Toshiba TV29C90 problem; Image fades to black...

[BillW50]

"Jamie" <jamie_5_not_valid_after_5_Please@charter.net> wrote in message news:5Zf9f.38981$RG4.31946@fe05.lga...
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:23:17 -0800

BillW50 wrote:
"Jamie" <jamie_5_not_valid_after_5_Please@charter.net> wrote in message
news:bj69f.32661$E17.11599@fe03.lga...
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 11:23:18 -0800
I reread what I had posted and I see no errors I've made. So feel free
to disprove me if you wish. And yes, I am indeed human and I do make
mistakes. Most of them are do from moody, irrational female types.
Otherwise I do fairly well most of the time. <grin

Hmm, i hope that last female remark wasn't intended to
be directed this way? because the last time i looked i
wasn't missing anything from my manly hood!
and to pic a little at OS/2, the only thing it did well
was operate the floppy drives while writing data to them
with out generating random sectors now and then that has
blank data in the stream.
for what ever reason, i still see this taking place in
windows. still need to use the CMD line version with a
write /V to make sure it goes there.
even linux doesn't have this problem on top of it
writing a floppy disc many times faster.

Hi Jamie... no that female remark was directed to my current and
past female relationships. None of them named Jamie, btw. <grin>

And yes, OS/2 as well as the non-GUI side of it was quite good.
Although I guess Microsoft had written that part of it.


__________________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0

 

[BillW50]

"Jeff" <spam@spam.net> wrote in message news:Vat9f.39690$RG4.5791@fe05.lga...
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:15:35 -0500

This is begining to sound like an arguement based soley on
which company you hate more, IBM or Microsoft. You each seem to
be stating facts and then coloring them to suit your own
arguements. I personally dont care who screwed who in the
origins of the OS world, I only wish that there was some form
of real competition for MS and their huge market share to cause
some real inovation, choice and fair pricing.

What do you mean Jeff? There are tons of choices out there. Like
Mac, BeOS, UNIX, Linux, XWindows, FreeDOS, GEOS, GEM, OS/2, DEC,
etc. How many more choices would you like?

__________________________________________________
Bill (using a Toshiba 2595XDVD under Windows 2000)
-- written and edited within WordStar 5.0

 

[John-Del]

Steve TR wrote:

I've got a 1971 Ford LTD Convertible. These cars have eight 1157 style
bulbs in the rear to give full width tail and brake lights. That's a LOT
of current going through 30+ year old wiring, switches, and corroded sockets
when you hit the brakes.

I have a 66 Mustang 2+2 that has LED lights from a company called
Mustang Project
http://www.mustangproject.com/67-68%20Shelby%20Conversion%20Kit.pdf .
You can contact them and see if they have a universal led kit for other
cars.

BTW, you are correct about using the original wiring harness for high
current devices. What I do is use my original switches and wiring just
as "signal" sources, and have them feed high current automobile quality
relays. My headlights, fuel pump (fuel injected 5.0), electric fan,
fog lights etc. are fed by a new heavy (and fused) 12v bus.

John

 

[David Maynard]

Jeff wrote:

This is begining to sound like an arguement based soley on which company you
hate more, IBM or Microsoft. You each seem to be stating facts and then
coloring them to suit your own arguements.

My point is precisely the opposite. That it isn't a matter of 'who you hate
more' but rather a matter of different visions of the market and different
business strategies, not to mention different 'businesses'. Microsoft
wasn't in the 'hardware' business and IBM was into software primarily to
sell hardware, or 'systems'.

Not really surprising since it was the same thing IBM had done for decades
with what they might have called, by comparison, 'a real computer' and
selling (proprietary) 'hardware' was big business prior to the PC. You'd
buy "an IBM <insert model>" or "a Burroughs <insert model>" or a DEC
PDP<insert number>" and they each had their own proprietary operating
systems, which they'd really rather not have to mess with but you need one
to sell 'the computer'. So who gives a tinker's dam if you let an O.S.
developer 'sell to others'? It runs on 'an IBM', and a specific model at
that, so they have to buy 'an IBM', which is what they wanted to sell anyway.

