Inconsistency information



  • I'm quite sure that we should say the truth to the world in every single word to keep our consistency. But, what if we can't? Something that we can't avoid to be an inconsistency, like this thing:

     

    Maybe sometimes it should be done in this inconsistency manner, ehh ;D



  • It's Outlook.

    But actually, there's one simple explanation for this; if the user has created absolute date categories for displaying sent-mail, e.g. "November 2007, December 2007" etc, and created them ahead of time.

    Also, I'd like to know if generally I've managed to somehow send mail timestamped the future, or the epoch for that matter, as both annoy the receiver and I'd like to fix the problem. 



  • Yeah, a friend of mine once showed me his inbox with an email received "Tomorrow".

     And yeah, the date was from [to?] the day after.
     



  • I just thought I'd point out that your use of the word "inconsistency" in places where "inconsistent" would be the appropriate conjugation is incorrect.  It is consistent, however, so I approve.



  • I've seen cases where gmail gets confused with dates.  My dad was sending me a travel itinerary for an upcoming ski trip, in the following format:
    12/15 : Fly out of WV
    12/16 -  Ski at Big Sky
    12/17 - Snowmobile in Yellowstone
    etc etc etc

    For some reason gmail picked up the date of the first item in the list, and considered that the date the message was sent.
     



  • This thing reminds me of a fun easter egg in win XP:

    1. Set your system clock to a date FAR in the future (something like december 2099)
    2. Create an empty file
    3. Set the clock back to your real date (So you now have a file with a creation date far in the future)
    4. Open the folder containing the file in Explorer
    5. Enable Appearance -> Order symbols -> Group view and sort the files after creation date
    6. Pay attention to the group header of your newly created file



  • @PSWorx said:

    Enable Appearance -> Order symbols -> Group view and sort the files after creation date

    I don't see anything like that in winxp. 



  • @asuffield said:

    @PSWorx said:
    Enable Appearance -> Order symbols -> Group view and sort the files after creation date
    I don't see anything like that in winxp.
    I assume PSWorx is using an internaionalised version of windows, and ran the menu items through a translator: those words look awfully similar to babblefished "View -> Sort -> Show Groups" or whatever the menu item is actually called. (Not on my windows box at the moment, so I can't check.)



  • @random_garbage said:

    @asuffield said:
    @PSWorx said:
    Enable Appearance -> Order symbols -> Group view and sort the files after creation date
    I don't see anything like that in winxp.
    I assume PSWorx is using an internaionalised version of windows, and ran the menu items through a translator: those words look awfully similar to babblefished "View -> Sort -> Show Groups" or whatever the menu item is actually called. (Not on my windows box at the moment, so I can't check.)

    Ah, and sort by modification date.

    It labels the group as "sometime this millennia" - the WTF presumably being that "millennia" is the plural form, and it should say "millennium".



  • For an example, here's the result on my machine. Which is pretty cool.



  • I would've made it say "Post-Apocalypse", or perhaps "Post-Singularity".



  • @random_garbage said:

    @asuffield said:
    @PSWorx said:
    Enable Appearance -> Order symbols -> Group view and sort the files after creation date
    I don't see anything like that in winxp.
    I assume PSWorx is using an internaionalised version of windows, and ran the menu items through a translator: those words look awfully similar to babblefished "View -> Sort -> Show Groups" or whatever the menu item is actually called. (Not on my windows box at the moment, so I can't check.)

    I can't really blame Babelfish because I've tried to translate it myself. But luckily you found the right items anyway. 



  • TRWTF is using the olive colour theme in XP



  • @Eternal Density said:

    TRWTF is using the olive colour theme in XP

    It's the nicest one of the three.

    Least egregious, anyway. The silver one is WHOA MY EYES.

    If you want a theme, get that Energy Blue one. That looks schweet. 



  • @dhromed said:

    @Eternal Density said:

    TRWTF is using the olive colour theme in XP

    It's the nicest one of the three.

