enough to be affordable. Have one set
˙ up as a little NAS, another on my TV to stream
˙ video (rarely do). Set up a third with BSD but
˙ haven't found a good use for it yet.
˙ Think - DO you need an I9 superbox for what
˙ YOU normally do ? If not, then these laptop-
˙ power mini-boxes may be yer salvation.
The industry has always had a "lowest tier" that
can only be described as "trash". We had people buying
$100 Black Friday Tablets, and throwing them right into
the trash. When you're shopping for a mini-PC, you might
not need an i9 (and an i9 isn't going to exactly
have a quiet fan), but you should at least buy a
box with enough horsepower.
I did an experiment one day, and noticed my HD6450 13 watt
video card, provided "no appreciable acceleration" over
a MESA driven stack. Replacing it with another cheap video
card (a bit over a hundred bucks), I got acceleration
I could detect, as the new card promised 5x the performance
level (five times nothing, is still nothing). It wasn't
fast fast, but I was finally satisfied that it could
accelerate the graphics when a driver was loaded for it.
While the 13 watt card does function as a frame buffer,
it is otherwise "trash" because the performance is so low
as to be undetectable. It takes more work to feed it
stuff, than it pays back. You can do a basic decent frame
buffer that draws only 2 watts.
Try and find discussions about "processor model number"
and "slow", to check before hand, that the item is
really worth $350. If you have to buy two of them
to get a good one, maybe it would have been better
to spend $650 in the first place on a single one.
I can say that with authority, because I made that mistake
in spades, years ago. The incremental upgrades worth... nothing.
If you check the CPUMark numbers, you'll notice after a while,
the mini-PC makers, make two tiers. Maybe processors with a
single thread of 1600 or so, and the next tier up is
3000-3500 or so for single thread. On Windows, you're
"buying a box to do Windows Update". That's the first
application you want to run well, because it will get
in your road and piss you off. We buy enough machine
to dispatch that quickly. The next thing on the list,
is something powerful enough to run a browser.
There are four pages here for SingleThread, in the left side bar.
The four pages likely cover anything worth considering, then
you have to decide how much misery is worth saving a few bucks.
5000 to 3124 6600H 6C 12T , Intel Core 3 305 2P 4E 6T , 3000+
3121 to 2262
2261 to 1775 N150 = 1893
1775 to 1340
1339 to 988 E8400 Core2 Duo = 1235 (Ran early Win10 sorta OK, drew 43 watts)
988 to 594
594 to 273
272 to 32 Pentium III page
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html
Paul
On Fri, 18 Sep 2026 08:10:02 -0400, Paul wrote:
The industry has always had a "lowest tier" that can only be described
as "trash". We had people buying $100 Black Friday Tablets, and throwing
them right into the trash. When you're shopping for a mini-PC, you might
not need an i9 (and an i9 isn't going to exactly have a quiet fan), but
you should at least buy a box with enough horsepower.
When I bought my Beelink SER4 it was around $350 iirc with a AMD Ryzen 7 4700U. It has worked out well. I knew what I was getting since I'd bought
an Acer Swift 3 in 2020 with the same processor.
On 9/15/26 8:35 PM, Joel W. Crump wrote:
is that your box lacking an NVMe drive is probably slower than the
mini PC.
Had a customer that made the point that he could buy computer
much cheaper then the ones I recommended.˙ I bought a Lenovo
Tiny and got the cheapest data drive they offered, which was
a laptop spinning drive.˙ The machine ran like cap.˙ And whatever
money he saved was lost through the times he had me work on
it and I had to wait and wait and wait for things to happen
whilst my meter ran and ran and ran.˙ Yup.˙ He sure showed me!
On 19/09/2026 8:13 am, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/9/18 22:19:52, Paul wrote:
On Fri, 9/18/2026 5:09 PM, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/18/2026 5:05 PM, Hank Rogers wrote:
<Snip>
Tiny ones, yes. But since the switch to *shortscreen* (which I thinkBecause laptops have small screens and keyboards are also usually crummy. >>>>
generally was a Bad Move, but it does have this advantage), even 15"
ones (which tend to be 15.6 since that change) have at least a numeric
keyboard. And the screen size has never bothered me.
"shortscreen"??
On 2026/9/18 5:49:33, c186282 wrote:
[]
Think - DO you need an I9 superbox for what
YOU normally do ? If not, then these laptop-
power mini-boxes may be yer salvation.
Do you use them without a screen? If not, then rather than a
"laptop-power mini-box" (plus monitor), why not use a laptop?
In alt.comp.os.windows-10 J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2026/9/18 5:49:33, c186282 wrote:
[]
Think - DO you need an I9 superbox for what
YOU normally do ? If not, then these laptop-
power mini-boxes may be yer salvation.
Do you use them without a screen? If not, then rather than a
"laptop-power mini-box" (plus monitor), why not use a laptop?
Different strokes for different folks.
I am a laptop user and need a laptop. (Some silly people 'argue' that
most people don't need a laptop, because they're mostly used in the same spot. Apparently these people can't grasp what 'mostly' really means.)
My wife uses Mini-PC with a large (larger than a laptop) monitor and seperate keyboard and mouse. For her use, the large monitor is a big pre
and the non-mobility isn't a con. (Her setup actually started as a
laptop which developed a dead display, which was replaced by the Mini-PC
when the laptop became too slow .)
On 19/09/2026 8:13 am, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/9/18 22:19:52, Paul wrote:
On Fri, 9/18/2026 5:09 PM, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/18/2026 5:05 PM, Hank Rogers wrote:
<Snip>
Tiny ones, yes. But since the switch to *shortscreen* (which I thinkBecause laptops have small screens and keyboards are also usually
crummy.
generally was a Bad Move, but it does have this advantage), even 15"
ones (which tend to be 15.6 since that change) have at least a numeric
keyboard. And the screen size has never bothered me.
"shortscreen"??
In alt.comp.os.windows-10 J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2026/9/18 5:49:33, c186282 wrote:
[]
Think - DO you need an I9 superbox for what
YOU normally do ? If not, then these laptop-
power mini-boxes may be yer salvation.
Do you use them without a screen? If not, then rather than a
"laptop-power mini-box" (plus monitor), why not use a laptop?
Different strokes for different folks.
I am a laptop user and need a laptop. (Some silly people 'argue' that
most people don't need a laptop, because they're mostly used in the same spot. Apparently these people can't grasp what 'mostly' really means.)
My wife uses Mini-PC with a large (larger than a laptop) monitor and seperate keyboard and mouse. For her use, the large monitor is a big pre
and the non-mobility isn't a con. (Her setup actually started as a
laptop which developed a dead display, which was replaced by the Mini-PC
when the laptop became too slow .)
On 19/09/2026 8:13 am, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/9/18 22:19:52, Paul wrote:
On Fri, 9/18/2026 5:09 PM, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/18/2026 5:05 PM, Hank Rogers wrote:
<Snip>
Tiny ones, yes. But since the switch to *shortscreen* (which I thinkBecause laptops have small screens and keyboards are also usually crummy. >>>>
generally was a Bad Move, but it does have this advantage), even 15"
ones (which tend to be 15.6 since that change) have at least a numeric
keyboard. And the screen size has never bothered me.
"shortscreen"??
In alt.comp.os.windows-10 J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2026/9/18 5:49:33, c186282 wrote:
[]
Think - DO you need an I9 superbox for what
YOU normally do ? If not, then these laptop-
power mini-boxes may be yer salvation.
Do you use them without a screen? If not, then rather than a
"laptop-power mini-box" (plus monitor), why not use a laptop?
Different strokes for different folks.
I am a laptop user and need a laptop. (Some silly people 'argue' that
most people don't need a laptop, because they're mostly used in the same spot. Apparently these people can't grasp what 'mostly' really means.)
My wife uses Mini-PC with a large (larger than a laptop) monitor and seperate keyboard and mouse. For her use, the large monitor is a big pre
and the non-mobility isn't a con. (Her setup actually started as a
laptop which developed a dead display, which was replaced by the Mini-PC
when the laptop became too slow .)
On 9/19/26 6:36 AM, Paul wrote:
Had a customer that made the point that he could buy computer
much cheaper then the ones I recommended.˙ I bought a Lenovo
Tiny and got the cheapest data drive they offered, which was
a laptop spinning drive.˙ The machine ran like cap.˙ And whatever
money he saved was lost through the times he had me work on
it and I had to wait and wait and wait for things to happen
whilst my meter ran and ran and ran.˙ Yup.˙ He sure showed me!
But you can fix that, and I bet such a customer could
also fix that if he wanted (cloning over, isn't that hard to do).
Yes.˙ You and I could. Up the memory from 4 GB and
install an NVMe drive.˙ Clonezilla to three rescue.
But not when the customer know better than you and is
proud you show in you up.˙ And his buns squeak when
he walks because he is so cheap.
I have a used mini from Ebay that came without a drive.
I put in my own NVMe drive and it works beautifully!
So you are correct, it is doable.
On 2026/9/19 10:56:18, Daniel70 wrote:
On 19/09/2026 8:13 am, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/9/18 22:19:52, Paul wrote:
On Fri, 9/18/2026 5:09 PM, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/18/2026 5:05 PM, Hank Rogers wrote:
<Snip>
Tiny ones, yes. But since the switch to *shortscreen* (which I thinkBecause laptops have small screens and keyboards are also usually crummy.
generally was a Bad Move, but it does have this advantage), even 15"
ones (which tend to be 15.6 since that change) have at least a numeric
keyboard. And the screen size has never bothered me.