Microsoft had the vision of running the same software on anyone's 'PC
clone' and while it may seem obvious today it was anything but obvious in
1980 as the 'home computer' world was a hodge podge of individual hardware
types each running their own O.S. (of a sorts) just like the mainframe
world was. Commodore stuff didn't run on an Apple and Apple stuff didn't
run on an Atari, and Atari stuff didn't run on a CPM machine (CPM being the
closest to a 'multiple hardware supplier' O.S.). Point being that
'retaining the rights' to sell Atari DOS on non-Atari computers would have
gotten you exactly nothing as it didn't run on anything else and nobody but
Atari made Atari computers.

IBM was right in that their 'PC', by virtue of the IBM name and reputation
(who knows about Atari but IBM is here to stay), put just about every other
'home computer' type out of business but, somehow, they missed the fact
that their 'PC', the design for which they had purchased anyway, wasn't
proprietary. It was freely copyable, and copied it was, so you didn't 'have
to' buy 'an IBM' to get a 'PC'. IBM later tried to 'fix' that mistake with
the proprietary PS/2 MCA bus but it was too late. They were hoisted on
their own petard of an 'IBM (clone) Standard' and roasted alive for trying
to close it.

Nobody held a gun to either Microsoft or IBM's head nor was Microsoft
anything 'special' at the time. They weren't an 'industry leader' in
anything nor did they have some 'special' wonder DOS, or even a proven one,
to hold over IBM's head in order to 'force' a deal. IBM simply figured they
had a steal at only $80,000 for a DOS to sell 'PCs' with, just like buying
the hardware design had been a cheap, quick and dirty, way to get into the
questionable 'home computer' market.

Microsoft made very little on the deal gambling, instead, on future sales
of software to a then nonexistent clone market where they could have ended
up with the equivalent of a 'right to sell to others' an Atari DOS that
only runs on Ataris made by Atari.

It's simply a matter that Microsoft had the vision to see it (what's to
loose when you have nothing?) and IBM didn't.

I personally dont care who
screwed who in the origins of the OS world, I only wish that there was some
form of real competition for MS and their huge market share to cause some
real inovation, choice and fair pricing.

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:26nbm159lankulsp18gidrvs0rg1vlmb9m@4ax.com...

David Maynard writes:


On the other hand, Microsoft decided to be simply a supplier of software
that ran on any clone.

A wise decision. Build an essential component, then encourage the
market to do the rest. If Apple had adopted the same philosophy,
there might be 50% Macs and 50% PCs today, instead of 4% Macs and 96%
PCs.


In fact, the 'Windows' GUI was originally developed as a means to run
Microsoft's 'Apple' business software, like Word, on PC clones and that
is
not a trivial distinction. While IBM was trying to sell an 'O.S.',
because
you 'have to' in order to sell hardware, Microsoft was selling Word
(and
the rest), which happened to run on Windows. It's the applications that
sold the O.S., not the O.S. by itself.

Yes. A simple difference but one that earns billions.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

 

[David Maynard]

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Maynard writes:


On the other hand, Microsoft decided to be simply a supplier of software
that ran on any clone.


A wise decision. Build an essential component, then encourage the
market to do the rest. If Apple had adopted the same philosophy,
there might be 50% Macs and 50% PCs today, instead of 4% Macs and 96%
PCs.

Never could have happened. Apple is too obsessed with everything being
'their way' to live with someone else's perceived design flaws.

In fact, the 'Windows' GUI was originally developed as a means to run
Microsoft's 'Apple' business software, like Word, on PC clones and that is
not a trivial distinction. While IBM was trying to sell an 'O.S.', because
you 'have to' in order to sell hardware, Microsoft was selling Word (and
the rest), which happened to run on Windows. It's the applications that
sold the O.S., not the O.S. by itself.


