\"Rubber?\" degradation...

[Don Y]

On 6/8/2023 2:22 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

On 07/06/2023 23:47, Don Y wrote:
On 6/7/2023 3:08 PM, whit3rd wrote:
On Wednesday, June 7, 2023 at 4:42:58 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:
On 07/06/2023 06:39, Don Y wrote:

With a LITTLE elbow grease and alcohol, I am able to remove the
coating and expose the \"solid plastic\" beneath.  The stickiness
disappears with the coating\'s removal.

But with some items, may recur.

I \"cleaned\" a mouse with such a coating -- by removing the coating!
Now, the mouse has a *glossy* plastic finish instead of a *matte* one.
I\'d be hard pressed to identify which had the coating (prior to the
stickiness phase) and which didn\'t, based solely on feel.

I don\'t expect to ever need to \"clean\" it again.

If you have removed the offending surface layer then that is probably the case.
Most things that have this stuff on usually have an MTBF that is broadly
comparable with the failure of the soft rubbery plastics.

Dunno. This was so *thin* that I suspect it was sprayed on. As I was
removing it, you could visually see the point of demarcation between the
coated/uncoated surfaces. But, would be hard-pressed to feel/measure
any difference in thickness.

IMO, the manufacturer could have textured his molds to give a similar
appearance/feel to the mouse without the \"risk\" of this silly coating.
Or, the recurring cost for the material applied.

That sort of soft fleshy feel was in for a while. Manufacturers adopted it
without worrying about the cheap plasticisers allowing polymer degradation on a
~5-10 year timescale depending on ozone levels.

I\'m sure \"fleshy\" wasn\'t the goal as the coating had no real \"body\" to it.
If you squeezed the item and another \"uncoated\" item, you\'d feel no
difference.

It *may* have imparted a texture (rough vs. smooth). Or, it may have been
for visual characteristics (matte vs. glossy).

E.g., I have found a similar substance on the logo for some of my GPUs.
No thickness to it. And, I don\'t see how it would add much value in
terms of \"feel\" -- do you often stroke your PCI cards?

Most kit is replaced on a shorter timescale and so it is non-problem.
(for the manufacturers)

I\'m looking at relatively long service lives -- a decade or more.
So, wonder what the goal of applying these \"coatings\" may have been.
Were they trying to make an otherwise smooth surface appear to have
some slight texture (in which case, why not just texture the mold
and have that texture baked into the plastic?)? Or, was it a
visual issue just to take the sheen off of a smooth, glossy part?
(again, why not texture the mold and save the step of having to
apply a coating?)

*Or*, will I discover some other consequence of having removed the
coating that isn\'t as easily addressed with, for example, a textured
mold?

 

[Bertrand Sindri]

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 6/8/2023 2:22 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
Most kit is replaced on a shorter timescale and so it is
non-problem. (for the manufacturers)

I\'m looking at relatively long service lives -- a decade or more.

Which is where your viewpoint diverges from the manufacturer. From the
manufacturer viewpoint, too long of a service life is a negative,
because that does not drive the \"sales treadmill\" if existing kit can
continue to be used vs. being replaced with new kit (which also means a
new *sale* to the manufacturer).

> So, wonder what the goal of applying these \"coatings\" may have been.

You\'d have to ask the manufacturer to know for sure. But one very
likely scenario is:

The designers, in order to justify their continued paychecks, must make
changes on a continual basis. Those same changes (i.e., applying this
\'coating\') are aesthetic rather than functional, but because of a change,
some percentage of existing customers will be incentivized to replace
their existing device with a new device (thereby driving the sales
treadmill) solely on the aesthetic change alone.

The manufacturer is not concerned with a decade or more of service
life. Often their only concern is sufficient lifetime such that
warranty service is minimized (time X), and just long enough that existing
customers are not encouraged to switch to a different maker\'s brand
because \"our\" brand is perceived as \"cheap-ass Chinese junk\" (time Y).

Therefore, the aesthetic coating dreamed up by the designers goes on
(for generating the \"aesthetic sales\") and even if the manufacturer has
tested it for a lifetime estimate, if they find it degrades sometime
shortly beyond \"time Y\" then so much the better, because that will
drive the sales treadmill some more as items begin becoming \"sticky\"
after \"time Y\" has elapsed, encouraging even more owners to \"buy a new
one\" (as few will bother trying to \"clean off the stickiness\").