    Least egregious, anyway. The silver one is WHOA MY EYES.

    If you want a theme, get that Energy Blue one. That looks schweet. 

    Well, it's cute you know.. Unless you don't want to say "cute", you can always say "nice". However, I agreed to dhromed :)



  • @Fajar Endra Nusa said:

    @dhromed said:

    @Eternal Density said:

    TRWTF is using the olive colour theme in XP

    It's the nicest one of the three.

    Least egregious, anyway. The silver one is WHOA MY EYES.

    If you want a theme, get that Energy Blue one. That looks schweet. 

    Well, it's cute you know.. Unless you don't want to say "cute", you can always say "nice". However, I agreed to dhromed :)

    My dad uses it.

    And have you noticed that there's an error in the Blue one? The top-right corner sprite is sliiiightly darker than the titlebar. Not visible when the Close button is on top of it, but the logon screen in XP Pro shows it.



  • @dhromed said:

    @Eternal Density said:

    TRWTF is using the olive colour theme in XP

    It's the nicest one of the three.

    Least egregious, anyway. The silver one is WHOA MY EYES.

    If you want a theme, get that Energy Blue one. That looks schweet. 

    I strongly recommend selecting the win2k colour scheme, and then going into the services manager and completely disabling the themeing engine. This has a significant impact on system performance and responsiveness, and I'm not talking about just old hosts. I find winxp with themeing enabled to be unbearably slow to respond (it adds almost a hundred milliseconds to the latency of window decoration rendering).



  • @asuffield said:

    @dhromed said:

    @Eternal Density said:

    TRWTF is using the olive colour theme in XP

    It's the nicest one of the three.

    Least egregious, anyway. The silver one is WHOA MY EYES.

    If you want a theme, get that Energy Blue one. That looks schweet. 

    I strongly recommend selecting the win2k colour scheme, and then going into the services manager and completely disabling the themeing engine. This has a significant impact on system performance and responsiveness, and I'm not talking about just old hosts. I find winxp with themeing enabled to be unbearably slow to respond (it adds almost a hundred milliseconds to the latency of window decoration rendering).

    Yes.

    Does it still impact performance significantly if the service is enabled but no themeing is used?



  • @dhromed said:

    If you want a theme, get that Energy Blue one. That looks schweet. 

    I use it. The rest is pretty decent, but I particularly like the taskbar and its buttons. They look great - and not distractingly so - in all states (selected or not, hovered or not).

    If you're going for the flashy, less performant version of XP, I strongly recommend it. 



  • @Zecc said:

    the flashy, less performant version of XP

    Didn't that just come out this year?  called Vista? 



  • @asuffield said:

    @dhromed said:

    @Eternal Density said:

    TRWTF is using the olive colour theme in XP

    It's the nicest one of the three.

    Least egregious, anyway. The silver one is WHOA MY EYES.

    If you want a theme, get that Energy Blue one. That looks schweet.

    I strongly recommend selecting the win2k colour scheme, and then going into the services manager and completely disabling the themeing engine. This has a significant impact on system performance and responsiveness, and I'm not talking about just old hosts. I find winxp with themeing enabled to be unbearably slow to respond (it adds almost a hundred milliseconds to the latency of window decoration rendering).

    I thought the entire purpose of Moore's Law was to assure us that there will always be more computing power available for better and better windowing themes! 



  • @asuffield said:

    It labels the group as "sometime this millennia" - the WTF presumably being that "millennia" is the plural form, and it should say "millennium".


    It's worse than that. To my mind, 'this millenium' is 2001 -> 3000 (or 2000 to 2999, I don't really mind), but this says 'Sometime this millenia' for 2010, 2099, 2101, 2107, but not for 2108 or 2999. So it REALLY means 'sometime in the next century'.

    BTW, if you have '1999' it shows as 'A long time ago' which seems to be from 1st January 1980 to the year 3 years ago (ie until 31st December 2004). Pre-1980 or post-2107 shows as 'unspecified'.