"shortscreen"??
Sorry, the industry (TV and computer) uses the term "widescreen". Since,
in many cases (especially in TVs), the same diagonal measurement
certainly gave no increase in _height_ and generally a reduction, I call
it shortscreen.
Particularly, when 16:9 (ish) TV sets started to appear, I saw some
cases where a 16:9 set of a given WIDTH actually cost MORE than a 4:3
set of the same WIDTH (which had greater HEIGHT). So anyone sensible
would buy the cheaper one - they could still watch 16:9 programming _at
the same size_ (sets by then had switchable scans so no loss of
resolution), but could view 4:3 material at a bigger size. People were
just afraid of being _seen_ to have a 4:3 screen, regardless of the fact
that it was no less wide.
I think "widescreen" is _not_ a good fit for general computer use; when
it first came in, it was presented as "do you want to watch movies in a little strip across your screen" - but at _that_ point, few people were _actually_ watching movies on their computer monitors. But it stayed,
and we're stuck with it. (IMO it's _still_ not a good shape for web
pages; I have to do a lot of up-and-down scrolling to read the average
web page.) OK, monitors (and graphics cards) have now got big enough
that you can work on two documents side-by-side (though I still wonder
how many people actually do).
On Sat, 9/19/2026 4:24 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/9/19 10:56:18, Daniel70 wrote:
On 19/09/2026 8:13 am, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/9/18 22:19:52, Paul wrote:
On Fri, 9/18/2026 5:09 PM, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/18/2026 5:05 PM, Hank Rogers wrote:
<Snip>
Tiny ones, yes. But since the switch to *shortscreen* (which I thinkBecause laptops have small screens and keyboards are also usually crummy.
generally was a Bad Move, but it does have this advantage), even 15"
ones (which tend to be 15.6 since that change) have at least a numeric >>>> keyboard. And the screen size has never bothered me.
"shortscreen"??
Sorry, the industry (TV and computer) uses the term "widescreen". Since,
in many cases (especially in TVs), the same diagonal measurement
certainly gave no increase in _height_ and generally a reduction, I call
it shortscreen.
Particularly, when 16:9 (ish) TV sets started to appear, I saw some
cases where a 16:9 set of a given WIDTH actually cost MORE than a 4:3
set of the same WIDTH (which had greater HEIGHT). So anyone sensible
would buy the cheaper one - they could still watch 16:9 programming _at
the same size_ (sets by then had switchable scans so no loss of
resolution), but could view 4:3 material at a bigger size. People were
just afraid of being _seen_ to have a 4:3 screen, regardless of the fact
that it was no less wide.
I think "widescreen" is _not_ a good fit for general computer use; when
it first came in, it was presented as "do you want to watch movies in a
little strip across your screen" - but at _that_ point, few people were
_actually_ watching movies on their computer monitors. But it stayed,
and we're stuck with it. (IMO it's _still_ not a good shape for web
pages; I have to do a lot of up-and-down scrolling to read the average
web page.) OK, monitors (and graphics cards) have now got big enough
that you can work on two documents side-by-side (though I still wonder
how many people actually do).
If you put two 16:9 monitors side by side, that gives you 32:9
which is pretty boring.
If you rotate two monitors and slap them together, you can make 18:16 .
You set one monitor up physically for 90 degree rotation,
the other one for 270 degree rotation, so the thin (top) bezels meet in
the center. A lot of things have to go right for you, for that
to be any sort of practical project.
Some monitors "fully support" rotation to compass points. The mount supports horizontal or vertical operation (pivoting mount), and the panel PCB has
a gravity-based sensor for detecting that the monitor is no longer
at zero degrees. You are unlikely to get that kind of support in a
$100-$200 monitor. Maybe at the $600 level, you'd get that level
of automation. Full rotation support, a "tall" monitor mount.
But you can still take "naive" monitors and do such a setup, as
long as the control panel scan controls are there to make it work.
The video card apparently has everything needed, for controlling
the output for any weird rotation plans you've got. It's the
intermediate software that may not be up to the task of
fiddling the controls.
The verification plan for multi-monitor, is extensive, and would be
a pain in the ass for software that is frequently modified. As
an example of an obscure bug, I was testing four monitors on two
video cards, and just in the naive panoramic orientation (no rotations
or funny stuff). In the middle of a session, out of the blue, the
video card numbering swapped. FX5200 Number 1 became FX5200 Number 2,
and vice versa, which of course messes up the panoramic orientation
with the mouse disappearing in the center of the screen or so. There
can be a lot of permutations and combinations to test, to prove
display control panels work. And some display control panels,
hardly anything works right :-) You don't have to "search" for
bugs, as your first bug is just waiting for you in plain sight.
Never underestimate the mayhem available in a Display control panel :-)
While you may "dream big", that control panel will get in your road
(as the Scot at work would have put it).
But
that's one of the main attractions of a laptop versus an
AIO, is it was potentially easier to slide into an empty
drawer of sufficient dimension.
I think "widescreen" is_not_ a good fit for general computer use; when
it first came in, it was presented as "do you want to watch movies in a little strip across your screen" - but at_that_ point, few people were _actually_ watching movies on their computer monitors. But it stayed,
and we're stuck with it. (
Um ... just kinda SKIP the "super-wide" view.
˙ Not really useful - except maybe to 'gamers'.
rbowman <bowman@montana.com>wrote:
On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 21:42:44 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I bought my first laptop (Win98 era, IIRR), when I wanted the
portability option, but thought I'd rarely use it - I liked my
desktop(s) too much. But - even though I _didn't_ (and still don't, even
more so now) actually move it around much, I found I was using it more
and more, and the desktop less and less; and I _think_ I've been on
laptops ever since. (Might have bought - or built, I was building in
those days = one more desktop machine.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compaq_Concerto
I got a lot of use out of my first laptop. I was driving OTR summers and >spending winters in AZ with a minimal solar configuration so portability
and lower power consumption were the major factors.
Compaq came so close in 1993 but the Concertos never sold and the model
was dropped in a couple of years. At $1500 it was competitive with the >laptops of the era.
On 20/09/2026 09:21, c186282 wrote:
Um ... just kinda SKIP the "super-wide" view.
˙ Not really useful - except maybe to 'gamers'.
Not even when you can have a file editor in one window next door to a
window that is running your make system with a third window showing
debug output?
Or CAD in one, the slicer in the next and your 3D printer camera in the third?
With windows of *any* sort real estate can always be filled with
something useful
Of course if you are running a text console in full screen, you might as well use and old Wyse50 and forget LCD...
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I think "widescreen" is_not_ a good fit for general computer use; when
it first came in, it was presented as "do you want to watch movies in a
little strip across your screen" - but at_that_ point, few people were
_actually_ watching movies on their computer monitors. But it stayed,
and we're stuck with it. (
The reasons are simple. For every PC monitor sold, 100 TVS are sold.
4:3 was an expensive and low volume LCD. 16:9 were cheap and plentiful
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I think "widescreen" is_not_ a good fit for general computer use; when
it first came in, it was presented as "do you want to watch movies in a
little strip across your screen" - but at_that_ point, few people were
_actually_ watching movies on their computer monitors. But it stayed,
and we're stuck with it. (
The reasons are simple. For every PC monitor sold, 100 TVS are sold.
4:3 was an expensive and low volume LCD. 16:9 were cheap and plentiful
It's all driven by movies and money.
I think "widescreen" is _not_ a good fit for general computer use; when
it first came in, it was presented as "do you want to watch movies in a little strip across your screen" - but at _that_ point, few people were _actually_ watching movies on their computer monitors. But it stayed,
and we're stuck with it. (IMO it's _still_ not a good shape for web
pages; I have to do a lot of up-and-down scrolling to read the average
web page.)
OK, monitors (and graphics cards) have now got big enough
that you can work on two documents side-by-side (though I still wonder
how many people actually do).
On 19/09/2026 11:42 pm, Paul wrote:
On Sat, 9/19/2026 5:56 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
On 19/09/2026 8:13 am, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/9/18 22:19:52, Paul wrote:
On Fri, 9/18/2026 5:09 PM, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/18/2026 5:05 PM, Hank Rogers wrote:
<Snip>
Tiny ones, yes. But since the switch to *shortscreen* (which I thinkBecause laptops have small screens and keyboards are also usually crummy.
generally was a Bad Move, but it does have this advantage), even 15"
ones (which tend to be 15.6 since that change) have at least a numeric >>>> keyboard. And the screen size has never bothered me.
"shortscreen"??
That could be a reference to 16:9 screen in place
of 5:4 or 4:3 screens. The change in aspect ratio annoyed
a number of users.
That's what I thought it might have meant but had never seen it before.
16:9 sure, 4:3 sure!
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I think "widescreen" is_not_ a good fit for general computer use; when
it first came in, it was presented as "do you want to watch movies in a
little strip across your screen" - but at_that_ point, few people were
_actually_ watching movies on their computer monitors. But it stayed,
and we're stuck with it. (
?General computer use? is not one thing, everyone has different needs.
The reasons are simple. For every PC monitor sold, 100 TVS are sold.
4:3 was an expensive and low volume LCD. 16:9 were cheap and plentiful
Nearer 2 TVs per monitor:
https://displaydaily.com/tv-market-recovering-getting-bigger-brighter-better/ https://omdia.tech.informa.com/pr/2026/may/desktop-monitor-shipments-reach-133point4-million-units-in-2025-as-gaming-monitors-fuel-recovery
I like my ultrawide monitor, nominally 21x9 although 43x18 is more
accurate; my field of view is wider than it is high and moving my head
side to side is more comfortable than vertically.