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 17:54:38 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:

On 6/7/2023 10:19 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
Very likely the \"rubber\" is urethane-based, and is depolymerizing.

This is called reversion, as in the rubber polymer reverts back to the
monomer from which it was made.

So, all urethane-derived products/materials/coatings would exhibit a similar
problem?

Depends on the specific urethane chemistry chosen by the manufacturer.


>Are there alternatives to these?

Yes, there are grades of urethane rubber that are reversion-resistant,
and will so claim in datasheets.

For instance:

..<https://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=a22d1756842a4a55b7843f54b6ceb8bb&ckck=1>


Joe Gwinn

 

[Don Y]

On 6/8/2023 3:13 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

These instances appear to be surface coatings.  They tend to alter the
appearance of what would otherwise be \"glossy\" plastic parts.  There
MAY be a slight change to the feel imparted but nothing that you
would think of as \"rubbery\" (in terms of deformability).

E.g., I noticed the logo on some of my GPUs is presented on a surface
that has a similar treatment; I can\'t imagine it\'s purpose, there,
would be to alter the *feel* of the PCI card.  And, it doesn\'t affect
the item structurally as the cards are supported with deliberate
mechanical devices -- not logos!  :

Some paints are very similar formulations.

Then that would lend cred to it being used for visual properties.
I.e., AS paint.

TBH I only tried it because I happened to have some lying around and a
horribly tacky Psion 3C that was unusable as a result of its tacky surfaces.
Someone recommended it on the Internet - I didn\'t really expect it to work
but to my amazement it did and required much less elbow grease than any of
the other methods I had tried.

But, will the \"condition\" return?

\"Why would manufacturers go this route if this was an expected outcome?\"

It almost never fails within the period of warrantee.

Well, part of the design process is to target a service life (hence my
concern for these \"failures\" and why they were chosen for application)

Marketing types seem to
like the soft touch feel of the rubbery plastics. I never really liked it -
dead flesh style waterproof keyboards put me off for life!

Again, these seem to have no real \"feel\" beyond noting that a given weight
of silk feels smoother than denim.

I can understand their use in (cheap) elastomeric buttons (e.g., on
Ir remote controls). And, I can understand wanting the electric toothbrush
to NOT feel hard and unyielding in your hand as you wave it around the inside
of your mouth.

But, I see little value to a coating on a (e.g.) mouse that doesn\'t
do much more than change it\'s appearance. Or, on a GPU... (you\'re
going to look at the GPU only until the point where you install it
in your computer; thereafter, you wouldn\'t know if it turned bright
PINK when out of view!)

 

[Bertrand Sindri]

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 6/8/2023 3:13 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
It almost never fails within the period of warrantee.

Well, part of the design process is to target a service life (hence
my concern for these \"failures\" and why they were chosen for
application)

To an Engineer, yes. To a marketer, no. For a marketer, the service
life should be just long enough to not cause excessive warranty returns
during the warranty period, with no more life beyond that. Because to
a marketer, every item that fails X delta outside the warranty is
viewed as driving a \"new sale\" of a \"new, replacement, unit\".

But, I see little value to a coating on a (e.g.) mouse that doesn\'t
do much more than change it\'s appearance. Or, on a GPU... (you\'re
going to look at the GPU only until the point where you install it in
your computer; thereafter, you wouldn\'t know if it turned bright PINK
when out of view!)

Again you are thinking like an Engineer, instead of as a marketer.
From the marketing department\'s viewpoint, any change in appearance
that is also inexpensive will drive additional sales. The reason is
that a majority of customers are not Engineers, and for that large
group of customers, any small change in appearance will drive some
percentage of them to buy a new model, even if they just bought the
prior model a short time ago. So the *value* in this coating on a
mouse is: \"X percent of customers will buy the new model with the new
coating within Y months of beginning sale of the new model, and the
coating adds only $0.0005 to the BOM\". This keeps the sales treadmill
running.

 

[Mike Monett VE3BTI]

Martin Brown <\'\'\'newspam\'\'\'@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

It almost never fails within the period of warrantee. Marketing types
seem to like the soft touch feel of the rubbery plastics. I never really
liked it - dead flesh style waterproof keyboards put me off for life!