    (2008 shows as 'next year', 2009 has no title at all on my version of WinXP)



  • @pscs said:

    @asuffield said:
    It labels the group as "sometime this millennia" - the WTF presumably being that "millennia" is the plural form, and it should say "millennium".


    It's worse than that. To my mind, 'this millenium' is 2001 -> 3000 (or 2000 to 2999, I don't really mind), but this says 'Sometime this millenia' for 2010, 2099, 2101, 2107, but not for 2108 or 2999. So it REALLY means 'sometime in the next century'.

    BTW, if you have '1999' it shows as 'A long time ago' which seems to be from 1st January 1980 to the year 3 years ago (ie until 31st December 2004). Pre-1980 or post-2107 shows as 'unspecified'.

    (2008 shows as 'next year', 2009 has no title at all on my version of WinXP)

    The cutoff for "unspecified" is 2107-12-31 18:59:58, - I'm in US Eastern time, if it matters - and the latest date I can put in at all is 2107-12-31 23:59:58. The earliest date I can put in is 1980-01-01 00:00:00 and the earliest date not to show up as unspecified is 1980-01-01 00:00:02 - all dates are rounded up to the nearest two seconds (i can actually attempt to input 1979-12-31 23:59:59, it shows up as 1980). When I say I cannot put in the date, i mean an exception is thrown - this is on a FAT filesystem.

    Note: 2108 = 1980 + 128.

    P.S. If I put in a date in 2009, the file does not show up AT ALL. There is no group, empty header or otherwise. I can select the file via typeahead with the filename.



  • @Random832 said:

    P.S. If I put in a date in 2009, the file does not show up AT ALL. There is no group, empty header or otherwise. I can select the file via typeahead with the filename.

    P.P.S. - the file does appear there - i can navigate to it with arrow keys etc. It is above the top of the window and I cannot scroll up to it.



  • @dhromed said:

    @asuffield said:

    I strongly recommend selecting the win2k colour scheme, and then going into the services manager and completely disabling the themeing engine. This has a significant impact on system performance and responsiveness, and I'm not talking about just old hosts. I find winxp with themeing enabled to be unbearably slow to respond (it adds almost a hundred milliseconds to the latency of window decoration rendering).

    Yes.

    Does it still impact performance significantly if the service is enabled but no themeing is used?

    In theory, no - but if the service is enabled, then Windows has a habit of turning selected 'effects' back on without asking or even informing you, which brings back the performance problem. Disabling it completely prevents it from doing this.



  • @dhromed said:

    @asuffield said:
    @dhromed said:

    @Eternal Density said:

    TRWTF is using the olive colour theme in XP

    It's the nicest one of the three.

    Least egregious, anyway. The silver one is WHOA MY EYES.

    If you want a theme, get that Energy Blue one. That looks schweet. 

    I strongly recommend selecting the win2k colour scheme, and then going into the services manager and completely disabling the themeing engine. This has a significant impact on system performance and responsiveness, and I'm not talking about just old hosts. I find winxp with themeing enabled to be unbearably slow to respond (it adds almost a hundred milliseconds to the latency of window decoration rendering).

    Yes.

    Does it still impact performance significantly if the service is enabled but no themeing is used?

    It can be invoked on-demand if an application requests it (which most do) for styling.  Things like Office and such are guaranteed to re-invoke it.

    At any rate, I'd be hard pressed to believe there's any meaningful response difference between theming and non-theming.  In fact, I'd really love to see a study that states it's appreciably different.

    Especially with the way that XP buffers things, I can't imagine a situation where you could saturate the buffer in negligable amount of time it takes for the "Start Menu" or whatever to open.

    I think assufield is just being antagonistic.

