I posted this in Author Hangout and was told I should move it here.
I have had a new Windows 10 computer for about a week and among the many things I hate about it, when I enlarge the font size while reading a story, parts of it vanish. It will break in the middle of a word or sentence, and the rest of that paragraph is just gone. When you reduce the font back to the standard SOL size, it will re-appear. I am enlarging it with the Windows Zoom.
Don't use your browser's zoom function.
I've built customization into the site to avoid that shit. You can customize the story listings font size:
https://storiesonline.net/MyAccount/listingFonts
And you can create your own custom story style:
https://storiesonline.net/user/style.php
Nope, that don't work, I had already tried it and I tried again. I can change the font to 18 and the Home Page is about two times larger than the screen. BUT, when I open a story the font is not that much larger.
I gave you two links. The first one is for the home page and other story listings pages, and the second link is for stories. They don't affect each other. Each is separate.
Lazeez, the second link fixed the page size, and that was what I wanted, but I'm sure the problem is still there and others will be asking about it as computers are replaced.
Windows Zoom is an old accessibility feature of windows. It does behave as you reported, nothing new specific to Windows 10 here.
Browser zoom works perfectly:
You can use it with these shortcuts:
ctrl + + (zoom in)
ctrl + - (zoom our)
ctrl + 0 (reset)
ctrl + mouse scroll wheel.
Parts of paragraphs never went away using Windows 7, but they do with 10 when using any amount of zoom. It does it at random times, and I can't see anything that is the same when it does it.
Parts of paragraphs never went away using Windows 7, but they do with 10 when using any amount of zoom. It does it at random times, and I can't see anything that is the same when it does it.
There is a comment elsewhere; IF windows is installed OVER Windows you can get all sorts of funny things happening. I had to reinstall from backup disks and had minor problems which have got worse - I wonder if it is the Windows 10 files they are installing on your PC
I don't think it was a upgrade to 10, I can't find any evidence of it. It is a new computer that was still in the box when I bought it.
There is an old saying that goes:
If you want something from Microsoft that does not suck, wait until they start making vacuum cleaners.
I know, not helping. Have you tried using an alternative browser, like Firefox or Chrome?
I know, not helping. Have you tried using an alternative browser, like Firefox or Chrome?
Yes. Dom Son (sounds like Chinese breakfast)
I do use Firefox on the laptop but Mcrap dumps the rubbish with their Windows updates.
I even downloaded Firefox' new special software onto my iPad - it worked for 24 hours but is now blocked in the iPad - I suppose yet another trip to bl***y Apple
Windows Zoom is an old accessibility feature of windows. It does behave as you reported, nothing new specific to Windows 10 here.
Ah, so the the problem is with Windows (desktop-level) zoom, not the browser zoom. I almost never use that.
Don't use your browser's zoom function.
I use the browser's zoom function in Windows 7 (MSIE 11) and it works great.
I am using Windows 10. It does not matter what Zoom I am using, 100% 110% or 125% I still get drop out of seemingly random ending of paragraphs. If I alter the zoom, the missing paragraph appears. However, a later paragraph is dropped and it can be made to appear by fiddling with the zoom again.
Tell me if this behavior is a bug in the SOL or the MS Windows 10.
How do I get the story without this
Tell me if this behavior is a bug in the SOL or the MS Windows 10.
What browser are you using?
Edge? IE? Chrome? Firefox?
This is definitely not an SOL bug. SOL uses the simplest of HTML code. Anything that chokes on a bunch of {p} tags wrapped in a {div} is broken.
If default zoom on windows 10 is 100% it still screws up. I can have my zoom at 100%, open SOL, not touch the zoom, start reading, and it will start dropping words. As someone else said, you change the zoom and the words come back. A few paragraphs later it does it again.
It may be a bug in your video card drivers so you might want to check if there is a updated driver for your video card.
It may be a bug in your video card drivers so you might want to check if there is a updated driver for your video card.
And you might check your windscreen washer is full if your car engine starts missing.
Missing words, blank message boxes, fonts that are to big for the message to fit in the message boxes, word wrap in notepad and wordpad cutting off words on the right no matter how far you move the right border over or what font you use. These and more are problems I have had with differant computers that have all been fixed by upgrading and sometimes downgrading the video drivers.
fixed by upgrading and sometimes downgrading the video drivers
Yep. I get that. But how can it be the video driver's fault (sorry about the anthropomorphisation) if something worked before and doesn't work now. Surely it is the fault of the software that assumes all video drivers will be subservient to it.