Martin Brown

The Kensington K64406US USB/PS2 Washable Keyboard is like a standard keyboard
but is completely washable. This means dust and lint cannot enter the keys
and cause malfunction. I have been using one since April 2022 with zero
problems. Only $49.99 in Canada:

https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B0029HPSNG/

The same keyboard is only $26.86 in the US:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0029HPSNG/


--
MRM

 

[Don Y]

On 6/8/2023 12:55 PM, Bertrand Sindri wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
On 6/8/2023 3:13 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
It almost never fails within the period of warrantee.

Well, part of the design process is to target a service life (hence
my concern for these \"failures\" and why they were chosen for
application)

To an Engineer, yes. To a marketer, no. For a marketer, the service
life should be just long enough to not cause excessive warranty returns
during the warranty period, with no more life beyond that. Because to
a marketer, every item that fails X delta outside the warranty is
viewed as driving a \"new sale\" of a \"new, replacement, unit\".

That\'s overly cynical.

Would you be a repeat purchaser of a product that failed just outside
of warranty? Esp when *90* day warranties are so common?

I\'ve always been told that a particular design had to meet a *minimum*
service life specification. But, NEVER given a \"not to exceed\". You
wouldn\'t design a commodity product that sees lots of turnover (e.g.,
cell phone) for an extraordinarily long lifespan -- as it will likely be
replaced/obsoleted before you\'ve approached the design limit.

OTOH, you wouldn\'t design a product that has no inherent \"market
limitations\" to fail early just to drum up another sale -- you risk
getting a bad reputation (\"They\'re products crap out after _____\")

You can screw a customer once. Maybe. But, most folks quickly learn
to avoid products that \"were disappointments\".

Do you *like* buying a new TV every few years? Phone?

How eager would you be to replace the major appliances in your home
at that same interval? (\"Oh, stainless is so passe... you need to
opt for avocado green!\")

I see businesses starting to stretch their PC upgrade cycles to
longer and longer periods simply because the cost of LABOR makes
replacing an otherwise functioning product too expensive. Folks
are keeping cars for longer periods. Etc. You\'d be annoyed if you
HAD to replace something just because \"it got sticky\".

But, I see little value to a coating on a (e.g.) mouse that doesn\'t
do much more than change it\'s appearance. Or, on a GPU... (you\'re
going to look at the GPU only until the point where you install it in
your computer; thereafter, you wouldn\'t know if it turned bright PINK
when out of view!)

Again you are thinking like an Engineer, instead of as a marketer.
From the marketing department\'s viewpoint, any change in appearance
that is also inexpensive will drive additional sales. The reason is
that a majority of customers are not Engineers, and for that large
group of customers, any small change in appearance will drive some
percentage of them to buy a new model, even if they just bought the
prior model a short time ago. So the *value* in this coating on a
mouse is: \"X percent of customers will buy the new model with the new
coating within Y months of beginning sale of the new model, and the
coating adds only $0.0005 to the BOM\". This keeps the sales treadmill
running.

How often do you replace your mice? Keyboards? GPUs? PCs?

The trend AWAY from desktops to laptops -- and laptops to phones -- is
indicative of the costs that users have decided aren\'t worth bearing
(endless software/hardware updates; if they MUST have a phone and the
phone needs updating, then why ALSO have to deal with a PC?). Adding
any artificial defect to a product just risks losing market share...
and *market*!

People are tolerant of purchasing consummables (they don\'t insist on
buying a new toilet paper DISPENSER more than once for each home they
own) as they can see that their USE has a direct correlation to
the CONSUMPTION of that item/supply (toilet paper).

OTOH, their \"use\" of a mouse leading to it \"failing\" (i.e., becoming
uncomfortable to hold) is seen as a defect in the *mouse*; they haven\'t
\"consumed\" anything.

I bought a small, quiet fan for SWMBO (the fans she\'s been using are
effective at \"cooling\" but too noticeable). It has a small remote
control to allow operation without having to be *at* the fan itself
(so you can locate the fan where it is convenient for cooling without
concern for how accessible its controls would be in that location).
The remote has to cost considerably less than a dollar. And, easy to
pinch pennies in its implementation.

OTOH, if it fails, my only remedy will be to buy a whole new fan -- even
though the old fan is still operable. When/if that day comes, I will
not blame the remote for its failure but, rather, see the *fan* as
\"poor quality\". Any replacement will likely avoid that vendor (and
maybe even that feature!)