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I think "widescreen" is_not_ a good fit for general computer use; when
it first came in, it was presented as "do you want to watch movies in a
little strip across your screen" - but at_that_ point, few people were
_actually_ watching movies on their computer monitors. But it stayed,
and we're stuck with it. (
I also do not like 16:9 monitors. 16:10 works OK for me. I think 3:2
might be ideal, but other than some laptops it's not an option, AFAIK.
The reasons are simple. For every PC monitor sold, 100 TVS are sold.
4:3 was an expensive and low volume LCD. 16:9 were cheap and plentiful
It's all driven by movies and money.
Yes, although I could quibble with your 100X estimate. In the smaller
sizes, there's probably more monitors than there are TV's! Still,
1080P did become the standard, due to the shared cost.
Mark Lloyd wrote:[]
(and the browser links bar is on the side too) so there's moreFirefox does allow that (even Edge does, so I presume Chrome too?) and I
vertical space for the webpage
now prefer tabs down the right side (don't think Edge allows right
instead of left?)
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Nearer 2 TVs per monitor:
https://displaydaily.com/tv-market-recovering-getting-bigger-brighter-better/
https://omdia.tech.informa.com/pr/2026/may/desktop-monitor-shipments-reach-133point4-million-units-in-2025-as-gaming-monitors-fuel-recovery
That does surprise me - is that world-wide, or one particular country?
I think most people in UK now do their computing via a 'phone; if they
do use something with a keyboard, they seem to buy one once in a blue
moon, whereas TVs seem to be changed almost as often as socks.
I like my ultrawide monitor, nominally 21x9 although 43x18 is more
accurate; my field of view is wider than it is high and moving my head
side to side is more comfortable than vertically.
You (and, really, all of us here) are probably not a typical user. I'd
_like_ a big monitor too (though not sure if I'd want any wider than
16:9), but not enough to have such an object making its presence felt.
(I have TVs smaller than most people do, too.)
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> writes:
Richard Kettlewell wrote:
Nearer 2 TVs per monitor:
https://displaydaily.com/tv-market-recovering-getting-bigger-brighter-better/
https://omdia.tech.informa.com/pr/2026/may/desktop-monitor-shipments-reach-133point4-million-units-in-2025-as-gaming-monitors-fuel-recovery
That does surprise me - is that world-wide, or one particular country?
Global. It does say in the articles...
I think most people in UK now do their computing via a 'phone; if they
do use something with a keyboard, they seem to buy one once in a blue
moon, whereas TVs seem to be changed almost as often as socks.
Depends on the activity. Almost anyone with an office job (whether done
from a literal office or from home) is likely to spend a substantial
amount of time using a laptop (perhaps connected to an external monitor)
or desktop, for example.
I like my ultrawide monitor, nominally 21x9 although 43x18 is more
accurate; my field of view is wider than it is high and moving my head
side to side is more comfortable than vertically.
You (and, really, all of us here) are probably not a typical user. I'd
_like_ a big monitor too (though not sure if I'd want any wider than
16:9), but not enough to have such an object making its presence felt.
(I have TVs smaller than most people do, too.)
I?m sure I?m an outlier in some ways, yes, but I wonder if there?s
really such a thing as a ?typical user? at all. All sorts of activities
can benefit from more screen space, different people (or their
employers) have different tradeoffs between desk space and screen space,
etc.
On 2026/9/20 18:20:22, Andy Burns wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote:[]
(and the browser links bar is on the side too) so there's moreFirefox does allow that (even Edge does, so I presume Chrome too?) and I
vertical space for the webpage
now prefer tabs down the right side (don't think Edge allows right
instead of left?)
I think the worst thing Chrome did (some years ago now, before Edge, but
Edge kept the fault) was do away with the title bar (let alone the menu
bar), just - or so it seemed - that they could be "different". Knowing
the title of a web page is often useful. (I have an add-on that restores
it - though puts it in a [selectable] corner - ask if you want it.)
On 2026/9/20 12:24:46, Daniel70 wrote:
On 19/09/2026 11:42 pm, Paul wrote:_Were_ computer monitors (or laptop screens) ever 5:4? I know that shape
On Sat, 9/19/2026 5:56 AM, Daniel70 wrote:
On 19/09/2026 8:13 am, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/9/18 22:19:52, Paul wrote:
On Fri, 9/18/2026 5:09 PM, Joel W. Crump wrote:
On 9/18/2026 5:05 PM, Hank Rogers wrote:
<Snip>
Tiny ones, yes. But since the switch to *shortscreen* (which I think >>>>> generally was a Bad Move, but it does have this advantage), even 15" >>>>> ones (which tend to be 15.6 since that change) have at least a numeric >>>>> keyboard. And the screen size has never bothered me.Because laptops have small screens and keyboards are also usually crummy.
"shortscreen"??
That could be a reference to 16:9 screen in place
of 5:4 or 4:3 screens. The change in aspect ratio annoyed
a number of users.
That's what I thought it might have meant but had never seen it before.
16:9 sure, 4:3 sure!
was used in TV up to maybe 195x (when TV tubes were basically
round-bottomed flasks), but they switched to 4:3 around then (and mostly before video could be recorded in any way other than Kinescope, so there
is little archive material that shape).
On 2026/9/20 17:26:9, chrisv wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I think "widescreen" is_not_ a good fit for general computer use; when >>>> it first came in, it was presented as "do you want to watch movies in a >>>> little strip across your screen" - but at_that_ point, few people were >>>> _actually_ watching movies on their computer monitors. But it stayed, >>>> and we're stuck with it. (
I also do not like 16:9 monitors. 16:10 works OK for me. I think 3:2
might be ideal, but other than some laptops it's not an option, AFAIK.
I don't think I've seen a laptop (or similar) with other than widescreen
(of slightly varying ratios, perhaps) for many years. (Well, maybe some
of the very expensive tough ones designed to be dropped.)>
Yes, I don't think you can _get_ a new TV - certainly not in the normal outlets Joe public goes to - less than 32" - and probably not even thatThe reasons are simple. For every PC monitor sold, 100 TVS are sold.
4:3 was an expensive and low volume LCD. 16:9 were cheap and plentiful
It's all driven by movies and money.
Yes, although I could quibble with your 100X estimate. In the smaller
sizes, there's probably more monitors than there are TV's! Still,
1080P did become the standard, due to the shared cost.
small now, I haven't looked lately.
Andy Burns wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote:I'd been waiting for the never-arriving update in Win11 that allowed that, just looked again, and I do have it, so scratch that :-)
I try to arrange it so my taskbar is on the side
Win11 (by itself) doesn't allow that.
Bah!˙ Why does "autohide" only work when the taskbar is at the bottom?
I?m sure I?m an outlier in some ways, yes, but I wonder if there?sIndeed. And adapting the way one works to the technology available has
really such a thing as a ?typical user? at all. All sorts of activities
can benefit from more screen space, different people (or their
employers) have different tradeoffs between desk space and screen space,
etc.
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>wrote:
Apparently, someone believes this is what TV looks like.
https://www.cnet.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/c79a835c-51b0-442d-88a9-a257803c560b.jpg
Couldn't they have found a larger potted plant ?
I always wondered what a McMansion looked like inside. Now I know.
I know that's an AI picture, but still... someone believes it.
That TV is worth looking at.
Paul
Depends whose balls they are playing with?Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>wrote:
Apparently, someone believes this is what TV looks like.
https://www.cnet.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/c79a835c-51b0-442d-88a9-a257803c560b.jpg
Couldn't they have found a larger potted plant ?
I always wondered what a McMansion looked like inside. Now I know.
I know that's an AI picture, but still... someone believes it.
That TV is worth looking at.
Paul
Kids playing with balls in that room will shorten the life of that screen
a bit? A lot?
On 2026/9/20 18:20:22, Andy Burns wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote:[]
(and the browser links bar is on the side too) so there's moreFirefox does allow that (even Edge does, so I presume Chrome too?) and
vertical space for the webpage
I now prefer tabs down the right side (don't think Edge allows right
instead of left?)
I think the worst thing Chrome did (some years ago now, before Edge, but
Edge kept the fault) was do away with the title bar (let alone the menu
bar), just - or so it seemed - that they could be "different". Knowing
the title of a web page is often useful. (I have an add-on that restores
it - though puts it in a [selectable] corner - ask if you want it.)
Yes, I don't think you can _get_ a new TV - certainly not in the normal outlets Joe public goes to - less than 32" - and probably not even that
small now, I haven't looked lately.
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:57:19 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/9/20 18:20:22, Andy Burns wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote:[]
(and the browser links bar is on the side too) so there's moreFirefox does allow that (even Edge does, so I presume Chrome too?) and
vertical space for the webpage
I now prefer tabs down the right side (don't think Edge allows right
instead of left?)
I think the worst thing Chrome did (some years ago now, before Edge, but
Edge kept the fault) was do away with the title bar (let alone the menu
bar), just - or so it seemed - that they could be "different". Knowing
the title of a web page is often useful. (I have an add-on that restores
it - though puts it in a [selectable] corner - ask if you want it.)
Firefox hides the menu bar by default. It seems to get harder to re-enable
it every time I need to.