Typical Microsoft is all I can say. I blame the software for not catering for non-perfectly-current drivers. It's just simply lazy or arrogant coding.
I blame the software for not catering for non-perfectly-current drivers. It's just simply lazy or arrogant coding.
If the issue is a Windows only one and hasn't been there from the start, the it's most likely a Windows update has caused a problem due to changed command requirements. It's a fairly common Windows issue that happens on far too regular a basis due to them not using Industry standard instruction sets.
not using Industry standard instruction sets
Surely EB, Microsoft would say they are the Industry standard :-)
Surely EB, Microsoft would say they are the Industry standard :-)
That's what they like to think and tell people, but the failure to abide by the approved Industry Standard has already cost them billions in court fines and lost them most of a year of sales to US government agencies, with a promise of no more until added certain standards to their next version of the software. They made the demanded changes rather than see that market go totally away from them.
I didn't say it was the drivers fault, only that it might fix the problem. After Microsoft installs updates the video driver might not work properly with the Microsoft "fixes". That's why the video card manufacturers release so many updates to there drivers. To fix Microsoft fixes.
That's why the video card manufacturers release so many updates to there drivers. To fix Microsoft fixes.
No it's not.
Like it was back in the early days of Windows and updates almost daily, the vast majority of video driver updates relate to fixing various issues with various games.
No it's not.
Like it was back in the early days of Windows and updates almost daily, the vast majority of video driver updates relate to fixing various issues with various games.
It's both. Microsoft has a well earned reputation for breaking third party drivers with it's updates. And this is for all types of hardware. I have seen printer drivers broken by MS updates.
I have seen printer drivers broken by MS updates.
And many of these cases are a result of M$ fixing a security and/or performance issue, and the original developer not paying attention to the programming guidelines & using known shortcuts (ie bugs) to accomplish their task. Unfortunately when the known bug they used is fixed, their driver no longer works.
If they'd followed the guidelines in the first place instead of taking shortcuts, they wouldn't have had any issues with the update.
If you check the release notes that come with the video driver updates you'll see that "fixing something as a result of M$ doing something" rarely gets a mention.
Yes, there are times when M$ screws the pooch with an update- but for all the screaming, crying, bleating and carry on when things do go wrong, those times where M$ are at fault are few and far between.
those times where M$ are at fault are few and far between.
Oh how I so wish that were true!!
I know from bitter experience that Microsoft changes its OS APIs regularly so that they become a functional subset of the former definition, or in some other way not identical. This is especially so during SP updates and OS version updates.
Those who have worked with the APIs know how they are often poorly described/defined, and often experimentation is the only way to find out how they work under certain circumstances.
Then Microsoft 'tightens' the API and lots of code that used to work now doesn't. That is quite different to fixing a 'bug'. Even a security vulnerability fix should not break existing functionality.
Those who have worked with the APIs know how they are often poorly described/defined, and often experimentation is the only way to find out how they work under certain circumstances.
I never had to deal with any API; my limited programming was back in the days of DBase.
However I can understand how given certain descriptions and examples, different interpretations of what was actually intended come about.
Even a security vulnerability fix should not break existing functionality.
That would depend very much on just what the cause of the vulnerability was.
In many cases, sure the issue should be fixed without breaking existing applications.
However if the existing applications make a call and the results it expects are reliant on the issue that is responsible (or a significant factor) in the vulnerability then fixing that issue will cause that application to fail. And depending on how well coded it is the failure could be graceful, or a mess.
M$ aren't going to worry about applications or drivers here and there being broken by fixing or tightening of code, just as Apple aren't.
However the use of known bugs by some very large companies is one of the reasons it took so long for Windows to move from Win3.xx to the present Win Vista/78/10 model.
Apple had the advantage of a closed hardware/OS ecosystem. They did what they wanted and dropped support for older hardware & software as they felt it necessary to develop their OS.
With Windows there were (are) some very large companies with less than well written code that told M$ that getting new applications developed just wasn't going to happen and they needed the support for the existing proprietary software in the new OS.
With Windows there were (are) some very large companies with less than well written code that told M$ that getting new applications developed just wasn't going to happen and they needed the support for the existing proprietary software in the new OS.