Make your money selling things of value, not nickel-and-diming (cuz
people can sense when they are being nickeled-and-dimed and develop
a resentment for the product or the firm).

 

[Wandere]

I put wood hardener on my shift knob to get rid of the stickyness, but I suspect this trick doesn\'t always work. Wood hardener is crazy glue dissolved in acetone and that might cause problems depending on the plastic. I don\'t know enough about plastic to be sure. So there is some risk involved.

I just put masking tape on the wrist rest of my keyboard.

 

[Don Y]

On 6/8/2023 3:18 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

On 08/06/2023 01:53, Don Y wrote:
On 6/7/2023 6:30 AM, Carl wrote:

You can often find some detergeant or solvent or combination that will clean
the surface but once it starts it will always return, it\'s just a matter of
time.  Besides speeding up the chemical decomposition reactions, heat drives
the diffusion to the surface so cold storage is always better, at least to
the point of frozen brittleness . Welcome to the world of disposable
products.

The point of my question is not to \"fix\" devices that I have that
are exhibiting this problem.  Rather, to make sure I don\'t *design*
devices that will exhibit it!

You wouldn\'t KNOWINGLY put knobs on a device that would \"become
sticky\" with age.

Because they want the customer to buy another one every 6-8 years and they
expect many to have failed or be replaced before the surface coating even
becomes an issue. Hotter, or humidity, and high UV all accelerate the damage to
softer plastics.

So, we agree that the surface coating is not INTENDED to lead to the consumer\'s
unhappiness with the product (i.e., it isn\'t designed to prompt the
replacement)?

Then, the coating has to offer some other advantage to justify its cost
(materials and process/labor) -- otherwise, it doesn\'t add any *function*
to the device (i.e., the device works fine with or without the coating;
it can continue to be used despite the stickiness *or* by removing that).

[A keyboard that loses the legends for all of its keys is still a functional
keyboard. So, a manufacturer that has opted to \"paint\" the legends on the
keys may save some production costs without intentionally designing the
keyboard for obsolescence]

There has to be some perceptual issue -- cosmetic or feel.

There are other ways of achieving either/both; e.g., a textured mold alters the
appearance and feel and adds nothing to the recurring cost. So, why not that
approach? Or, an entirely different material?

Better plasticisers can make it last much longer but in most cases price is
everything and so you get what you pay for.

But $30 mice have the same shortcomings as $10 mice. Why pay more if the
lifespan has been limited by a \"superficial\" design choice?

 

[Don Y]

On 6/8/2023 6:19 AM, Bertrand Sindri wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
On 6/8/2023 2:22 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
Most kit is replaced on a shorter timescale and so it is
non-problem. (for the manufacturers)

I\'m looking at relatively long service lives -- a decade or more.

Which is where your viewpoint diverges from the manufacturer. From the
manufacturer viewpoint, too long of a service life is a negative,
because that does not drive the \"sales treadmill\" if existing kit can
continue to be used vs. being replaced with new kit (which also means a
new *sale* to the manufacturer).

No, it differs from the manufacturer of this particular device.
Because of his perception (or intention) of the market served.

You don\'t replace the steering wheel on your car -- EVER. Yet,
it has many of the same qualities these coatings *appear* to impart.
Because a consumer wouldn\'t tolerate a steering wheel that got
sticky in 2, 3, 5, etc. years -- despite being exposed to pollutants,
sunshine, oily/dirty hands, etc. Any manufacturing savings that
materialized as a result of cheapening the product would quickly be
offset by lost sales -- on the VEHICLE, not the steering wheel!

So, wonder what the goal of applying these \"coatings\" may have been.

You\'d have to ask the manufacturer to know for sure. But one very
likely scenario is:

The designers, in order to justify their continued paychecks, must make
changes on a continual basis. Those same changes (i.e., applying this
\'coating\') are aesthetic rather than functional, but because of a change,
some percentage of existing customers will be incentivized to replace
their existing device with a new device (thereby driving the sales
treadmill) solely on the aesthetic change alone.

How often do people replace their computers and NOT their mouse?

Mice are replaced because they fail -- usually in ways that aren\'t
related to a loss of functionality (i.e., they ugly-out instead of
wear-out).

Mechanical (ball) mice could often attribute their failures to poor
maintenance practices on the user\'s part. But, optical mice
only risk functional failure from their switches (or a cord
getting cut).

