Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2020 February 9

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 9

Long Delay on Ctrl-Alt-Delete

I have a desktop computer running Windows 10. Is there any particular reason why it either doesn't seem to respond to Ctrl-Alt-Delete, or takes a very long time before it prepares the security options when I do a Ctrl-Alt-Delete? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Boot to safe mode without network support and see what happens when you Ctrl-Alt-Delete. If it is quick, it might be a network problem -- maybe a domain controller or DNS server is responding slowly? Boot to safe mode with network support to test for this. It also might be a driver or application taking a long time to shut down. If you suspect this try Autoruns [ https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/autoruns ] to see what is being loaded. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Guy Macon. Obviously this is an experiment to conduct when I have time to conduct the experiment, not when I am trying to lock the computer quickly before leaving it. Since one of my questions has been whether a web browser is the bottleneck, the test without network support is also without web browsers. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

One quick test: remove the network cable and see how fast Ctrl-Alt-Delete responds. That test should take less than a minute. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: If you are trying to lock your computer, does the WinKey+L shortcut work faster than Ctrl-Alt-Delete? RudolfRed (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

User:RudolfRed, User:Guy Macon - I got a better answer to the question that I should have been asking, and that is to use the WinKey+L shortcut to lock the computer, which is what I was trying to do. That is quicker. Thank you.

Lightweight rtf editor

You guys are gonna hate me for asking such a dumb question, but this is driving me insane.

I'm a professional writer, and while I use normal word processors like everyone else for client-ready documents and whatnot, what I really want to be actually writing in is Wordpad.

Except it isn't. Wordpad is just slightly too short on features for me. What Wordpad doesn't have that I need is basically just in-line spellchecking (either just using the system dictionary or giving me British spelling) as like everyone I mistype from time to time, and a word count feature. RTF is necessary because I use bold and italic text to respectively indicate subheadings and emphasis in draft documents, but beyond this stuff I want nothing else for when I'm drafting.

I like a lightweight editor basically because I'm working all over the place and I'm not carting additional screens around with me, so often I will have a browser open alongside my writing for research or whatever. So my priority is real estate within the window; that's why I'm going for something lightweight. Word, obviously, is not that, nor are these "distraction-free" things that float around, which are typically locked into full screen.

Apple's TextEdit, IIRC, is exactly what I just described, but I'm on Windows 10. Looking for lightweight text editors through Google search leaves you drowning either in web-based WYSIWYG modules or in Notepad++-type stuff which is oriented around coders rather than writers, and this article doesn't cover the detail I need.

I know I'm being a bit r/ChoosingBeggars here lol, but when you're using these tools day in day out minor irritations like these can really build up. I really appreciate your help; is there any chance anyone here knows of something which sits in this middle space I am desperately looking for? Thanks so much! Dizzy Beacon (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You can easily get spell checking in Wordpad e.g. tinySpell [1]. For word count, I'm sure you could find something which would give the word count of text copied to the clipboard. It may not be as simple as something built directly into the editor, but do you need continuous word counts or what? It would help a great deal if you better articulate what you need. For example, while I agree Word isn't particularly lightweight and has a lot of feature you don't use, you seem to be mostly concerned with screen real estate. Yet there's little difference between the 2 in that area. Nil Einne (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, it seems you can't disable the status bar with Word 2016 onwards so I guess the difference is a little more than I though. Then again if you want continuous word count, it has to go somewhere. It could go on the menu bar. But that highlights another point, it would actually be better to have basically no visible UI except maybe a tiny box for word count if maximising real estate is your ultimate goal. But AFAIK that isn't possible with Wordpad. (I'm sure it is possible with some editors.) AFAIK it's not possible to get much better than this [2] which isn't bad but is also far from maximising screen real estate if that really is your ultimate goal. Nil Einne (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Nil Einne that your post does not give the full picture of what you want. For instance, you say Notepad++-type stuff [is] oriented around coders rather than writers - which may be true, but it does not follow that it is inadequate for your needs. so what is the real problem with Notepad++ (or another editor): is it too complicated to use?

I mean, assuming for the sake of the argument that there is indeed an unexploited market for text editors somewhere between WYSIWYG for grandmas and nerd stuff where you must configure everything yourself, you cannot do much about it except complain. (Dubious comparison: pocketless women's clothing - some people can launch a new clothing line and get free advertisement on the BBC under the guise of feminism, but if you do not have that kind of influence, complain on Twitter and shop in men's section.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. In fairness, there are actually quite a lot of programs like this targeted at writers, and it's not easy to be sure you've evaluated them all, so it's not like I'm looking for a pirate memory game suitable for ages four to eight. For the avoidance of doubt, I'll list all the requirements specifically below. I really appreciate your help and I apologise if I've not been clear. If it helps, to the best of my recollection I'm basically just describing TextEdit (Apple's Wordpad equivalent).

• Drags as little formatting guff with it as possible when copy/pasted into a client-ready template, while still being able to indicate bold and italic text
• Minimal interface with a lot of real estate within the window
• Not locked into full screen
• In-line spell checking in UK English
• Word count
• Windows 10 compatible
• Files stored locally and not locked to a specific place in a folder system

I've found plenty which sacrifice just one of these, and all different ones, but I've never quite found one which covers them all.Dan Hartas (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Again Word seems to have way more features than you want, which often isn't a positive, and it's expensive, but since you brought it up I assume you already own it. You originally suggested the problem with Word was screen real estate, but since it isn't really any worse than TextEdit, and isn't that much worse than WordPad [3], it's still not clear to me what your problem is. Is your concern to do with copying and pasting? To be clear, I'm not so much suggesting you should use Word, but without being able to understand why exactly you ruled our something you have considered, it's hard to be able to articulate alternatives. BTW, have you investigated whether you can get TextEdit working on GNUStep on Windows [4]? Nil Einne (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• OK, having actually tried Notepad++ on RTF files, I think I get the problem with "coder stuff". RTF is a text format that encodes formatting as special keywords (similar to HTML, XML etc.). Notepad++ or Visual Studio support for RTF consists in syntax highlights and the like, not visual rendering:

1. raw file: Last word in {\b bold}.
2. appearance in "coder" editor: Last word in {\b bold}.
3. appearance you actually want: "Last word in bold."

Sorry for not having tested sooner, I would have understood quicker. I guess you do want a WYSIWYG, and I would assume you tested the market more thoroughly than I ever can. Do take into consideration what Nil Einne says, though; maybe what you really need is to remove items in the Word status bar or something.

Or there is the coder answer that you should learn to work with the source, that your desires for visual representation matching what you actually deliver to the client are a sin of your weak flesh, and that you should switch to LaTeX. Then proceed to argue over the best LaTeX editor and its default syntax highlight color. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe AbiWord? It's designed to mimic older, XP-era versions of Word. 100.2.177.74 (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Emacs? Aecho6Ee (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)