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:32:42 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
[snip]
Yes, I don't think you can _get_ a new TV - certainly not in the normal
outlets Joe public goes to - less than 32" - and probably not even that
small now, I haven't looked lately.
I seem to have seen 24" in Wal-Mart, although those could be gone now.
40" and 43" are now in the aisle labeled "small TVs".
I remember when 19" was big.
Well stated!
I might add, anyone who has programmed in assembly or
machine code, does get computers.˙ Not for the faint
of heart though!
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>wrote:
Apparently, someone believes this is what TV looks like.
https://www.cnet.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/c79a835c-51b0-442d-88a9-a257803c560b.jpg
Couldn't they have found a larger potted plant ?
I always wondered what a McMansion looked like inside. Now I know.
I know that's an AI picture, but still... someone believes it.
That TV is worth looking at.
Kids playing with balls in that room will shorten the life of that screen
a bit? A lot?
On Mon, 9/21/2026 8:41 AM, Jan Panteltje wrote:Whereas the family terrier will simply look innocent and hurt when accused
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>wrote:
Apparently, someone believes this is what TV looks like.
https://www.cnet.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/c79a835c-51b0-442d-88a9-a257803c560b.jpg
Couldn't they have found a larger potted plant ?
I always wondered what a McMansion looked like inside. Now I know.
I know that's an AI picture, but still... someone believes it.
That TV is worth looking at.
Kids playing with balls in that room will shorten the life of that screen
a bit? A lot?
Yes, seeing that kid in the picture, that was my first thought.
Kid + Big Screen ==> Nuclear Error
You can tell the kid is staring at it, figuring out
how he is going to destroy it :-) There's a lot of
calculations to do, to make it look like an accident.
Paul
WOW!! Here in Australia, we only got T.V. in 1956
On 21/09/2026 15:26, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:32:42 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
[snip]
Yes, I don't think you can _get_ a new TV - certainly not in the normal
outlets Joe public goes to - less than 32" - and probably not even that
small now, I haven't looked lately.
I seem to have seen 24" in Wal-Mart, although those could be gone now.
40" and 43" are now in the aisle labeled "small TVs".
I remember when 19" was big.
Indeed.
The pride of owning a 32" CRT monster was immense.
You cam still get 'bedroom' or 'camper' tellys at smaller sizes though
22" is the smallest I found
But stick a TV dongle in a laptop and you can go even smaller
Apparently, someone believes this is what TV looks like.
https://www.cnet.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/c79a835c-51b0-442d-88a9-a257803c560b.jpg
Couldn't they have found a larger potted plant ?
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:mal
On 21/09/2026 15:26, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:32:42 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
[snip]
Yes, I don't think you can _get_ a new TV - certainly not in the nor
hatoutlets Joe public goes to - less than 32" - and probably not even t
.small now, I haven't looked lately.
I seem to have seen 24" in Wal-Mart, although those could be gone now
Indeed.
40" and 43" are now in the aisle labeled "small TVs".
I remember when 19" was big.
The pride of owning a 32" CRT monster was immense.
You cam still get 'bedroom' or 'camper' tellys at smaller sizes though
22" is the smallest I found
But stick a TV dongle in a laptop and you can go even smaller
Exactly. (In ~2008) I had a TV dongle in my Acer Aspire One 'netbook',
which had a whopping 8.9" display. We had to sit way back, in order not
to develop neck pain from all the left/right turning!
On 9/20/26 14:57, J. P. Gilliver wrote:d I
On 2026/9/20 18:20:22, Andy Burns wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote:[]
(and the browser links bar is on the side too) so there's moreFirefox does allow that (even Edge does, so I presume Chrome too?) an
vertical space for the webpage
utnow prefer tabs down the right side (don't think Edge allows right
instead of left?)
I think the worst thing Chrome did (some years ago now, before Edge, b
uEdge kept the fault) was do away with the title bar (let alone the men
esbar), just - or so it seemed - that they could be "different". Knowing
the title of a web page is often useful. (I have an add-on that restor
it - though puts it in a [selectable] corner - ask if you want it.)
Firefox ... you just click a box and the URL bar appears.
On 21/09/2026 7:44 pm, T wrote:
<Snip>
Well stated!
I might add, anyone who has programmed in assembly or
machine code, does get computers.˙ Not for the faint
of heart though!
Back in about 1990, I was teaching basic Assembly Language programming
on a kit called the uBEEB or some such produced by, I think, the BBC,
which used the ZiLog Z80 uProcessor. Its Display was a four Digit LED (Address) display and a two Digit LED (Data) display.
The course just required converting Instructions (LDA, LDB, etc) into
the Hex code and entering that code into the RAM and then executing the Code.
For their final test the students had to convert a sequence of
Instructions into Code and enter that code and the Data I supplied into
the uBEEB kit, press 'RUN' and see what happened.
If they had done it right, the Display would show ....
FAIL ...... YOU PASS ...... YOU PASS ...... YOU PASS ...... YOU PASS ...
(on a loop)
It either worked (Pass) or it didn't (Fail) EASY!!
On Mon, 21 Sep 2026, Daniel70 wrote:
WOW!! Here in Australia, we only got T.V. in 1956
Random question: does Australia have a history of Old Time Radio Shows?
I would love to see if I can find any. I really love old time radio
theater. Like Yours Truly, Johhny Dollar and Gunsmoke, etc.
On 2026/9/21 19:44:8, Frank Slootweg wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 21/09/2026 15:26, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:32:42 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Indeed.
[snip]
Yes, I don't think you can _get_ a new TV - certainly not in the normal >>>>> outlets Joe public goes to - less than 32" - and probably not even that >>>>> small now, I haven't looked lately.
I seem to have seen 24" in Wal-Mart, although those could be gone now. >>>>
40" and 43" are now in the aisle labeled "small TVs".
I remember when 19" was big.
The pride of owning a 32" CRT monster was immense.
You cam still get 'bedroom' or 'camper' tellys at smaller sizes though
22" is the smallest I found
I think last time I looked (and that wasn't too recently) 32 or 40 was
the smallest for new TVs in the usual outlets.
But stick a TV dongle in a laptop and you can go even smaller
Indeed, but you don't half end up fighting the software to make them work.
On 2026/9/21 4:56:40, c186282 wrote:Sry I meant menu bar.
On 9/20/26 14:57, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Not the URL bar (that's there all the time in Edge, though I think they
On 2026/9/20 18:20:22, Andy Burns wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote:[]
(and the browser links bar is on the side too) so there's moreFirefox does allow that (even Edge does, so I presume Chrome too?) and I >>>> now prefer tabs down the right side (don't think Edge allows right
vertical space for the webpage
instead of left?)
I think the worst thing Chrome did (some years ago now, before Edge, but >>> Edge kept the fault) was do away with the title bar (let alone the menu
bar), just - or so it seemed - that they could be "different". Knowing
the title of a web page is often useful. (I have an add-on that restores >>> it - though puts it in a [selectable] corner - ask if you want it.)
Firefox ... you just click a box and the URL bar appears.
may call it the address bar), the title.
I remember a BBC series 'the Flying Doctor' which I assumed was made by the Australian broadcasting corporation.
Paul wrote:
Apparently, someone believes this is what TV looks like.
https://www.cnet.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/c79a835c-51b0-442d-88a9-a257803c560b.jpg
That's when "8k" will make sense.
Couldn't they have found a larger potted plant ?
And larger speakers! A room that size would need something with 15"
woofers, I'd guess.
In Uni, they had us make a 8080 on a vector board and then do
various programming tasks.˙ I do remember the fun of
adding and subtracting with machine code.˙ Then they had
us add an arithmetic processing chip and we were in heaven.
On 2026/9/21 19:44:8, Frank Slootweg wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 21/09/2026 15:26, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:32:42 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Indeed.
[snip]
Yes, I don't think you can _get_ a new TV - certainly not in the normal >>>>> outlets Joe public goes to - less than 32" - and probably not even that >>>>> small now, I haven't looked lately.
I seem to have seen 24" in Wal-Mart, although those could be gone now. >>>>
40" and 43" are now in the aisle labeled "small TVs".
I remember when 19" was big.
The pride of owning a 32" CRT monster was immense.
You cam still get 'bedroom' or 'camper' tellys at smaller sizes though
22" is the smallest I found
I think last time I looked (and that wasn't too recently) 32 or 40 was
the smallest for new TVs in the usual outlets.
But stick a TV dongle in a laptop and you can go even smaller
Indeed, but you don't half end up fighting the software to make them work.
Exactly. (In ~2008) I had a TV dongle in my Acer Aspire One 'netbook',
which had a whopping 8.9" display. We had to sit way back, in order not
to develop neck pain from all the left/right turning!
:-)
"Camping" or "portable" ones used to be sold, mainly by maplin in this country (UK), before they disappeared. (They weren't own brand.) Never
too successful - partly because they drew too much power relative to
their size, so difficult to keep going on batteries, but mainly because
they were no less deaf - OK, maybe a _little_ less - than home sets, and
thus needed connecting to a big aerial, which made their use as camping/portable sets pretty pointless. AFAIK you can still get them
online. They also suffer from the same as the TV sticks - getting things
like subtitles, EPG, AD, etc. just wasn't available, LCNs (channel
numbers) didn't work properly, and they even tended to use
half-resolution or similar. but the signal need was/is the main killer.
On 21/09/2026 15:26, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:32:42 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Indeed.
[snip]
Yes, I don't think you can _get_ a new TV - certainly not in the normal
outlets Joe public goes to - less than 32" - and probably not even that
small now, I haven't looked lately.