I.e., a dirt cheap (\"dollar store\") mouse will likely outlast
one of these \"cosmetically enhanced\" mice, despite having identical
internals!

The lesson, there (for a manufacturer wanting long lifespans) is
to avoid the fluff that adds no value.

The manufacturer is not concerned with a decade or more of service
life. Often their only concern is sufficient lifetime such that
warranty service is minimized (time X), and just long enough that existing
customers are not encouraged to switch to a different maker\'s brand
because \"our\" brand is perceived as \"cheap-ass Chinese junk\" (time Y).

Therefore, the aesthetic coating dreamed up by the designers goes on
(for generating the \"aesthetic sales\") and even if the manufacturer has
tested it for a lifetime estimate, if they find it degrades sometime
shortly beyond \"time Y\" then so much the better, because that will
drive the sales treadmill some more as items begin becoming \"sticky\"
after \"time Y\" has elapsed, encouraging even more owners to \"buy a new
one\" (as few will bother trying to \"clean off the stickiness\").

And how likely will they be to want another mouse that\'s GOING to get
sticky -- instead of finding a *different* vendor? (Do YOU routinely
make repeat purchases of products/suppliers that have disappointed you?)

 

[Don Y]

On 6/8/2023 9:08 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 17:54:38 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid
wrote:

On 6/7/2023 10:19 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
Very likely the \"rubber\" is urethane-based, and is depolymerizing.

This is called reversion, as in the rubber polymer reverts back to the
monomer from which it was made.

So, all urethane-derived products/materials/coatings would exhibit a similar
problem?

Depends on the specific urethane chemistry chosen by the manufacturer.

Which would be a crap shoot to a consumer. You\'d not advertise a Model A
with a \"longer-life\" Model B without prompting the question, \"How does it
fail?\"

Are there alternatives to these?

Yes, there are grades of urethane rubber that are reversion-resistant,
and will so claim in datasheets.

That\'s clearly the case as I\'ve many \"rubbery\" (not just \"coated\") products
that haven\'t developed the stickiness despite a decade or more of use
(in various price ranges including mice).

And, other products that have obviously decided that coatings were not
essential to their functionality and, thus, avoided entirely. Esp for
the \"wipe clean\" criterion.

E.g., I\'ve similarly noticed the nylon (?) pads on the bottoms of some
mice exhibit adhesive failures and slide off (without making a significant
impact on usability) -- while I have other products with similar \"glide
pads\" that are completely unaffected by time/temperature/use/etc.

For instance:

.<https://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet.aspx?matguid=a22d1756842a4a55b7843f54b6ceb8bb&ckck=1

 

[Don Y]

On 6/8/2023 7:18 AM, Wanderer wrote:
> I put wood hardener on my shift knob to get rid of the stickyness, but I

I assume you tried cleaning it -- to rule out dirt/oils from your hands?
What type of material is it made of?

suspect this trick doesn\'t always work. Wood hardener is crazy glue
dissolved in acetone and that might cause problems depending on the plastic.
I don\'t know enough about plastic to be sure. So there is some risk
involved.

I just put masking tape on the wrist rest of my keyboard.

The goal is not to need the consumer to \"fix\" what\'s obviously a design
problem. If you were content with the visuals of a masking tape covered
wrist rest, you\'d likely have sought one! :>

I\'ve been trying to resort to more \"exotic\" (atypical) materials to
avoid these nuisance and breakage issues -- glass, castings, injection
molded parts, etc. But, it requires careful planning NOT to need to
\"decorate\" them, needlessly as that complicates the manufacture *and*
maintenance (e.g., raised/recessed legends make cleaning difficult
as well as limiting manufacturing options)

 

[Wandere]

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 04:06:26 -07000, Don Y wrote:

I assume you tried cleaning it -- to rule out dirt/oils from
your hands?
What type of material is it made of?

Yes I tried cleaning it. I don\'t know what it is made of. It\'s a 25 year old \"Drivers Edition\" golf ball shift knob.

https://ic.carid.com/pages/shift-knobs/shift-knobs-year_cat_0.jpg

I know it\'s not the info you were looking for but I thought I\'d point out the wood hardener trick. Maybe manufacturer\'s need to add a \"cyano-acrylic fixative\" step. Reminds me of using scotch tape as a diffuser. On the BOM it was called out as \"semi-opaque adhesive backed celluloid\"

 

[Don Y]

On 6/9/2023 12:24 PM, Wanderer wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 04:06:26 -07000, Don Y wrote:

I assume you tried cleaning it -- to rule out dirt/oils from your hands?
What type of material is it made of?