Yes. A simple difference but one that earns billions.

What I find fascinating is the espoused notion that Microsoft, a handful of
boys with absolutely nothing, no 'business reputation', no history of
development, no demonstrated DOS, and nothing else in the field, somehow
'took advantage' of and 'screwed' poor old IBM.

What in the world do these folks think MS used to 'force' IBM into the deal?

 

[ken]

Thank you for your reply. The camera dons't record. I get a white
screen in the viewfinder and all the functions seem to work, AF,white
bal., REC, etc. But when I play it back nothing. Can you point me in
the right direction? Thanks, Ken

On 29 Oct 2005 13:22:29 -0700, "dkuhajda@locl.net" <dkuhajda@locl.net>
wrote:

16 year old model, right?
Back in 1994, 11 year ago, where I worked was seeing a lot of those
with bad capacitors that leaked on the circuit boards and damaged the
boards. By 1997 Canon had completely stopped providing boards for
those which was what was required to fix them.

Odds are that any service information anyone has will be on paper or
microfiche. Since that model was from 1989 and most manufactures did
not even think about starting electronic service information until
1998.

 

[Porky]

There was a movie made in the early 90"s starring the late John Ritter,
where he poisons his wife with old radio parts, and he is shown
scraping away at the deadly selenium rectifier.

Ok so it's Marg Helgenberger and a TV show in the late 90's. Here's the
link.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://antiqueradio.org/tvshow.htm.

 

[marsupialman]

Dave Plowman (News) Wrote:

Looks like a dandy little amp...[/color]

That's what Behringer does. Make it look good...;-)

Thanks! To be fair, I did a lot of research on amps like this before
buying this one. Sound quality and versatility was obviously the big
issues, but many users have been lugging this amp from club to club
without anything going wrong. It's meant to be pretty tough. That's why
I'm surprised it's busted.


--
marsupialman

 

[Mxsmanic]

David Maynard writes:

Never could have happened. Apple is too obsessed with everything being
'their way' to live with someone else's perceived design flaws.

That is my impression, also. Worse yet, the "Apple way" isn't
necessarily the best way from a technical standpoint--it's just
Apple's way. If everything they did was unquestionably superior to
everyone else's way of doing things, they might have something, but
that's not the case. And even if it were, most people don't care much
about computers, and given a choice between a $500 machine that gets
the job done and a $1500 machine that is "technically superior,"
they'll buy the $500 machine.

What I find fascinating is the espoused notion that Microsoft, a handful of
boys with absolutely nothing, no 'business reputation', no history of
development, no demonstrated DOS, and nothing else in the field, somehow
'took advantage' of and 'screwed' poor old IBM.

Most of the peole saying this can't remember anything earlier than
about 1992 or so. At the time that Microsoft was dealing with IBM, of
course, _Microsoft_ was the underdog, and IBM was the Great Satan. In
those days, it was fashionable for angry young men to hate IBM and
root for Microsoft.

What in the world do these folks think MS used to 'force' IBM
into the deal?

The dominant market player is always seen as the bad guy, even with
respect to history; people forget that dominant market players change
regularly.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

 

[Mxsmanic]

vanagonvw@gmail.com writes:

Imagine life without an ATM, or online access to banking? Without OS/2,
those things would only now be coming of age.

There are a lot of operating systems that could be used for ATMs, not
just OS/2. Windows NT Workstation was/is popular for ATMs. I don't
know what they favor today.

Better yet, imagine an ATM running Win95? they are crashing
all over the place now that banks are upgrading to M$.

ATMs don't run Windows 95. They started switching from OS/2 to
Windows NT Workstation ages ago, and I don't know what they are
running most often today, but it's not Windows 95.

Besides, in a dedicated system, crashes are rare. You only need to
run one application, all day long, and it's not that hard to get it to
run without ever crashing.

That never happened before, and it will only get worse.

I've never seen an ATM crash. Nor have I ever heard of ATMs running
Windows 95. And there is certainly no one migrating to Windows 95
_now_--it's a dead operating system.