That was because the software was written to suit the MS command codes provided by MS in the first place, the ones that weren't industry standard. The interesting aspect of that issue is the companies that wrote their software to also work on Unix and Linux using the Industry Standard Commands have not had to change any of the old commands, but add new ones for new hardware capabilities. Thus even the old versions of the software work to their full limitations on new the newer gear, and they don't have major issues due to upgrades.
MS changed the command codes a number of times, which is why you need different drivers for different versions of Windows. It's a MS caused issue.
That was because the software was written to suit the MS command codes provided by MS in the first place, the ones that weren't industry standard.
If I can find the article again, I will post it.
It doesn't mention names, but points out some of the known bugs that were used by programmers to speed up their code. M$ advised that they were bugs. It was known they were bugs, not intentional code paths. But people used them, and then got upset when M$ eventually moved away from 16bit to 32 & then 64bit OSs.
The only reason M$ didn't move away from the DOS based Windows sooner was the use of those bugs in proprietary code for several extremely large companies.
Apple with the advantage of their closed system were able to drop their existing OS & hardware and move to the UNIX/BSD based OSX. Even prior to that major OS upgrades dropped support for older software & hardware. While that also occurred with Windows, it wasn't nearly on the same scale and certain software was supported for much longer.
The interesting aspect of that issue is the companies that wrote their software to also work on Unix and Linux using the Industry Standard Commands have not had to change any of the old commands, but add new ones for new hardware capabilities.
The advantage of writing for a tightly controlled hardware base. Then when LINUX was developed, based on UNIX, it was written from the ground up to support the current (and anticipated at the time) future hardware.
They didn't have to support exiting programmes based on an even older & different OS. Such is what happened with the development of Windows based on DOS, and then Widows as a stand alone OS.
MS changed the command codes a number of times, which is why you need different drivers for different versions of Windows. It's a MS caused issue.
Windows was just an overlay for DOS up to and including Win3.x and even after that with Win 95/98/ME it still had solid DOS underpinnings. Win2k/XP saw a truly stand alone OS, but it still had solid support for DOS.
It wasn't until Vista that they moved away from the old DOS/Win9x era software support. And DOS was very much based on CP/M- so there was core support for many legacy programmes from the mid 70's to 2007.
M$ didn't just change command codes, they developed completely new driver models, particularly for system I/O & even more so, Graphics when going from Win9x to XP, and then XP to Vista. Even going from Win Vista/7/8 to Win10 they've made very significant changes to the display driver model. Yet it's still possible to use older video cards to their full capabilities with the new OS- if the manufacturer is prepared to support them.
There is plenty of crap thrown at M$ that is more than deserved. However that isn't the case here IMHO.
The only reason M$ didn't move away from the DOS based Windows sooner was the use of those bugs in proprietary code for several extremely large companies.
I don't know about Win 8 and Win 10, but the original 8 bit and 16 bit code for DOS and early Windows was still buried in Win 7 and all before it. Win 2k and Win XP were built on DOS with all the DOS commands in there. If you had any trouble loading either OS you could load DOS drill down through the CD / DVD directory, and use DOS commands to install the OS. This was still the case with Vista and Win 7.
UNIX has been around a lot longer the MS-DOS and MS Windows, and Linux has been around longer than MS Windows. However, when the International Committees on IT matters created a set of Industry Standards for all hardware and software commands in the early 1990s Unix and Linux adopted them straight away, Microsoft did too, for a little while. then, with the development of Windows 95 Microsoft started walking away from the industry standards for all but the most basic of hardware commands needed to install Windows on any system. At the same time Microsoft developed their own hardware and software command sets they set out to design their drivers to be different and thus incompatible with anything but Windows software, and then it was a specific sub-set of Windows OS software.
The result is that the Unix and Linux drivers from the mid 1990s to now are all written to Industry Standards and will work with any hardware that is written to Industry Standards. You can't say the same thing for Microsoft software, and that's because MS deliberately chose not to use the Industry Standards, and that causes all sorts of related issues, and many of those issues flow into third party software and drivers.
Any hardware initially designed to work using MS Windows Commands needs drivers to work with anything else, which is why they need new drivers for new versions of Windows.
BTW: I have a lot of older hardware that won't work on any modern Windows system yet will work on any modern Unix or Linux system because they use the Industry Standard Commands that haven't changed in twenty years, only expanded for new hardware like SATA etc.
the original 8 bit and 16 bit code for DOS and early Windows was still buried in Win 7 and all before it.