Yes I tried cleaning it. I don\'t know what it is made of. It\'s a 25 year old
\"Drivers Edition\" golf ball shift knob.

I\'d be happy with 25 years!

> https://ic.carid.com/pages/shift-knobs/shift-knobs-year_cat_0.jpg

Ah, so it appears to have that rubbery feel -- not just a thin coating.

I know it\'s not the info you were looking for but I thought I\'d point out
the wood hardener trick. Maybe manufacturer\'s need to add a \"cyano-acrylic
fixative\" step. Reminds me of using scotch tape as a diffuser. On the BOM it
was called out as \"semi-opaque adhesive backed celluloid\"

I\'m happiest if I can choose techniques that avoid the issue, entirely.
People \"remember\" things about products that are disproportionate to their
*intended* value. You want folks to concentrate on/remember the things
that are valuable, not the nuisances.

[I\'m sure there is value to Windows Explorer. But, what I most remember
about it is the fact that the damn icons \"move\", unprovoked. Why let me
place an icon on the desktop in a particular place if you\'re just going
to \"randomly\" move it to someplace else? Why is that icon hiding UNDER
the clock gadget??? Who could ever have thought THAT was a good place
to put it?? (said as I drag an icon out from behind my clock and return
it to the lower edge of the display, where I had originally placed it!]

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 21:29:39 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 6/9/2023 12:24 PM, Wanderer wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 04:06:26 -07000, Don Y wrote:

I assume you tried cleaning it -- to rule out dirt/oils from your hands?
What type of material is it made of?

Yes I tried cleaning it. I don\'t know what it is made of. It\'s a 25 year old
\"Drivers Edition\" golf ball shift knob.

I\'d be happy with 25 years!

https://ic.carid.com/pages/shift-knobs/shift-knobs-year_cat_0.jpg

Ah, so it appears to have that rubbery feel -- not just a thin coating.

I know it\'s not the info you were looking for but I thought I\'d point out
the wood hardener trick. Maybe manufacturer\'s need to add a \"cyano-acrylic
fixative\" step. Reminds me of using scotch tape as a diffuser. On the BOM it
was called out as \"semi-opaque adhesive backed celluloid\"

I\'m happiest if I can choose techniques that avoid the issue, entirely.
People \"remember\" things about products that are disproportionate to their
*intended* value. You want folks to concentrate on/remember the things
that are valuable, not the nuisances.

[I\'m sure there is value to Windows Explorer. But, what I most remember
about it is the fact that the damn icons \"move\", unprovoked. Why let me
place an icon on the desktop in a particular place if you\'re just going
to \"randomly\" move it to someplace else? Why is that icon hiding UNDER
the clock gadget??? Who could ever have thought THAT was a good place
to put it?? (said as I drag an icon out from behind my clock and return
it to the lower edge of the display, where I had originally placed it!]

I\'m pretty sure there is a Windows setting to stop the auto
rearrangement. In Prefs or the like.

Joe Gwinn

 

[Don Y]

On 6/11/2023 2:52 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 21:29:39 -0700, Don Y
blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 6/9/2023 12:24 PM, Wanderer wrote:
On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 04:06:26 -07000, Don Y wrote:

I assume you tried cleaning it -- to rule out dirt/oils from your hands?
What type of material is it made of?

Yes I tried cleaning it. I don\'t know what it is made of. It\'s a 25 year old
\"Drivers Edition\" golf ball shift knob.

I\'d be happy with 25 years!

https://ic.carid.com/pages/shift-knobs/shift-knobs-year_cat_0.jpg

Ah, so it appears to have that rubbery feel -- not just a thin coating.

I know it\'s not the info you were looking for but I thought I\'d point out
the wood hardener trick. Maybe manufacturer\'s need to add a \"cyano-acrylic
fixative\" step. Reminds me of using scotch tape as a diffuser. On the BOM it
was called out as \"semi-opaque adhesive backed celluloid\"

I\'m happiest if I can choose techniques that avoid the issue, entirely.
People \"remember\" things about products that are disproportionate to their
*intended* value. You want folks to concentrate on/remember the things
that are valuable, not the nuisances.