    I'm a big fan of the Zune Theme and have been using it on my few XP machines for a long time now:

    http://www.arcware.net/archive/2006/11/30/Zune-Desktop-Theme.aspx



  • @ShadowWolf said:

    @dhromed said:
    @asuffield said:
    @dhromed said:

    @Eternal Density said:

    TRWTF is using the olive colour theme in XP

    It's the nicest one of the three.

    Least egregious, anyway. The silver one is WHOA MY EYES.

    If you want a theme, get that Energy Blue one. That looks schweet. 

    I strongly recommend selecting the win2k colour scheme, and then going into the services manager and completely disabling the themeing engine. This has a significant impact on system performance and responsiveness, and I'm not talking about just old hosts. I find winxp with themeing enabled to be unbearably slow to respond (it adds almost a hundred milliseconds to the latency of window decoration rendering).

    Yes.

    Does it still impact performance significantly if the service is enabled but no themeing is used?

    It can be invoked on-demand if an application requests it (which most do) for styling.  Things like Office and such are guaranteed to re-invoke it.

    At any rate, I'd be hard pressed to believe there's any meaningful response difference between theming and non-theming.  In fact, I'd really love to see a study that states it's appreciably different.

    Especially with the way that XP buffers things, I can't imagine a situation where you could saturate the buffer in negligable amount of time it takes for the "Start Menu" or whatever to open.

    I think assufield is just being antagonistic.

    I'm a big fan of the Zune Theme and have been using it on my few XP machines for a long time now:

    http://www.arcware.net/archive/2006/11/30/Zune-Desktop-Theme.aspx

    It ain't scientific, but I just switched themes off an hour ago to test this, and it sure is much faster. 



  • @bstorer said:

    @ShadowWolf said:
    @dhromed said:
    @asuffield said:
    @dhromed said:

    @Eternal Density said:

    TRWTF is using the olive colour theme in XP

    It's the nicest one of the three.

    Least egregious, anyway. The silver one is WHOA MY EYES.

    If you want a theme, get that Energy Blue one. That looks schweet. 

    I strongly recommend selecting the win2k colour scheme, and then going into the services manager and completely disabling the themeing engine. This has a significant impact on system performance and responsiveness, and I'm not talking about just old hosts. I find winxp with themeing enabled to be unbearably slow to respond (it adds almost a hundred milliseconds to the latency of window decoration rendering).

    Yes.

    Does it still impact performance significantly if the service is enabled but no themeing is used?

    It can be invoked on-demand if an application requests it (which most do) for styling.  Things like Office and such are guaranteed to re-invoke it.

    At any rate, I'd be hard pressed to believe there's any meaningful response difference between theming and non-theming.  In fact, I'd really love to see a study that states it's appreciably different.

    Especially with the way that XP buffers things, I can't imagine a situation where you could saturate the buffer in negligable amount of time it takes for the "Start Menu" or whatever to open.

    I think assufield is just being antagonistic.

    I'm a big fan of the Zune Theme and have been using it on my few XP machines for a long time now:

    http://www.arcware.net/archive/2006/11/30/Zune-Desktop-Theme.aspx

    It ain't scientific, but I just switched themes off an hour ago to test this, and it sure is much faster. 

    What did you notice being much faster?



  • @ShadowWolf said:

    @bstorer said:
    @ShadowWolf said:
    @dhromed said:
    @asuffield said:
    @dhromed said:

    @Eternal Density said:

    TRWTF is using the olive colour theme in XP

    It's the nicest one of the three.

    Least egregious, anyway. The silver one is WHOA MY EYES.

    If you want a theme, get that Energy Blue one. That looks schweet.

    I strongly recommend selecting the win2k colour scheme, and then going into the services manager and completely disabling the themeing engine. This has a significant impact on system performance and responsiveness, and I'm not talking about just old hosts. I find winxp with themeing enabled to be unbearably slow to respond (it adds almost a hundred milliseconds to the latency of window decoration rendering).

    Yes.

    Does it still impact performance significantly if the service is enabled but no themeing is used?