Again, the lack of knowledge by the newbie generation that thinks M$
invented computers....... M$ BOUGHT the rights to those portions of the
code, or took them with them when they left IBM, just as they have
BOUGHT everything else that makes up their products. Someone name one
decent piece of software that M$ CREATED from scratch. How about Bob?

How about Windows NT?

For those who were not even alive at the time, a lot happened between
IBM and billy bob that explains all these things.

For those who were not even alive at the time, Microsoft was a couple
of guys practically working out of a garage in those days, and people
like you were saying exactly the same things about IBM that you are
saying today about Microsoft.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

The war is over, but M$ didn't win with superior technology.

Microsoft won by being smarter than IBM. They certainly didn't do it
with money or influence or power, since they had none of these back
then.

People wanted M$ windows, so they got it. Its okay, there are no hard
feelings, but the number of sales does not equate the quality of the
product in any area of business. Ask Walmart about that.

Nobody cares.

Those who couldn't figure out how to use OS/2 because is was "too hard"
simply turned to an OS that does their thinking for them, and they got
what they deserved. That's fine. Nothing to get one's panties in a
bunch over.

It seems to really upset you.

Most things worth using or having require the owner to be
above average in intelligence anyway.

That's debatable.

Its really okay. Windows sucks. It always has. It always will. Not a
big deal, but those who do not know history ought to study it, and
learn it, rather than just rewriting it to fit their agenda.

I was actually there, so I don't have to study it, and Microsoft was
not big and bad back then. IBM was the usual target of the angry
young males, followed by Apple. To some extent it depended on which
company had rejected their résumés first.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

 

[James Sweet]

P.S. I hope the shop doesn't read sci.electronics.repair and connect you
with this discussion. Noone likes being told they are a ripoff before
any money has changed hands :-( As to our reputation as a trade, when
was the last time you hired a plumber? There are a lot of us over here
leaving this trade for plumbing as the hours are better with PAID
overtime, better pay, more grateful customers and *far* less sh*t from
them ;-)

And if you think plumbers can be bad, try HVAC. A neighbor paid $5500 to
have a heat pump installed. I put a nicer unit in my house for $1300 and
that included a few specialized tools, a tank of refrigerant, and the
test to get certified to buy said refrigerant. Granted I did some
scrounging and got some new scratch & dent equipment but even factory
new it would have been less than $2k. The guys who do it for a living
usually buy the stuff wholesale, double the price, and then charge
$80-$150 an hour for the labor but it's not rocket science.

 

[James Sweet]

Jumpster Jiver wrote:

Rick Yerger wrote:

Our old apartment complex has ungrounded outlets. All 3-prong
appliances are connected with 3-to-2 adapters. Will this affect our
ability to use a PC power supply with Active PFC?

Sorry if this is a dumb question!



Assuming you are in the USA - 120V

If the outlet box is made of metal, test if the box is grouded. You can
do this by buying one of those testers with three neon lamps at a
hardware store. Use a 3 to 2 adapter with the ground wire of the
adapter connected to the outlet-plate screw. If the tester shows that
the outlet box IS properly grounded, then all you need to do is use a
3-2 adapter and make sure the wire or tab from the adapter is securely
connected to the grounded screw of the wall box.
Also, if the box is properly grounded you can install a 3 prong outlet
in the box and connect the outlet ground to the box.

If there is truly no ground, you should have a serious talk with
building management about hiring an electrician to update the building's
electrical system. Otherwise there is a serious danger of electric
shock or electrocution if an appliance malfunctions. The ground is
there to protect you if an appliance's HOT wire shorts to the outer
cabinet or a contol knob or any other part you would normally touch.
While it is rare it DOES happen and that's why a ground is necessary.

MS

I have yet to ever see a case where the box was grounded but had only a
2 prong receptacle in it. If the house was built before about the mid
1960's, chances are the entire electrical system is not grounded.
Depending on how the house is built, it can be anywhere from fairly easy
to very difficult to add a ground, either way it probably only makes
sense to add it to the outlets that either really need grounding or are
easily accessible.