[I\'m sure there is value to Windows Explorer. But, what I most remember
about it is the fact that the damn icons \"move\", unprovoked. Why let me
place an icon on the desktop in a particular place if you\'re just going
to \"randomly\" move it to someplace else? Why is that icon hiding UNDER
the clock gadget??? Who could ever have thought THAT was a good place
to put it?? (said as I drag an icon out from behind my clock and return
it to the lower edge of the display, where I had originally placed it!]

I\'m pretty sure there is a Windows setting to stop the auto
rearrangement. In Prefs or the like.

No, it\'s a known bug.

There is an \"auto\" setting that places them in \"sequential\" locations
on the desktop (\"Auto Arrange Icons\"). But, when UNSET, they are supposed
to stay where you put -- scatter! -- them.

 

[Arie de Muijnck]

On 2023-06-11 06:29, Don Y wrote:

[I\'m sure there is value to Windows Explorer.  But, what I most remember
about it is the fact that the damn icons \"move\", unprovoked.  Why let me
place an icon on the desktop in a particular place if you\'re just going
to \"randomly\" move it to someplace else?  Why is that icon hiding UNDER
the clock gadget???  Who could ever have thought THAT was a good place
to put it?? (said as I drag an icon out from behind my clock and return
it to the lower edge of the display, where I had originally placed it!]

I use Iconoid from https://www.sillysot.com/ to keep the icons where I want them.
It also restores after updates and screen resizes (e.g. when logging in remotely, or doing a CTRL + or - on the desktop).
And it can do funny(?) things like icon hiding or the icon dance (good to prevent colleagues from using you computer).

Arie

 

[Don Y]

On 6/12/2023 12:55 AM, Arie de Muijnck wrote:

On 2023-06-11 06:29, Don Y wrote:
[I\'m sure there is value to Windows Explorer.  But, what I most remember
about it is the fact that the damn icons \"move\", unprovoked.  Why let me
place an icon on the desktop in a particular place if you\'re just going
to \"randomly\" move it to someplace else?  Why is that icon hiding UNDER
the clock gadget???  Who could ever have thought THAT was a good place
to put it?? (said as I drag an icon out from behind my clock and return
it to the lower edge of the display, where I had originally placed it!]


I use Iconoid from https://www.sillysot.com/ to keep the icons where I want them.

Ah! Thanks for that! I\'ve just become accustomed to playing hide-and-seek
with the damn things. It seems to be possible for icons to be \"on\" the
desktop and yet not visible on the screen (!). In those cases, I open
a folder-view into the desktop and copy the item I seek to someplace new...
then drag it from there back onto the desktop.

Do you tell it *when* to capture the positions? I.e., if you resize, will
it be able to remember where they *were* when/if you return to the original
size?

It also restores after updates and screen resizes (e.g. when logging in
remotely, or doing a CTRL + or - on the desktop).

Presumably also when the icons are resized (causing them to be repositioned
by Explorer)?

And it can do funny(?) things like icon hiding or the icon dance (good to
prevent colleagues from using you computer).

Why would you want to hide an icon? (though I can see permanently removing
desktop.ini instances) How do you later \"find\" it?

Can you also \"coral\" icons? E.g., I keep a folder on my desktops called VNC,
another TELNET, X, etc. In each are icons bound to VNC (TELNET, X server,
etc.) sessions for different hosts. So, to open a VNC session to host \"Fred\",
I can open the VNC folder and click on the \"Fred\" icon. Then, close the
folder so that set of icons only occupies a single spot on the desktop.
(but, requires me to open it before I can connect to *any* host!)

 

[Arie de Muijnck]

On 2023-06-12 12:25, Don Y wrote:

On 6/12/2023 12:55 AM, Arie de Muijnck wrote:
On 2023-06-11 06:29, Don Y wrote:
[I\'m sure there is value to Windows Explorer.  But, what I most remember
about it is the fact that the damn icons \"move\", unprovoked.  Why let me
place an icon on the desktop in a particular place if you\'re just going
to \"randomly\" move it to someplace else?  Why is that icon hiding UNDER
the clock gadget???  Who could ever have thought THAT was a good place
to put it?? (said as I drag an icon out from behind my clock and return
it to the lower edge of the display, where I had originally placed it!]


I use Iconoid from https://www.sillysot.com/ to keep the icons where I want them.