I seem to have seen 24" in Wal-Mart, although those could be gone now.
40" and 43" are now in the aisle labeled "small TVs".
I remember when 19" was big.
The pride of owning a 32" CRT monster was immense.
You cam still get 'bedroom' or 'camper' tellys at smaller sizes though
22" is the smallest I found
But stick a TV dongle in a laptop and you can˙ go even smaller
On Mon, 9/21/2026 5:29 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/9/21 19:44:8, Frank Slootweg wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 21/09/2026 15:26, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:32:42 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Indeed.
[snip]
Yes, I don't think you can _get_ a new TV - certainly not in the normal >>>>>> outlets Joe public goes to - less than 32" - and probably not even that >>>>>> small now, I haven't looked lately.
I seem to have seen 24" in Wal-Mart, although those could be gone now. >>>>>
40" and 43" are now in the aisle labeled "small TVs".
I remember when 19" was big.
The pride of owning a 32" CRT monster was immense.
You cam still get 'bedroom' or 'camper' tellys at smaller sizes though >>>> 22" is the smallest I found
I think last time I looked (and that wasn't too recently) 32 or 40 was
the smallest for new TVs in the usual outlets.
But stick a TV dongle in a laptop and you can go even smaller
Indeed, but you don't half end up fighting the software to make them work. >>
Exactly. (In ~2008) I had a TV dongle in my Acer Aspire One 'netbook', >>> which had a whopping 8.9" display. We had to sit way back, in order not
to develop neck pain from all the left/right turning!
:-)
"Camping" or "portable" ones used to be sold, mainly by maplin in this
country (UK), before they disappeared. (They weren't own brand.) Never
too successful - partly because they drew too much power relative to
their size, so difficult to keep going on batteries, but mainly because
they were no less deaf - OK, maybe a _little_ less - than home sets, and
thus needed connecting to a big aerial, which made their use as
camping/portable sets pretty pointless. AFAIK you can still get them
online. They also suffer from the same as the TV sticks - getting things
like subtitles, EPG, AD, etc. just wasn't available, LCNs (channel
numbers) didn't work properly, and they even tended to use
half-resolution or similar. but the signal need was/is the main killer.
Why did we need digital TV again ?
I keep forgetting the reason for it :-)
At the cottage, and without any fancy antenna system, we could
just barely get enough analog signal on one TV channel, to get audio.
The picture was pure white snow, nothing to sync to, but
you could still get audio, which was good enough for
the nightly news.
You can't do that with digital TV. At that signal level, you
get LOS and a black screen.
The OTA digital TV, you can really
only count on it (getting some station to come in), in the
city. If I use my 15dBi antenna, I can get a representative sample
of city signals. With rabbit ears, only a few "lucky" channels
come in :-) It's not like the scheme encourages fringe reception
projects, as it barely works in the city.
Paul
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>wrote:
On 2026/9/21 19:44:8, Frank Slootweg wrote:.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 21/09/2026 15:26, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:32:42 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
[snip]
Yes, I don't think you can _get_ a new TV - certainly not in the nor= >mal
outlets Joe public goes to - less than 32" - and probably not even t= >hat
small now, I haven't looked lately.
I seem to have seen 24" in Wal-Mart, although those could be gone now=
Indeed.
40" and 43" are now in the aisle labeled "small TVs".
I remember when 19" was big.
The pride of owning a 32" CRT monster was immense.
You cam still get 'bedroom' or 'camper' tellys at smaller sizes though=
22" is the smallest I found
I think last time I looked (and that wasn't too recently) 32 or 40 was
the smallest for new TVs in the usual outlets.
But stick a TV dongle in a laptop and you can go even smaller
Indeed, but you don't half end up fighting the software to make them work=
.
,
Exactly. (In ~2008) I had a TV dongle in my Acer Aspire One 'netbook'=
which had a whopping 8.9" display. We had to sit way back, in order not=
to develop neck pain from all the left/right turning!
:-)
"Camping" or "portable" ones used to be sold, mainly by maplin in this >country (UK), before they disappeared. (They weren't own brand.) Never
too successful - partly because they drew too much power relative to
their size, so difficult to keep going on batteries, but mainly because
they were no less deaf - OK, maybe a _little_ less - than home sets, and
thus needed connecting to a big aerial, which made their use as >camping/portable sets pretty pointless. AFAIK you can still get them
online. They also suffer from the same as the TV sticks - getting things
like subtitles, EPG, AD, etc. just wasn't available, LCNs (channel
numbers) didn't work properly, and they even tended to use
half-resolution or similar. but the signal need was/is the main killer.
Now you mention it I think the Beeb /did/ have _some_ connection toNo, this was definitely using a Zilog Z80 CPU.
the Raspberry Pi machines (if only linking some programmes to them) -
though a lot more tenuous connection than to the BBC computers - but
that was a _lot_ more recently.
All this discussion about T.V.'s has got me wondering what ever happened
to "P.i.P." (Picture in Picture) where you could be watching a program
on one channel and have a small insert picture in the corner of what was happening on another channel ..... so you knew when to switch over to
the Cricket/Football or whatever. Can't say I've ever seen it being
offered recently.
Or was that a function of a Beta/VHS Video Recorder I had at that time??
On 22/09/2026 4:20 pm, c186282 wrote:
On 9/21/26 11:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
<Snip>
Back in the day, every T.V. had at least one TUBE ..... the CRT!!Indeed.
The pride of owning a 32" CRT monster was immense.
You cam still get 'bedroom' or 'camper' tellys at smaller sizes though
22" is the smallest I found
But stick a TV dongle in a laptop and you can˙ go even smaller
˙˙ Fam had a "big" 30" Zenith B&W console for quite
˙˙ awhile. It was good. Still worked when swapped for
˙˙ a color - most shows were in color by then. Clearest
˙˙ one was a 22" Panasonic B&W out on the screen porch
˙˙ (pre central A/C then). A few tubes and the rest was
˙˙ transistors ... hybrid tech was kinda common for awhile.
˙˙ Seem to remember tube-based tuners were more sensitive.
On 22/09/2026 8:38 pm, Daniel70 wrote:
On 22/09/2026 7:45 am, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
<Snip>
Now you mention it I think the Beeb /did/ have _some_ connection toNo, this was definitely using a Zilog Z80 CPU.
the Raspberry Pi machines (if only linking some programmes to them) -
though a lot more tenuous connection than to the BBC computers - but
that was a _lot_ more recently.
At other times, I had learnt programming for Intel 8085 and Motorola
6809 CPU's
Variety is the Spice of Life!!
On Sun, 9/20/2026 2:32 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/9/20 17:26:9, chrisv wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Yes, I don't think you can _get_ a new TV - certainly not in the normal
outlets Joe public goes to - less than 32" - and probably not even that
small now, I haven't looked lately.
AI Overview
Standard TV sizes range from 32 inches to 85 inches or larger,
measured diagonally from corner to corner.
Common TV Dimensions 32", 43", 50", 55", 65", 75", 85"
********
If you believe the AI, then sets smaller than 32" don't exist (hah!).
On 22/09/2026 12:10, Daniel70 wrote:
All this discussion about T.V.'s has got me wondering what ever
happened to "P.i.P." (Picture in Picture) where you could be watching
a program on one channel and have a small insert picture in the corner
of what was happening on another channel ..... so you knew when to
switch over to the Cricket/Football or whatever. Can't say I've ever
seen it being offered recently.
Or was that a function of a Beta/VHS Video Recorder I had at that time??
Probably. You need two tuners to decode two streams unless they happen
to be on the same digital MUX. Which in the UK is about a 20% chance..
Never had any trouble˙ - several apps like VLC would work
On 2026-09-21 12:16, Paul wrote:
On Sun, 9/20/2026 2:32 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/9/20 17:26:9, chrisv wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Yes, I don't think you can _get_ a new TV - certainly not in the normal
outlets Joe public goes to - less than 32" - and probably not even that
small now, I haven't looked lately.
AI Overview
Standard TV sizes range from 32 inches to 85 inches or larger,
measured diagonally from corner to corner.
Common TV Dimensions˙ 32",˙ 43",˙ 50",˙ 55",˙ 65", 75",˙ 85"
********
If you believe the AI, then sets smaller than 32" don't exist (hah!).
I just looked. There are 28" units (I have one such)
That's why, when buying even cheap USB tuners, you read
the reviews to discover what evil awaits in the software
that comes with it. Invariably it's "software is awful",
when you read the reviews. It's hard to find a product
that doesn't have reviews like that.
On 22/09/2026 13:12, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2026-09-21 12:16, Paul wrote:
On Sun, 9/20/2026 2:32 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/9/20 17:26:9, chrisv wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Yes, I don't think you can _get_ a new TV - certainly not in the normal >>> outlets Joe public goes to - less than 32" - and probably not even that >>> small now, I haven't looked lately.
AI Overview
Standard TV sizes range from 32 inches to 85 inches or larger,
measured diagonally from corner to corner.
Common TV Dimensions? 32",? 43",? 50",? 55",? 65", 75",? 85"
********
If you believe the AI, then sets smaller than 32" don't exist (hah!).
I just looked. There are 28" units (I have one such)
Hard to buy these days. I have a 32 and a 43 I think
On 2026/9/21 19:44:8, Frank Slootweg wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 21/09/2026 15:26, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:32:42 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Indeed.