Not sure that's right EB. NT used a new core (5.0) and although it did support a lot of the 8 bit APIs, it was a new platform. XP and Vista and 7 are based on 5.0 (NT). 8 is 6.0 based. I don't know, but I suspect 10 isn't. 10 is really a dog's breakfast internally. It does some really stupid things when it is trying to be clever. I think 10 is designed to take some Apple philosophy on board, but is failing because it doesn't have control of all the hardware it runs on. I know some corporate IT management types that say they will retire before they let 8 or 10 into their domains.
Anyway, enough of the Microsoft bashing from me. I could go on and on and on ... but I should stop now.
I know some corporate IT management types that say they will retire before they let 8 or 10 into their domains.
Win 10 i can understand due to the security issues. It takes quite a bit of effort to lock it down. Even then, some of the things that people would like & be able to make use of (such as Cortana) are very unsecure in their design; you're placing an incredible amount of trust in M$ with the data they can get from the default security settings.
As for Win8- it's a tweaked version of Win7 with a new interface, in the case of 8.1 they moved back towards the Win7 UI by reducing the focus on the Metro interface. Metro may be great on a tablet or phone, but it sucks hugely on a desktop.
Many corporation skipped Win Vista/7 and upgraded from XP to Win8/8.1.
Many corporation skipped Win Vista/7 and upgraded from XP to Win8/8.1.
Name one. I work in corporate IT. and we are on Win 7
Name one. I work in corporate IT. and we are on Win 7
Australia Post.
WinXP for the most part, new systems have Win 8.1
EDIT-
But having a look at the online stats it looks like most users did go to Win7. But I'd need an account to be able to see which ones were private & which were business.
https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0
Australia Post.
WinXP for the most part, new systems have Win 8.1
Knowing their purchasing system, that's probably not due to an actual corporate decision to switch, but a case of having to buy replacement equipment and all the vendor would offer was Win 8.1 systems.
Knowing their purchasing system, that's probably not due to an actual corporate decision to switch, but a case of having to buy replacement equipment and all the vendor would offer was Win 8.1 systems.
Highly likely.
I'm sure the decision was made not to upgrade any hardware or software at all. Much of the retail software is still command line based, there has been some work done with the introduction all round of scanners for delivery.
The only major "upgrade" was moving to SAP for a lot of the admin work.
But from what've seen much of the work is based on what those above & the bean counters think is necessary. What is actually needed by those that use it doesn't appear to factor in to decisions in any way shape or form.
Our mail sorting machine is controlled by a PD-11 (35 or 55, can't remember which). A 40 year old hand me down.
And our CEO still gets his bonuses.
End bitching rant.
Our mail sorting machine is controlled by a PD-11 (35 or 55, can't remember which). A 40 year old hand me down.
When I was last involved in mail sorting it was still all handraulic at the local level. In many locations the local sorting is still handraulic.
NB: No typos in the above.
When I was last involved in mail sorting it was still all handraulic at the local level. In many locations the local sorting is still handraulic.
In most smaller delivery centres it still is, no more throwing in to pigeon holes but into shelves with slots. The major delivery centres get their standard letters machine sorted to the frame, other larger centres and some of the smaller ones get the mail pre-sorted (sequenced) in delivery order to then be thrown in. Large letters, plastic, packets/small parcels and all the scanable items are still done manually.
some of the things that people would like & be able to make use of (such as Cortana) are very unsecure in their design;
Unless you have the approved Yankee accent forget the dictation part of Cortana. I have it on my phone and when I dictate a question it comes up with a load of crap. I am told I have a neutral London accent with perhaps a hint of adenoidal blockage. i.e. it should be absolutely clear.
An author I knew became blind in about 1948 and in the sixties was dictating his books (which I saw in the shops) so decent software as around even then
was dictating his books
In the early 1990s the base I was the financial manager for had a Warrant Office with a work caused arm injury who was moved into an admin role that required a lot of reports and other paperwork to be written as well as forms filled out - all on computer. The keyboard use made his injury worse, so I did some research and the best we could buy that I could get approved by the purchasing policy makers in DoD HQ was Dragon Dictate.
Now, it did take time to train the software to understand his accent, but after that it did a damn good job of writing the reports and filling in the forms from his verbal instructions and comments. I saw a much later version of it in 2011 and it was a great deal better. I can only guess at what it's like now. It wasn't cheap then, but was well worth the money, not sure what it's like now for price.