    It can be invoked on-demand if an application requests it (which most do) for styling.  Things like Office and such are guaranteed to re-invoke it.

    At any rate, I'd be hard pressed to believe there's any meaningful response difference between theming and non-theming.  In fact, I'd really love to see a study that states it's appreciably different.

    Especially with the way that XP buffers things, I can't imagine a situation where you could saturate the buffer in negligable amount of time it takes for the "Start Menu" or whatever to open.

    I think assufield is just being antagonistic.

    I'm a big fan of the Zune Theme and have been using it on my few XP machines for a long time now:

    http://www.arcware.net/archive/2006/11/30/Zune-Desktop-Theme.aspx

    It ain't scientific, but I just switched themes off an hour ago to test this, and it sure is much faster.

    What did you notice being much faster?

    Anecdotally, of course, but windows open far faster, regardless of the program.  Ugly as sin, but faster.



  • @bstorer said:

    @ShadowWolf said:
    @bstorer said:
    @ShadowWolf said:
    @dhromed said:
    @asuffield said:
    @dhromed said:

    @Eternal Density said:

    TRWTF is using the olive colour theme in XP

    It's the nicest one of the three.

    Least egregious, anyway. The silver one is WHOA MY EYES.

    If you want a theme, get that Energy Blue one. That looks schweet.

    I strongly recommend selecting the win2k colour scheme, and then going into the services manager and completely disabling the themeing engine. This has a significant impact on system performance and responsiveness, and I'm not talking about just old hosts. I find winxp with themeing enabled to be unbearably slow to respond (it adds almost a hundred milliseconds to the latency of window decoration rendering).

    Yes.

    Does it still impact performance significantly if the service is enabled but no themeing is used?

    It can be invoked on-demand if an application requests it (which most do) for styling.  Things like Office and such are guaranteed to re-invoke it.

    At any rate, I'd be hard pressed to believe there's any meaningful response difference between theming and non-theming.  In fact, I'd really love to see a study that states it's appreciably different.

    Especially with the way that XP buffers things, I can't imagine a situation where you could saturate the buffer in negligable amount of time it takes for the "Start Menu" or whatever to open.

    I think assufield is just being antagonistic.

    I'm a big fan of the Zune Theme and have been using it on my few XP machines for a long time now:

    http://www.arcware.net/archive/2006/11/30/Zune-Desktop-Theme.aspx

    It ain't scientific, but I just switched themes off an hour ago to test this, and it sure is much faster.

    What did you notice being much faster?

    Anecdotally, of course, but windows open far faster, regardless of the program.  Ugly as sin, but faster.

    LOL - I also turned off the theme service.  It saved maybe a millisecond from the loading time.

    I noticed the start menu didn't really seem to open any faster.



  • My main issue is not so much woth the programs that force themeing elements on, but with the programs that force them off, such as the console. Then why bother, I say.

    But,  to date, the XP Luna buttons are the smoothest ever made. None of that OSX pill junk that feel like my mouse will slide right off, instead of clicking. Just those goddamn hideous title bars + task bar. Bleeeeeeh.


     



  • @dhromed said:

    @Fajar Endra Nusa said:
    @dhromed said:

    @Eternal Density said:

    TRWTF is using the olive colour theme in XP

    It's the nicest one of the three.

    Least egregious, anyway. The silver one is WHOA MY EYES.

    If you want a theme, get that Energy Blue one. That looks schweet. 

    Well, it's cute you know.. Unless you don't want to say "cute", you can always say "nice". However, I agreed to dhromed :)

    My dad uses it.

    And have you noticed that there's an error in the Blue one? The top-right corner sprite is sliiiightly darker than the titlebar. Not visible when the Close button is on top of it, but the logon screen in XP Pro shows it.

     

    Yeah I saw it. But, regarding to the colors of the planet, was it really an error or, Indeed, Microsoft made the color like that way?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.