[snip]
Yes, I don't think you can _get_ a new TV - certainly not in the normal >>>> outlets Joe public goes to - less than 32" - and probably not even that >>>> small now, I haven't looked lately.
I seem to have seen 24" in Wal-Mart, although those could be gone now
40" and 43" are now in the aisle labeled "small TVs".
I remember when 19" was big.
The pride of owning a 32" CRT monster was immense.
You cam still get 'bedroom' or 'camper' tellys at smaller sizes though
22" is the smallest I found
I think last time I looked (and that wasn't too recently) 32 or 40 was
the smallest for new TVs in the usual outlets.
But stick a TV dongle in a laptop and you can go even smaller
Indeed, but you don't half end up fighting the software to make them work.
Exactly. (In ~2008) I had a TV dongle in my Acer Aspire One 'netbook', which had a whopping 8.9" display. We had to sit way back, in order not
to develop neck pain from all the left/right turning!
:-)
"Camping" or "portable" ones used to be sold, mainly by maplin in this country (UK), before they disappeared. (They weren't own brand.) Never
too successful - partly because they drew too much power relative to
their size, so difficult to keep going on batteries, but mainly because
they were no less deaf - OK, maybe a _little_ less - than home sets, and
thus needed connecting to a big aerial, which made their use as camping/portable sets pretty pointless. AFAIK you can still get them
online. They also suffer from the same as the TV sticks - getting things
like subtitles, EPG, AD, etc. just wasn't available, LCNs (channel
numbers) didn't work properly, and they even tended to use
half-resolution or similar. but the signal need was/is the main killer.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 22/09/2026 13:12, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2026-09-21 12:16, Paul wrote:Hard to buy these days. I have a 32 and a 43 I think
On Sun, 9/20/2026 2:32 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/9/20 17:26:9, chrisv wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Yes, I don't think you can _get_ a new TV - certainly not in the normal >>>>> outlets Joe public goes to - less than 32" - and probably not even that >>>>> small now, I haven't looked lately.
AI Overview
Standard TV sizes range from 32 inches to 85 inches or larger,
measured diagonally from corner to corner.
Common TV Dimensions˙ 32",˙ 43",˙ 50",˙ 55",˙ 65", 75",˙ 85"
********
If you believe the AI, then sets smaller than 32" don't exist (hah!).
I just looked. There are 28" units (I have one such)
Not here (The Netherlands). One main webshop (mediamarkt.nl) has 21 different 24" models (and 27").
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>wrote:
On 22/09/2026 12:16, Daniel70 wrote:
On 22/09/2026 4:20 pm, c186282 wrote:
On 9/21/26 11:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
<Snip>
Back in the day, every T.V. had at least one TUBE ..... the CRT!!Indeed.
The pride of owning a 32" CRT monster was immense.
You cam still get 'bedroom' or 'camper' tellys at smaller sizes though >>>> 22" is the smallest I found
But stick a TV dongle in a laptop and you can˙ go even smaller
˙˙ Fam had a "big" 30" Zenith B&W console for quite
˙˙ awhile. It was good. Still worked when swapped for
˙˙ a color - most shows were in color by then. Clearest
˙˙ one was a 22" Panasonic B&W out on the screen porch
˙˙ (pre central A/C then). A few tubes and the rest was
˙˙ transistors ... hybrid tech was kinda common for awhile.
˙˙ Seem to remember tube-based tuners were more sensitive.
Making the RF part of a set out of transistors or chips was easy enough,
but the anode grid and plate voltages were on the hundreds -
transistors to handle that were rare and expensive for a while. And fragile.
Why did we need digital TV again ?
I keep forgetting the reason for it :-)
At the cottage, and without any fancy antenna system, we could just
barely get enough analog signal on one TV channel, to get audio.
The picture was pure white snow, nothing to sync to, but you could still
get audio, which was good enough for the nightly news.
You can't do that with digital TV. At that signal level, you get LOS and
a black screen. The OTA digital TV, you can really only count on it
(getting some station to come in), in the city. If I use my 15dBi
antenna, I can get a representative sample of city signals. With rabbit
ears, only a few "lucky" channels come in :-) It's not like the scheme encourages fringe reception projects, as it barely works in the city.
Paul
On 22/09/2026 14:38, Frank Slootweg wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 22/09/2026 13:12, Carlos E.R. wrote:
Hard to buy these days. I have a 32 and a 43 I think
On 2026-09-21 12:16, Paul wrote:
I just looked. There are 28" units (I have one such)
AI Overview
Standard TV sizes range from 32 inches to 85 inches or larger,
measured diagonally from corner to corner.
Common TV Dimensions˙ 32",˙ 43",˙ 50",˙ 55",˙ 65", 75",˙ 85"
********
If you believe the AI, then sets smaller than 32" don't exist (hah!). >>>>
˙˙ Not here (The Netherlands). One main webshop (mediamarkt.nl) has 21
different 24" models (and 27").
Same in UKs biggest retailer of domestic shit. Starts at 24/27
On 22/09/2026 12:47, Daniel70 wrote:
On 22/09/2026 8:38 pm, Daniel70 wrote:
On 22/09/2026 7:45 am, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
<Snip>
Now you mention it I think the Beeb /did/ have _some_ connection toNo, this was definitely using a Zilog Z80 CPU.
the Raspberry Pi machines (if only linking some programmes to them) -
though a lot more tenuous connection than to the BBC computers - but
that was a _lot_ more recently.
At other times, I had learnt programming for Intel 8085 and Motorola
6809 CPU's
Variety is the Spice of Life!!
Z80. 6809, 8086 were what I cut my teeth on.
After that, C and who cared what the processor was? The compiler sorted
it for the most part.
On 22/09/2026 13:12, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 2026-09-21 12:16, Paul wrote:Hard to buy these days. I have a 32 and a 43 I think
On Sun, 9/20/2026 2:32 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/9/20 17:26:9, chrisv wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Yes, I don't think you can _get_ a new TV - certainly not in the normal >>>> outlets Joe public goes to - less than 32" - and probably not even that >>>> small now, I haven't looked lately.
AI Overview
Standard TV sizes range from 32 inches to 85 inches or larger,
measured diagonally from corner to corner.
Common TV Dimensions˙ 32",˙ 43",˙ 50",˙ 55",˙ 65", 75",˙ 85"
********
If you believe the AI, then sets smaller than 32" don't exist (hah!).
I just looked. There are 28" units (I have one such)
On Mon, 9/21/2026 6:34 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Never had any trouble˙ - several apps like VLC would work
But generally speaking, they like to sell you the tuner,
and the software side is a slog of multiple steps, guess
and by golly.
It's just a whole lot of fun. If you want a test of your
skillz, try setting up MythTV, with the front end on
one computer, and the back end on a second computer.
It's a lot simpler if setting both ends on the same
computer, and keeping the tuner in your daily driver.
"Camping" or "portable" ones used to be sold, mainly by maplin in this
country (UK), before they disappeared. (They weren't own brand.) Never
too successful - partly because they drew too much power relative to
their size, so difficult to keep going on batteries, but mainly because
they were no less deaf - OK, maybe a _little_ less - than home sets, and
thus needed connecting to a big aerial, which made their use as
camping/portable sets pretty pointless. AFAIK you can still get them
online. They also suffer from the same as the TV sticks - getting things
like subtitles, EPG, AD, etc. just wasn't available, LCNs (channel
numbers) didn't work properly, and they even tended to use
half-resolution or similar. but the signal need was/is the main killer.
I have a portable 10 inch with build in rechargable battery:
https://www.bol.com/nl/nl/p/lenco-tft-1028bk-draagbare-televisie-hd-met-dvb-t2-10-inch-zwart/9200000054160430/
No longer available it says.
On 22/09/2026 8:33 am, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 21/09/2026 18:13, Chris Abraham wrote:I think 'the Flying Doctor' was produced by/for one or other of the Commercial Networks, the Seven Network, the Nine Network and the Ten
On Mon, 21 Sep 2026, Daniel70 wrote:
WOW!! Here in Australia, we only got T.V. in 1956
Random question: does Australia have a history of Old Time Radio
Shows? I would love to see if I can find any. I really love old time
radio theater. Like Yours Truly, Johhny Dollar and Gunsmoke, etc.
I remember a BBC series 'the Flying Doctor' which I assumed was made by
the Australian broadcasting corporation.
Network .... and it might not shock you to know they were named after
the VHS Channel that they transmitted on!
The Government funded network was the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) which transmitted on VHS Chn 2. The ABC also had a network of AM
radio stations which could be broadcasting locally based programs or State-based programming or National (Time Zone shifted) programming.
On 22/09/2026 07:20, Paul wrote:
On Mon, 9/21/2026 5:29 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/9/21 19:44:8, Frank Slootweg wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 21/09/2026 15:26, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:32:42 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Indeed.
[snip]
Yes, I don't think you can _get_ a new TV - certainly not in the >>>>>>> normal
outlets Joe public goes to - less than 32" - and probably not
even that
small now, I haven't looked lately.
I seem to have seen 24" in Wal-Mart, although those could be gone >>>>>> now.
40" and 43" are now in the aisle labeled "small TVs".
I remember when 19" was big.
The pride of owning a 32" CRT monster was immense.
You cam still get 'bedroom' or 'camper' tellys at smaller sizes though >>>>> 22" is the smallest I found
I think last time I looked (and that wasn't too recently) 32 or 40 was
the smallest for new TVs in the usual outlets.
But stick a TV dongle in a laptop and you can˙ go even smaller
Indeed, but you don't half end up fighting the software to make them
work.
