computer troubles that irritate me

[Guest]

I wanted to know if anyone could tell me how to reset the time limit I have
so that when I am on the computer it will quit going back to the user sign in
page if I am not constantly moveing the mouse or puching buttons. Thank you

 

[Shenan Stanley]

I wanted to know if anyone could tell me how to reset the time
limit I have so that when I am on the computer it will quit going
back to the user sign in page if I am not constantly moveing the
mouse or puching buttons. Thank you

Either increase the time in your screensaver settings - or turn off the
automatic locking feature.
If in a corporate environment - you likely cannot control this setting
yourself.

 

[Larry Gardner]

Make sure ScreenSavers are off.
And check how you have Power Options setup (both in Windows XP and at BIOS
level).

 

[Guest]

A couple of ways of getting at this and it also depends on your personal
choices. With the advent of Flat Screen Monitors and even the old bulky
monitors, Screensavers are becoming a waste of time and serve no technical
function. They're really only there, now, for the holdovers who insist on
setting up a pretty rotating ball or some other equally mundand visualization
when they aren't actively using they're systems. So this is how my system is
set up. either right click the desktop and then choose properties\screensaver
tab\Screensaver setting section click the drop down list arrow and select
"None" and then click the "Power" button down the bottom and then in all
three drop down lists set it to Never\Never\Never. Now I must point out that
I never leave my system on unless I have it doing something or I'm doing
something. I never use task scheduler and I never auto update anything. I
control my system not the other way around. So it does what I want, when I
want and how I want. TTFN.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

With the advent of Flat Screen Monitors and even
the old bulky monitors, Screensavers are becoming a waste of time and
serve no technical function.

It has very little to do with flat screen monitors. The need to "save the
screen" for burn-in has largely been gone since the days of monochrome
monitors. The risk of burn-in isn't gone completely, but it's much less of a
problem than it used to be, and screen-savers haven't really been needed for
a long time.

They're really only there, now, for the
holdovers who insist on setting up a pretty rotating ball or some
other equally mundand visualization when they aren't actively using
they're systems.

Not true. Screen savers have one very practical use, and they are often used
for this purpose in offices. Someone sitting in an office cubicle may be
doing something that is confidential, and, if he leaves his cubicle
temporarily, would like to have the screensaver kick in so that a passer-by
can't see what's on his screen.

 

[Guest]

Oh brother Ken. Talk about symantecs. I purposefully left out the burn in
issue as well as overlooking the fact that tube monitors actually benefited
from screen savers and on and on and on. You see I try to make my point in as
little time as necessary. Fact: Screen savers are a waste of time and as far
as anyone looking at some confidential file that maybe on the monitor, it
takes no time at all to move a mouse and activate the screen. In that case
why not simply turn the monitor off? Note that I made reference to the fact
that I was recommending this for a stand alone home computer system. But I
guessed you missed that part. You could simply let the desktop display and
have a handy little tool that requires a password to open a session, or
better yet you could encrypt the whole system so that nothing can be accessed
without the codes. You see Ken there are tons of suggestions that are viable
other than a screensaver so please don't knit pick. Thanks. TTFN.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Oh brother Ken.

I'm not your brother.

Talk about symantecs.

I hate to correct spelling, but that's very funny. "Symantec" is the name of
a company. The word you're looking for is "semantics."

I purposefully left out the
burn in issue as well as overlooking the fact that tube monitors
actually benefited from screen savers and on and on and on. You see I
try to make my point in as little time as necessary. Fact: Screen
savers are a waste of time

Wrong, as I pointed out.

and as far as anyone looking at some
confidential file that maybe on the monitor, it takes no time at all
to move a mouse and activate the screen.

I'm talking about an office situation where someone walks past a cubicle and
can see what's on the screen without doing anything. He makes no effort and
he doesn't have to even walk into the cubicle. Walking into someone else's
cubicle to move a mouse or press a key is visible to others and can readily
be seen as intrusive. Many people who are not willing to walk in have no
problem looking in.

You may believe it or not, as you choose. The fact is that screen savers are
widely used for this purpose.

In that case why not simply
turn the monitor off? Note that I made reference to the fact that I
was recommending this for a stand alone home computer system. But I
guessed you missed that part.

No, I didn't miss it, because you said nothing of the kind.Your entire
original post to which I responded follows below. It doesn't mention the
words "stand alone home computer system," nor does anything in what you
wrote even imply it.


"A couple of ways of getting at this and it also depends on your personal
choices. With the advent of Flat Screen Monitors and even the old bulky
monitors, Screensavers are becoming a waste of time and serve no technical
function. They're really only there, now, for the holdovers who insist on
setting up a pretty rotating ball or some other equally mundand
visualization
when they aren't actively using they're systems. So this is how my system is
set up. either right click the desktop and then choose
properties\screensaver
tab\Screensaver setting section click the drop down list arrow and select
"None" and then click the "Power" button down the bottom and then in all
three drop down lists set it to Never\Never\Never. Now I must point out that
I never leave my system on unless I have it doing something or I'm doing
something. I never use task scheduler and I never auto update anything. I
control my system not the other way around. So it does what I want, when I
want and how I want. TTFN.."

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Oh brother Ken. Talk about symantecs. I purposefully left out the
burn in issue as well as overlooking the fact that tube monitors
actually benefited from screen savers and on and on and on. You see
I try to make my point in as little time as necessary. Fact: Screen
savers are a waste of time and as far as anyone looking at some
confidential file that maybe on the monitor, it takes no time at
all to move a mouse and activate the screen.

Actually - in most environments I manage - the locked screensaver is
required. The times range dependent on the environment. Once the
screensaver comes up - you have to log on to see what was on the screen and
as the person who is currently logged on - or you simply log them off (if
you are an administrative level user.)

So screensavers do server a purpose in the real-world. While it is true
that a user could simply lock the screen as they walk away - most do not.
Most complain about having to unlock it when they return. However - as
policy states, they shall do.

In that case why not
simply turn the monitor off? Note that I made reference to the fact
that I was recommending this for a stand alone home computer
system. But I guessed you missed that part.

Yes - for a home system, the screensaver is a thing to stare at when bored.
I personally just have the power-savings mode of my monitor kick in 1 minute
after the screensaver.

You could simply let
the desktop display and have a handy little tool that requires a
password to open a session, or better yet you could encrypt the
whole system so that nothing can be accessed without the codes.

I do hope you are being facetious. A "home user" that you referred, to
encrypting all their data would be akin to - well - anything stupid. As
they would likely not follow best practices and sooner than later - *poof*
gone.

 

[Guest]

Yes, sorry for the spelling but not sorry for my point of view. I know what
you are talking about but again find your point of view obtuse. I also
apologize for the misstatement regarding my standalone computer setup. I got
my reply threads mixed up. However, once again I do see your point but find
your discussion a simple effort at an argument. I use the following quote as
proof:

I'm not your brother.

No-one suggested you were my brother. This is simply a colloquialism. BTW
the indent arrows are rather redundant.

As with your replies mine are based upon my personal choices and provide
only a suggestion or option for others. Please don't take offense that I
choose to configure my system the way I want and not the way you see fit. I
also choose to let others know of this choice in an effort to provide a well
rounded forum contribution. Thank you. TTFN.

 

[Guest]

Yes Shennan I was certainly being facetious, just to point out the extremes
that this argument could be carried to, as well as the overwhelming options
that could be included in a reply. One could write a book about all this.
TTFN.