 

[James Sweet]

It's really not that simple. Some of them are, some of them aren't.
Virtually every owner of a '93-'00 Chrysler product who pays any
attention at all to headlamp performance pines for the "performance" of
the $9 sealed beams on his '60s-'80s cars. And as a concept,
sealed-beam construction in standardized form factors makes a great
deal of sense for automotive headlamps. The _implementation_ we were
stuck with for so many years was poor, but there's nothing about
sealed-beam construction, per se, that locks one into poor headlamp
performance. There are plenty of bad replaceable-bulb lights, too.
There are even bad "Xenon" HID lights. Good lights are better than bad
lights; there's too much room in the US headlamp standard for various
kinds of bad lights.

There's nothing wrong with the sealed beam construction itself, but the
classic DOT headlamps *suck*. Installing quality OEM E-code headlamps on
my European car was the best thing I ever did to it. People who ride
with me often comment at how good the headlights are and they're usually
shocked when I flip on the high beams. The original sealed beams were
downright dangerous, I was overdriving my headlights going 5 under the
speed limit on a dark highway, yet they still produced more glare to
oncoming traffic than what I have now.

 

[James Sweet]

BillW50 wrote:

"Jeff" <spam@spam.net> wrote in message news:Vat9f.39690$RG4.5791@fe05.lga...
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 13:15:35 -0500

This is begining to sound like an arguement based soley on
which company you hate more, IBM or Microsoft. You each seem to
be stating facts and then coloring them to suit your own
arguements. I personally dont care who screwed who in the
origins of the OS world, I only wish that there was some form
of real competition for MS and their huge market share to cause
some real inovation, choice and fair pricing.


What do you mean Jeff? There are tons of choices out there. Like
Mac, BeOS, UNIX, Linux, XWindows, FreeDOS, GEOS, GEM, OS/2, DEC,
etc. How many more choices would you like?

In all fairness, BeOS is dead, XWindows is not an operating system but a
GUI used mostly in *nix environments, GEOS, GEM and OS/2 are
effectively dead, DEC had a flavor of Unix but I'm not sure whether that
exists anymore. In current OS's, there's Windows, MacOS (FreeBSD Unix
based) and all the various incarnations of Linux but that's about it for
the consumer desktop as far as I know.

I still use Win2K on most of my machines, though I did put a recent
version of Ubuntu Linux on one of my laptops to play with and I was
shocked at how far it's come in the last few years. It still has a few
rough edges but it's shaping up to be a very usable operating system and
definitly something I'm interested in seeing after a couple more years
of polish. If someone can come up with a solid unified configuration
panel, settle on a standard sound driver interface and get the Windows
emulator rock solid so it supports everything MS might have some real
competition. Of course I don't really see it as a fight anyway, nothing
is forcing me to use any operating system in particular, so I just use
those which are most appropriate for what I'm doing with each particular
computer I'm doing it on. Usually the choice comes down to what
applications I need to run and what specific hardware is best supported.

 

[James Sweet]

Mike Berger wrote:

According to the web site, none of them actually do anything.
Apparently they just sit on the laptop keyboard and read out
random numbers. Don't waste your money.

Without a standard CPU bus, how would you build a diagnostic
card for laptops?

Isn't PCMCIA essentially an ISA bus? I suppose a diagnostic card could
be made, but laptops are not particularly modular, I've always found it
easier to just remove any accessories, swap the RAM out, if it's still
acting up then the problem is likely the motherboard in which case
there's not much that can be done.

 

[James Sweet]

Patrick Young wrote:

James Sweet wrote:

The alignment may well be in the way the panels are made, hence the
different part numbers. If you'd like to verify, try installing a
different green panel and a red panel instead and see which one makes


Did, as the green in Q had three or four pixels out. I'm now left with a
ferpect picture, however the convergence is now out two ways. The part
# is therefore not part of the alignment.