˙˙ Exactly. (In ~2008) I had a TV dongle in my Acer Aspire One
'netbook',
which had a whopping 8.9" display. We had to sit way back, in order not >>>> to develop neck pain from all the left/right turning!
:-)
"Camping" or "portable" ones used to be sold, mainly by maplin in this
country (UK), before they disappeared. (They weren't own brand.) Never
too successful - partly because they drew too much power relative to
their size, so difficult to keep going on batteries, but mainly because
they were no less deaf - OK, maybe a _little_ less - than home sets, and >>> thus needed connecting to a big aerial, which made their use as
camping/portable sets pretty pointless. AFAIK you can still get them
online. They also suffer from the same as the TV sticks - getting things >>> like subtitles, EPG, AD, etc. just wasn't available, LCNs (channel
numbers) didn't work properly, and they even tended to use
half-resolution or similar. but the signal need was/is the main killer.
Why did we need digital TV again ?
I keep forgetting the reason for it :-)
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>wrote:
On 2026/9/22 9:22:23, Jan Panteltje wrote:[]
"Camping" or "portable" ones used to be sold, mainly by maplin in this
country (UK), before they disappeared. (They weren't own brand.) Never
too successful - partly because they drew too much power relative to
their size, so difficult to keep going on batteries, but mainly because
they were no less deaf - OK, maybe a _little_ less - than home sets, and >>> thus needed connecting to a big aerial, which made their use as
camping/portable sets pretty pointless. AFAIK you can still get them
online. They also suffer from the same as the TV sticks - getting things >>> like subtitles, EPG, AD, etc. just wasn't available, LCNs (channel
numbers) didn't work properly, and they even tended to use
half-resolution or similar. but the signal need was/is the main killer.
I have a portable 10 inch with build in rechargable battery:
https://www.bol.com/nl/nl/p/lenco-tft-1028bk-draagbare-televisie-hd-met-dvb-t2-10-inch-zwart/9200000054160430/
No longer available it says.
Is its screen less than SD resolution?
Is it deaf? (If you're in a flat part of .nl, that may not be so important.)
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>wrote:
On 2026-09-22 14:28, Paul wrote:
On Mon, 9/21/2026 6:34 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Never had any trouble˙ - several apps like VLC would work
But generally speaking, they like to sell you the tuner,
and the software side is a slog of multiple steps, guess
and by golly.
Years ago, I found digital TV on Linux a such a huge pain that I gave
up, bought a separate tuner, and ditched my TV card.
I can't just say "Spain", then "search for any station, don't ask me >anything whatsoever". Same as I do in Windows, or with a TV set.
Not in Linux.
I bought a Gigaset M740 AV. It was wonderful.
Two tuners.
Can record or play using a samba share in the computer, or an external
hard disk plugged via USB 2.
Can record two programs and play a third previously recorded.
Can program things by timers or names.
Gets the entire EPG saved on disk.
There was a community developing improved firmwares, having a web page
doing so many things I forget.
Unfortunately, the stations are now high definition, and the box no
longer works. It works, but only tunes sounds.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>wrote:
On 22/09/2026 12:16, Daniel70 wrote:
On 22/09/2026 4:20 pm, c186282 wrote:
On 9/21/26 11:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
<Snip>
Back in the day, every T.V. had at least one TUBE ..... the CRT!!Indeed.
The pride of owning a 32" CRT monster was immense.
You cam still get 'bedroom' or 'camper' tellys at smaller sizes though >>>>> 22" is the smallest I found
But stick a TV dongle in a laptop and you can˙ go even smaller
˙˙ Fam had a "big" 30" Zenith B&W console for quite
˙˙ awhile. It was good. Still worked when swapped for
˙˙ a color - most shows were in color by then. Clearest
˙˙ one was a 22" Panasonic B&W out on the screen porch
˙˙ (pre central A/C then). A few tubes and the rest was
˙˙ transistors ... hybrid tech was kinda common for awhile.
˙˙ Seem to remember tube-based tuners were more sensitive.
Making the RF part of a set out of transistors or chips was easy enough,
but the anode grid and plate voltages were on the hundreds -
transistors to handle that were rare and expensive for a while. And fragile.
10 to 12 kV anode was enough.
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 02:20:00 -0400, Paul wrote:
[snip]
Why did we need digital TV again ?
I keep forgetting the reason for it :-)
You get a more stable, less noisy picture (when it works).
On 9/22/26 02:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/09/2026 07:20, Paul wrote:
On Mon, 9/21/2026 5:29 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/9/21 19:44:8, Frank Slootweg wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 21/09/2026 15:26, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:32:42 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:Indeed.
[snip]
Yes, I don't think you can _get_ a new TV - certainly not in the >>>>>>>> normal
outlets Joe public goes to - less than 32" - and probably not >>>>>>>> even that
small now, I haven't looked lately.
I seem to have seen 24" in Wal-Mart, although those could be gone >>>>>>> now.
40" and 43" are now in the aisle labeled "small TVs".
I remember when 19" was big.
The pride of owning a 32" CRT monster was immense.
You cam still get 'bedroom' or 'camper' tellys at smaller sizes
though
22" is the smallest I found
I think last time I looked (and that wasn't too recently) 32 or 40 was >>>> the smallest for new TVs in the usual outlets.
But stick a TV dongle in a laptop and you can˙ go even smaller
Indeed, but you don't half end up fighting the software to make them
work.
˙˙ Exactly. (In ~2008) I had a TV dongle in my Acer Aspire One
'netbook',
which had a whopping 8.9" display. We had to sit way back, in order >>>>> not
to develop neck pain from all the left/right turning!
:-)
"Camping" or "portable" ones used to be sold, mainly by maplin in this >>>> country (UK), before they disappeared. (They weren't own brand.) Never >>>> too successful - partly because they drew too much power relative to
their size, so difficult to keep going on batteries, but mainly because >>>> they were no less deaf - OK, maybe a _little_ less - than home sets,
and
thus needed connecting to a big aerial, which made their use as
camping/portable sets pretty pointless. AFAIK you can still get them
online. They also suffer from the same as the TV sticks - getting
things
like subtitles, EPG, AD, etc. just wasn't available, LCNs (channel
numbers) didn't work properly, and they even tended to use
half-resolution or similar. but the signal need was/is the main killer. >>>>
Why did we need digital TV again ?
I keep forgetting the reason for it :-)
˙ Big commercial interests wanted to
˙ grab the bandwidth.
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>wrote:
On 2026-09-22 14:28, Paul wrote:
On Mon, 9/21/2026 6:34 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Never had any trouble˙ - several apps like VLC would work
But generally speaking, they like to sell you the tuner,
and the software side is a slog of multiple steps, guess
and by golly.
Years ago, I found digital TV on Linux a such a huge pain that I gave
up, bought a separate tuner, and ditched my TV card.
I can't just say "Spain", then "search for any station, don't ask me
anything whatsoever". Same as I do in Windows, or with a TV set.
Not in Linux.
I bought a Gigaset M740 AV. It was wonderful.
Two tuners.
Can record or play using a samba share in the computer, or an external
hard disk plugged via USB 2.
Can record two programs and play a third previously recorded.
Can program things by timers or names.
Gets the entire EPG saved on disk.
There was a community developing improved firmwares, having a web page
doing so many things I forget.
Unfortunately, the stations are now high definition, and the box no
longer works. It works, but only tunes sounds.
I bought a cheap made in China HD box for my big TV, maybe 30 USD at the time,
it can record to - and playback from a USB thumb drive, 128 GB now in it.
https://panteltje.nl/pub/sat_box_sizes_IXIMG_0907.JPG
left the old satellite TV box, right the new one
Things get ever smaller..
Mostly satellite reception here,
have an other made in China box for the local TV stations
But the TV can do the reception by itself, is merely used as HDMI monitor,
As I have a big steerable satellie dish that draws a bit of power when moving I prefer to use the boxes to drive the satellitedish motor,
that ways protecting my expensive TV
Anyways it all works perfectly, whole world on my TV with that movable dish.
I have several RTL_SDR sticks in use, some record my outside weather sensor, some airplane traffic, some ship traffic, some ham radio and TV,
https://panteltje.online/pub/boats_and_planes.gif
Use thse for spectrum analyzer too:
https://panteltje.nl/pub/radar_spectrum_sidebands.gif
I write all that software myself, do use some libraries of course,
open source much of it,Downloads here:
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/newsflex/download.html
rtl_sdr sticks can ever receive GPS
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>wrote:
On 2026-09-23 09:43, Jan Panteltje wrote:
"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>wrote:
On 2026-09-22 14:28, Paul wrote:
On Mon, 9/21/2026 6:34 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Never had any trouble˙ - several apps like VLC would work
But generally speaking, they like to sell you the tuner,
and the software side is a slog of multiple steps, guess
and by golly.
Years ago, I found digital TV on Linux a such a huge pain that I gave
up, bought a separate tuner, and ditched my TV card.
I can't just say "Spain", then "search for any station, don't ask me
anything whatsoever". Same as I do in Windows, or with a TV set.
Not in Linux.
I bought a Gigaset M740 AV. It was wonderful.
Two tuners.
Can record or play using a samba share in the computer, or an external
hard disk plugged via USB 2.
Can record two programs and play a third previously recorded.
Can program things by timers or names.
Gets the entire EPG saved on disk.
There was a community developing improved firmwares, having a web page
doing so many things I forget.