Dragon Dictate.
It's been years since I've read any computer industry magazines, but Dragon Dictate (which is now Dragon Naturally Speaking) always came out as best when compared with other voice to text programmes.
Every review pretty much had the same thing to say- It takes a while to train the software, but once you do the error rate is so close to zero it's amazing, and worth every second of the time taken to train it.
Dragon Dictate (which is now Dragon Naturally Speaking) always came out as best when compared with other voice to text programmes.
Every review pretty much had the same thing to say- It takes a while to train the software, but once you do the error rate is so close to zero it's amazing, and worth every second of the time taken to train it.
I work in IT and I broke my right arm a couple of years ago, and I'm right hand to boot. I've used Dragon Naturally Speaking. It's great for normal document. it doesn't work quite as well for specialty uses such as writing computer programming code.
it doesn't work quite as well for specialty uses such as writing computer programming code.
They have multiple versions for different occupations- legal, engineering, medical etc. I'm guessing the dictionary is different, and it would use those differences in the training of it.
Would be interesting to see if there is an IT version & how it would compare to the standard version and the basic professional versions.
Would be interesting to see if there is an IT version & how it would compare to the standard version and the basic professional versions.
There isn't, I looked. Besides, you would need separate dictionaries for each programming language to handle differences in syntax.
NT used a new core (5.0) and although it did support a lot of the 8 bit APIs, it was a new platform. XP and Vista and 7 are based on 5.0 (NT). 8 is 6.0 based.
MS claimed a new core, but what they really came up with for NT (all versions) was a new Graphics Interface then proceeded to fold it back towards what Win 9x was because that what people wanted. If you have an old Win 2 K or Win NT 5 or Win XP CD / DVD put it in a system and look at it. You'll find the i386 folder is full of compressed files plus x.dll files and x.exe files that are the same as you find in DOS 5 / 6 and Win 3x and Win 9x discs. And once you install the OS you find a huge swathes of DOS command files in the loaded software. Running DOS commands in the system is easy because DOS is loaded as part of it. Delete the DOS files and it stops working and crashes on you.
It's because DOS was part of the underlying structure you could easily use so much DOS software on Win 2 K and Win XP. With Win 7 they did start to remove some of the DOS files, but there's still a lot in there because it's the DOS files that runs some of the hardware for Win 7.
Most people I know who hate Win 8 and Win 10 is because of the way it's designed to for optimal use on a small touch screen device and comes across as a major abortion on a large desktop screen, that and the ribbon crap for everything now.
You'll find the i386 folder is full of compressed files plus x.dll files and x.exe files that are the same as you find in DOS 5 / 6 and Win 3x and Win 9x discs. And once you install the OS you find a huge swathes of DOS command files in the loaded software.
Of course, that's how they provided support for the legacy programmes.
Providing support for those things doesn't mean the OS required them.
With Win 7 they did start to remove some of the DOS files, but there's still a lot in there because it's the DOS files that runs some of the hardware for Win 7.
Just because you can still run familiar DOS type commands on the command line, and that you can boot to the command prompt, doesn't mean that there is any underlying DOS base to the current operating systems.
Yes, current Windows versions allow you to boot & execute commands without a GUI- that doesn't mean they are based on DOS1, 2 etc code.
That would depend very much on just what the cause of the vulnerability was.
The vast majority of them are buffer overruns or some other types of bounds not checked issue, and that is symptomatic of poorly written software. It's not limited to Microsoft. The last major issue with SSL was essentially a bounds limit issue. However Microsoft is truly famous for it. Newsflash! Windows 10 still has bounds problems (and lots more problems not found in 8 or before).
Microsoft has a well earned reputation for breaking third party drivers with it's updates.
only third party ....... I'm pretty sure it was the updates which broke Windows Office (legal version)
I'm pretty sure it was the updates which broke Windows Office
It often happens. MS update the OS and then wait to see if anyone complains about an issue with the other software, then do an update for that in the next month's cycle.
only third party ....... I'm pretty sure it was the updates which broke Windows Office (legal version)
Left hand, met right hand. Right hand, meet let hand. You may wish to discuss what each of you are doing.
I'm pretty sure it was the updates which broke Windows Office (legal version)
That was deliberate to force you to upgrade to the next version of Office.