It's not? If changing to a different color panel changed the alignment
then I suspect the panels *are* different.

 

[Mxsmanic]

James Sweet writes:

In all fairness, BeOS is dead, XWindows is not an operating system but a
GUI used mostly in *nix environments, GEOS, GEM and OS/2 are
effectively dead, DEC had a flavor of Unix but I'm not sure whether that
exists anymore. In current OS's, there's Windows, MacOS (FreeBSD Unix
based) and all the various incarnations of Linux but that's about it for
the consumer desktop as far as I know.

And in most cases, Windows is the only practical choice. However,
this has nothing to do with any machiavellian manipulations on the
part of Microsoft, and everything to do with the overwhelming majority
of applications that run only on Windows.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

 

[Jasen Betts]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.misc.]
On 2005-10-29, Steve TR <noemail@all.com> wrote:

I appreciate the advice.

I actually already have 2 of these "drop in" bayonet replacements and while
they are okay for the "casual user" (lol) I'm quite picky and don't want to
look like the rest of the import kiddies with the funky looking LED tail
lamps only lighting up in small spots.

I'm willing to spend $$$ for this project so I can get a correct look and it
seems a flat panel filling the entire area behind the lense will work
wonderfully. Aside from someone's time, I wouldn' think it would be all
that expensive... You can buy generic blank PCBs and a box of LEDs and
solder away. I just suck at soldering. LOL

a task like this would be good way to gain skills.

start with some perfboard (circuit board with lits of holes and no
cobnecteions made between them) figure out your LED layout stick the leds in
then join them up by the bits that stick out the back

by the time you've done the few thousand solder joins your design wants
you'll be an expert.

--

Bye.
Jasen

 

[David Maynard]

Mxsmanic wrote:

David Maynard writes:


Never could have happened. Apple is too obsessed with everything being
'their way' to live with someone else's perceived design flaws.


That is my impression, also. Worse yet, the "Apple way" isn't
necessarily the best way from a technical standpoint--it's just
Apple's way. If everything they did was unquestionably superior to
everyone else's way of doing things, they might have something, but
that's not the case.

I doubt they would agree with you on that

And even if it were, most people don't care much
about computers, and given a choice between a $500 machine that gets
the job done and a $1500 machine that is "technically superior,"
they'll buy the $500 machine.

Bingo. And it's the difference between an engineering 'purist' and a
pragmatist.

What I find fascinating is the espoused notion that Microsoft, a handful of
boys with absolutely nothing, no 'business reputation', no history of
development, no demonstrated DOS, and nothing else in the field, somehow
'took advantage' of and 'screwed' poor old IBM.


Most of the peole saying this can't remember anything earlier than
about 1992 or so. At the time that Microsoft was dealing with IBM, of
course, _Microsoft_ was the underdog, and IBM was the Great Satan. In
those days, it was fashionable for angry young men to hate IBM and
root for Microsoft.

True. And IBM did plenty to earn the wrath.

Do you remember their MCA bus licensing plan for clone makers? You not only
had to pay a license for every machine sold using it (fair enough) but you
were required to retro pay a license fee for every clone you had already
made since the PC came out.

They out licensed themselves because with a plan that ridiculous no one
took it so MCA was shut out instead of the other way around.

What in the world do these folks think MS used to 'force' IBM
into the deal?


The dominant market player is always seen as the bad guy, even with
respect to history; people forget that dominant market players change
regularly.

Yeah. I guess they don't know that back then Microsoft was about as
'dominant' a player as a fruit fly taking on a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2005-10-29, Ken Weitzel <kweitzel@shaw.ca> wrote:

I'd strongly urge you to check before you install anything other than
the original incandescents. I'm very sure that most places we can't
change them without "breaking the law"

depends what the law says: it might just say "clearly visible" from such an
angle and distance... still that could have a bearing on the best choice of LED.

Bye.
Jasen