Ah!  Thanks for that!  I\'ve just become accustomed to playing hide-and-seek
with the damn things.  It seems to be possible for icons to be \"on\" the
desktop and yet not visible on the screen (!).  In those cases, I open
a folder-view into the desktop and copy the item I seek to someplace new...
then drag it from there back onto the desktop.

Do you tell it *when* to capture the positions?  I.e., if you resize, will
it be able to remember where they *were* when/if you return to the original
size?

It can remember positions for different resolutions. See the help file.

It also restores after updates and screen resizes (e.g. when logging in remotely, or doing a CTRL + or - on the desktop).

Presumably also when the icons are resized (causing them to be repositioned
by Explorer)?

I think so, the option \'use relative position\' sounds like that.

And it can do funny(?) things like icon hiding or the icon dance (good to prevent colleagues from using you computer).

Why would you want to hide an icon?  (though I can see permanently removing
desktop.ini instances)  How do you later \"find\" it?

It hides all icons until the mouse moves or until a corner is touched.
The \'dance\' is used as screen saver to prevent burnin. It is very annoying.

Can you also \"coral\" icons?  E.g., I keep a folder on my desktops called VNC,
another TELNET, X, etc.  In each are icons bound to VNC (TELNET, X server,
etc.) sessions for different hosts.  So, to open a VNC session to host \"Fred\",
I can open the VNC folder and click on the \"Fred\" icon.  Then, close the
folder so that set of icons only occupies a single spot on the desktop.
(but, requires me to open it before I can connect to *any* host!)

I do the same, but that is not an Iconoid function.

Do \'save relative positions\' immediately after installing, and after adding icons.!
Just try it, it\'s free (as in beer).

Arie

[EOST] (End of sub thread).

 

[Don Y]

On 6/12/2023 5:15 AM, Arie de Muijnck wrote:

I use Iconoid from https://www.sillysot.com/ to keep the icons where I want
them.

Ah!  Thanks for that!  I\'ve just become accustomed to playing hide-and-seek
with the damn things.  It seems to be possible for icons to be \"on\" the
desktop and yet not visible on the screen (!).  In those cases, I open
a folder-view into the desktop and copy the item I seek to someplace new...
then drag it from there back onto the desktop.

Do you tell it *when* to capture the positions?  I.e., if you resize, will
it be able to remember where they *were* when/if you return to the original
size?

It can remember positions for different resolutions. See the help file.

OK. I DL\'ed it when I read your post. Some of the \"caveats\" leave me a bit
apprehensive (JPEG wallpaper, multiple monitors, etc.) but I can give it a
try.

I\'ll take a snapshot of my machine before so I can cleanly remove it if there\'s
a problem...

It also restores after updates and screen resizes (e.g. when logging in
remotely, or doing a CTRL + or - on the desktop).

Presumably also when the icons are resized (causing them to be repositioned
by Explorer)?

I think so, the option \'use relative position\' sounds like that.

And it can do funny(?) things like icon hiding or the icon dance (good to
prevent colleagues from using you computer).

Why would you want to hide an icon?  (though I can see permanently removing
desktop.ini instances)  How do you later \"find\" it?

It hides all icons until the mouse moves or until a corner is touched.

Oh! THAT would be annoying! I often consult the titles of icons
when writing text or entering parameters into other apps. E.g.,
the name of a folder often becomes the name of the ISO that I build
to store its contents...

> The \'dance\' is used as screen saver to prevent burnin. It is very annoying.

Hmmm... I guess I\'ve not noticed that (burnin) as a problem. But, the screens
blank quickly if my attention moves to other things.

Can you also \"coral\" icons?  E.g., I keep a folder on my desktops called VNC,
another TELNET, X, etc.  In each are icons bound to VNC (TELNET, X server,
etc.) sessions for different hosts.  So, to open a VNC session to host \"Fred\",
I can open the VNC folder and click on the \"Fred\" icon.  Then, close the
folder so that set of icons only occupies a single spot on the desktop.
(but, requires me to open it before I can connect to *any* host!)

I do the same, but that is not an Iconoid function.

I\'ve seen other apps that offer to organize the desktop. I am usually
leery of what ELSE they might break in the process (e.g., 3rd party
screensavers and other \"active\" desktop applications)

Do \'save relative positions\' immediately after installing, and after adding
icons.!
Just try it, it\'s free (as in beer).

Arie

[EOST] (End of sub thread).