Re: OT

On 8/17/2026 5:21 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

>> Office 2003?  Under what OS, exactly?  I mean, that's kind of like still
> 
> Seems to run fine under Windows 10; I believe it would under 11, too.
> 
> Are you aware of anything you actually _do_ with whatever Office you
> have, that 2003 (with .###x plugins) can't do? Not things you _could_ do
> with it, but that you actually _use_.


Fair point, but I just like having the contemporary software.


>> using a DVD player, instead of a modern video entertainment device.
>>
> What's a "modern video entertainment device"? I do have lots of .mp4
> files on this laptop, and watch them there - so far always on its own
> screen, though it does have an HDMI output (and I think both my TVs have
> an HDMI input).


A computer is indeed one such device.  I have my TV as a second monitor, 
in fact.  But the TV itself can show me listings, services available for 
streaming.


> If someone gave you a DVD, what would you watch it on?[]


I just see that as obsolete, I guess.


>>> Plus, a lot of map "apps" - like a lot of other apps - are actually only
>>> a gateway to an online database, i. e. won't work where there's no
>>> signal. (OK, if you know you're going to use them in advance, you can in
>>> many "apps" pre-download the maps for the areas you're going to be in.)>
>>
>> That's true, a paper map where cell service is inadequate is still useful.
>>
> A dedicated SatNav/GPS can be better (and GPS coverage is pretty
> universal, except in very narrow valleys or insude structures). [I still
> use paper maps for another hobby - genealogy - but there, often the more
> out-of-date the better!]>


Would be nice to have something that was independent of cell service. 
It's something I'd purchase were I to go on an adventure that would 
likely make it needed.


>> found myself separated from my computer for an extended period and the
>> phone gave me Internet on an alternative device.  I soon realized having
>> both is ideal.
>>
> I _may_ switch to cellular for internet entirely - certainly, the option
> to have it anywhere (there is coverage) is attractive; however, until
> then, having to pay for an extra contract seems a needless expense. (I
> don't go out much; I do have a - non "smart" - mobile for emergencies,
> but it's on a PAYG, _not_ monthly, contract. [About 2 pounds per 180
> days, for the calls I have to make to keep the number active.])


If you have truly-unlimited data on a phone, you don't need landline 
Internet, it's true.  Kind of a good way to save money, I imagine, for 
people who are casual users.  I happen to get fiber broadband included 
with my rent, the house WiFi, but it is good that my phone has a backup 
way of connecting the computer with a hotspot.

-- 
Joel W. Crump

Zyprexa - It's not just for schizophrenics, anymore!