[Message Prev][Message
Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message
Index][Thread Index]
RE: [OT] Re: Interference
- Subject: RE: [OT] Re: Interference
- From: "Ward, David" <DAvid.Ward@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 09:10:02 +0100
I guess that's why 'Legal' English is so bloody hard to understand
My wife has had the same kind of problem with her monitor at work. So bad
in
fact that the interference between her PC and a colleagues (the cables were
in the same desk trunking) cause not only Monitor interference bu random
lockups, shutdowns, and even the odd characters appearing in Word!
IT help desk didn't seem to have those symptoms in their call enter
database
and after they swapped machines in and out she rerouted cables to reduce
the effect.
Eventually she managed to change her monitor to a LCD when someone moved
department and everything's been fine since.
All that and I didn't even consider another computer as interference when I
read the original post!
Any news Tony?
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Gordon [mailto:paul_gordon@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 18 August 2004 22:31
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Re: Interference
Yes, I interpreted the sentence in entirely the opposite way... - isn't
English great!
I took it to mean when the PC that had the fault was moved to another room
it worked OK in that new location, and when a 2nd new PC was also placed in
that 2nd room the fault returned to the first PC... - obviously only one of
us can be right!!! :-)
Now that you've demonstrated another entirely valid interpretation of the
very same words (having re-read them) I can see that I could have the wrong
end of the stick too...
Ho-hum!
Paul G.
>From: "David Buckley" <db@xxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>Subject: [ukha_d] Re: Interference
>Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:50:46 -0000
>
>--- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "Paul Gordon" <paul_gordon@h...>
>wrote:
> > No one seems to have spotted the clue in the original post...
> > (or at least not mentioned anything about it...)
>
>I think you have a different interpretation on this than I do.
>
>I got it as:
>
>When the PC that displays the fault was moved to another room, it
>was fine.
>
>When a working PC was placed on the desk whre the bad PC was removed
>from, it wobbled.
>
>Therefore, the problem is 100% environmental, and nothing to do with
>either PC.
>
>Of course, my interpretation may be exactly wrong...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
UKHA_D Main Index |
UKHA_D Thread Index |
UKHA_D Home |
Archives Home
|