Unfortunately, the stations are now high definition, and the box no
longer works. It works, but only tunes sounds.
I bought a cheap made in China HD box for my big TV, maybe 30 USD at the time,
it can record to - and playback from a USB thumb drive, 128 GB now in it.
https://panteltje.nl/pub/sat_box_sizes_IXIMG_0907.JPG
left the old satellite TV box, right the new one
Yes, I have one similar. But they are not even close to the features of
the M740
Things get ever smaller..
Mostly satellite reception here,
have an other made in China box for the local TV stations
But the TV can do the reception by itself, is merely used as HDMI monitor, >> As I have a big steerable satellie dish that draws a bit of power when moving
I prefer to use the boxes to drive the satellitedish motor,
that ways protecting my expensive TV
Anyways it all works perfectly, whole world on my TV with that movable dish. >>
I have several RTL_SDR sticks in use, some record my outside weather sensor, >> some airplane traffic, some ship traffic, some ham radio and TV,
https://panteltje.online/pub/boats_and_planes.gif
Use thse for spectrum analyzer too:
https://panteltje.nl/pub/radar_spectrum_sidebands.gif
I write all that software myself, do use some libraries of course,
open source much of it,Downloads here:
https://panteltje.nl/panteltje/newsflex/download.html
rtl_sdr sticks can ever receive GPS
Cute :-)
Most of my entertainment comes via fibre nowdays.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>wrote:
On 22/09/2026 16:35, Jan Panteltje wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>wrote:
On 22/09/2026 12:16, Daniel70 wrote:
On 22/09/2026 4:20 pm, c186282 wrote:
On 9/21/26 11:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
<Snip>
Back in the day, every T.V. had at least one TUBE ..... the CRT!!Indeed.
The pride of owning a 32" CRT monster was immense.
You cam still get 'bedroom' or 'camper' tellys at smaller sizes though >>>>>> 22" is the smallest I found
But stick a TV dongle in a laptop and you can˙ go even smaller
˙˙ Fam had a "big" 30" Zenith B&W console for quite
˙˙ awhile. It was good. Still worked when swapped for
˙˙ a color - most shows were in color by then. Clearest
˙˙ one was a 22" Panasonic B&W out on the screen porch
˙˙ (pre central A/C then). A few tubes and the rest was
˙˙ transistors ... hybrid tech was kinda common for awhile.
˙˙ Seem to remember tube-based tuners were more sensitive.
Making the RF part of a set out of transistors or chips was easy enough, >>> but the anode grid and plate voltages were on the hundreds -
transistors to handle that were rare and expensive for a while. And fragile.
10 to 12 kV anode was enough.That did not involve modulation:
It was a fixed voltage source created
by using a chain of diodes of lesser breakdown voltage
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>wrote:
On 22/09/2026 16:35, Jan Panteltje wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>wrote:
On 22/09/2026 12:16, Daniel70 wrote:
On 22/09/2026 4:20 pm, c186282 wrote:
On 9/21/26 11:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
<Snip>
Back in the day, every T.V. had at least one TUBE ..... the CRT!!Indeed.
The pride of owning a 32" CRT monster was immense.
You cam still get 'bedroom' or 'camper' tellys at smaller sizes though >>>>>>> 22" is the smallest I found
But stick a TV dongle in a laptop and you can˙ go even smaller
˙˙ Fam had a "big" 30" Zenith B&W console for quite
˙˙ awhile. It was good. Still worked when swapped for
˙˙ a color - most shows were in color by then. Clearest
˙˙ one was a 22" Panasonic B&W out on the screen porch
˙˙ (pre central A/C then). A few tubes and the rest was
˙˙ transistors ... hybrid tech was kinda common for awhile.
˙˙ Seem to remember tube-based tuners were more sensitive.
Making the RF part of a set out of transistors or chips was easy enough, >>>> but the anode grid and plate voltages were on the hundreds -
transistors to handle that were rare and expensive for a while. And fragile.
I know, I used those, not so expensive as you think.
Philips BUZ types
A *varying* voltage.10 to 12 kV anode was enough.That did not involve modulation:
What modulation?
It was a fixed voltage source created
by using a chain of diodes of lesser breakdown voltage
The first ones had only one HV rectifier.
the voltage multipier blocks came later.
A power switching transistor did drive the HV and horizontal scan transformer.
There we later many different transistor models wit all sort of solutions.
On 22/09/2026 9:52 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/09/2026 12:16, Daniel70 wrote:Back in my Australian Army HF Comms days, several of the (AWA E517/E519) Transmitters produced over 20kW output over the HF Frequency Range.
On 22/09/2026 4:20 pm, c186282 wrote:
On 9/21/26 11:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
<Snip>
Back in the day, every T.V. had at least one TUBE ..... the CRT!!Indeed.
The pride of owning a 32" CRT monster was immense.
You cam still get 'bedroom' or 'camper' tellys at smaller sizes though >>>>> 22" is the smallest I found
But stick a TV dongle in a laptop and you can˙ go even smaller
˙˙ Fam had a "big" 30" Zenith B&W console for quite
˙˙ awhile. It was good. Still worked when swapped for
˙˙ a color - most shows were in color by then. Clearest
˙˙ one was a 22" Panasonic B&W out on the screen porch
˙˙ (pre central A/C then). A few tubes and the rest was
˙˙ transistors ... hybrid tech was kinda common for awhile.
˙˙ Seem to remember tube-based tuners were more sensitive.
Making the RF part of a set out of transistors or chips was easy
enough, but the anode grid and plate voltages were on the hundreds -
transistors to handle that were rare and expensive for a while. And
fragile.
As far as I know there were only EVER two AWA E517's (40kW PEP) ever
made ... and they were so bleeding edge at the time that the AWA
technicians initially employed to maintain/repair them would often
bypass Faulty Circuitry rather than fixing it .... so, later in the Equipments lives, when the Aust Army Technicians (like ME) went to fix
them, the first thing that had to be done was to find the relevant set
of Circuit Diagrams for the particular Transmitter so you knew what alterations had been made where!!
Fun and Games!!
On 2026/9/22 9:22:23, Jan Panteltje wrote:[...]
I have a portable 10 inch with build in rechargable battery:
https://www.bol.com/nl/nl/p/lenco-tft-1028bk-draagbare-televisie-hd-met-dvb-t2-10-inch-zwart/9200000054160430/
No longer available it says.
Is its screen less than SD resolution?
Is it deaf? (If you're in a flat part of .nl, that may not be so important.)
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2026/9/22 9:22:23, Jan Panteltje wrote:[...]
I have a portable 10 inch with build in rechargable battery:
https://www.bol.com/nl/nl/p/lenco-tft-1028bk-draagbare-televisie-hd-met-dvb-t2-10-inch-zwart/9200000054160430/
No longer available it says.
Is its screen less than SD resolution?
Is it deaf? (If you're in a flat part of .nl, that may not be so important.)
There *are* no non-flat parts in .nl! :-) [1]
On 22/09/2026 17:05, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 02:20:00 -0400, Paul wrote:You got more channels in the same bandwidth,
[snip]
Why did we need digital TV again ?
I keep forgetting the reason for it :-)
You get a more stable, less noisy picture (when it works).
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>wrote:
On 23/09/2026 13:11, Jan Panteltje wrote:A *varying* voltage.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>wrote:
On 22/09/2026 16:35, Jan Panteltje wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>wrote:
On 22/09/2026 12:16, Daniel70 wrote:
On 22/09/2026 4:20 pm, c186282 wrote:
On 9/21/26 11:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
<Snip>
Back in the day, every T.V. had at least one TUBE ..... the CRT!!Indeed.
The pride of owning a 32" CRT monster was immense.
You cam still get 'bedroom' or 'camper' tellys at smaller sizes though >>>>>>>> 22" is the smallest I found
But stick a TV dongle in a laptop and you can˙ go even smaller
˙˙ Fam had a "big" 30" Zenith B&W console for quite
˙˙ awhile. It was good. Still worked when swapped for
˙˙ a color - most shows were in color by then. Clearest
˙˙ one was a 22" Panasonic B&W out on the screen porch
˙˙ (pre central A/C then). A few tubes and the rest was
˙˙ transistors ... hybrid tech was kinda common for awhile.
˙˙ Seem to remember tube-based tuners were more sensitive.
Making the RF part of a set out of transistors or chips was easy enough, >>>>> but the anode grid and plate voltages were on the hundreds -
transistors to handle that were rare and expensive for a while. And fragile.
I know, I used those, not so expensive as you think.
Philips BUZ types
10 to 12 kV anode was enough.That did not involve modulation:
What modulation?
The cathode is modulated. for video. Or sometimes the grid
the anode is simply +12kv or whatever fed through a chain of diodes. And
the deflection coils are fed by transformers
So nothing there except the anode requires a high voltage high frequency >transistor. Although the deflection coils used a lot of *power*.
Video modulation need volts AND speed. A hard problem that I was tasked
with very early in my electronics career..
It was a fixed voltage source created
by using a chain of diodes of lesser breakdown voltage
The first ones had only one HV rectifier.
the voltage multipier blocks came later.
Probably. One rectifier tube or 15 diodes - take your pick!
A power switching transistor did drive the HV and horizontal scan transformer.Yes. Power, not necessarily high voltage tho
There we later many different transistor models wit all sort of solutions. >>Yeah. Many ways to skin that cat
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 8 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 92:49:40 |
| Calls: | 220 |
| Files: | 21,513 |
| Messages: | 84,680 |
