I use Vonage and love it. I occasionally get a bit of echo, and I can't call if I'm ahemming at high bandwidth. But other than that, it's been flawless, and it's really nice for my folks in Indianapolis to be able to make a local call to me. It's not so nice for my friends here in Arizona, but as soon as they get local numbers for me here, it'll be fine.

However, they are currently dealing with a load of issues trying to work out their workaround with Verizon's broad VOIP patents, so I might hold off and see what happens with that first.

I loathe Vonage (terrible quality calls, and their customer service, if possible, is worse than Verizon's -- the whole story is in this thread or the previous one somewhere), but have been very happy with my cable company's digital phone service.

Because it's dedicated bandwidth (Vonage has to piggyback on what you're already using for internet), the call quality is outstanding and we've never had the issues with dropped calls that we did with Vonage. And only having to deal with one company for phone/cable/internet is nice and convenient when something does go wrong.

I use Vonage and after a bit of a rough start it has been excellent for a long time.

OK-- I really like the interface on this online comic. (The content is OK. I think the narrator is intended to be creepy, but also sympathetic. I'm right there with the former, but not with the latter.)

It is basically a zoom interface. Each panel contains a really tiny thumbnail of the next page you press when are ready to go on. It zoom in on that thumbnail to the next page. (You can also use a page list at the bottom or arrow keys if your browser allows it.) Regardless of how you indicate you are ready for the next page (or the previous) it navigates by zooming.

[link]

When you hear about it, it does not seem a big deal. But to me, subjectively, it is the easiest multiple page on-line navigation system I've ever used.

Part of it is the light weight. I think it does just the right amount of caching. So it actually moves faster than almost any page at time navigation system I've ever used. I think the zoom method works better than scrolling cause your eye does not get "lost" for a second about where you left off. I think the zooming works better than normal page navigation system, again because it keeps your eye focused on the right spot for the next page. In short, I think it reduces eyestrain in terms of reading large amounts of material on-line. I'd be curious if other people using it find the same.

So I'm fiddling with XP profile setting locations, and it's just highlighted a lack of comprehension that's been hiding in the back of my brain.

What the hell is up with XP Home user management? I'm assuming it's a home thing, because if this were the interface presented to me as sa professional I'd be longing for the obscurity of Linux command lines, because it would at least make me feel grown up.

Anyway, I am wanting to set up a second administrator account, just like my first. Seems easy enough, since I'm only presented with two account types. I create "Admin" and realise that I can't use it to browse the Docs & Settings folder of my original admin user, although the original can browse this.

Why? Is it that I need to manually give rights to that folder? Is XP Home really paying attention to who created which user, leaving Admin's private files open to me by default as the creator?

eta: I found the "private" checkbox. That's not on by default, I'm guessing from the two I just created. Wonder if I knew of it and then forgot its very existence...

Typo, that interface fails to load on Opera/OS X for me, so I can't be too nice about it. Does it really put the thumbnail in the middle as it appears in the promo thing I could look at?

Yep it really does. I'm not so much down with the details as they are. I think normal navigation buttons would be find. I just like the easiness of the zoom.

And after seeing your post, I checked it. Apparently it only works as presently coded on IE and Firefox. I mean it was written by a graphic artist, so I'm not suggesting the code is great. I'm just think zooming is actually a great way for the transition from page to page to happen, just because it produces less eyestrain for me than any other method I've ever used. Also given that it is navigating pure graphical pages, it is amazingly light, and fast, as I said probably because of clever caching. It is written pretty purely in flash, so I would never suggest the code itself is anything to model. Just the use of zoom interface. Also, while I don't think I'd like the thumbnail in the middle of everything as a usual thing, It is also responsible for some of the lack of eyestrain. Don't have to move my eyes to a navigation bar and back with a navigation button right in the middle of the page. But it would be absurd normally; it is part of the feel of the particular comic, builds in the feeling of falling, of getting more and more out of control as the main character grows creepier and more obsessed.

Okay--tried it again in XP/Firefox.

Gotta say, large with the un-love. I like pictures, so the do-hickey in the middle messes with messes it up for me. Now, he's the artist, and if he says it's not detracting from what he's trying to do, I buy that. I just don't like the look.

More importantly, though, is the zoom. I got threw a couple pages and stopped being too curious, since it was making me dizzy. Also, it keeps my cursor in the middle of the picture, which I find distracting.

Navigation wise, how I normally handle a web comic is to leave the cursor over the "next" equivalent and click without looking. If the layout is variable and they don't have a link above the image, that doesn't work. But I really think they should have a link in a consistent place above the image.

It's a nifty idea, but I'd have problems making it through 22 pages, much less the traditional graphic novel length.

What was the maximum number of panels displayed in any one page?

Right! I was coming back here with another topic.

A ways back I was here pleading for assistance in moving my Documents and Settings off my system partition--I understand that the default installation is one partition, but not why they should make it so hard to migrate that away. Especially if that's where application data lives. When it's where your mailbox and attachments live, it can get big quickly.

My workaround was to move My Documents off, and live with the rest in one place.

I'm shuffling drives around (almost done with doubling my capacity--just a Ghost session away) and needed to copy off the data from the partition that I'd moved My Documents to. I eventually remembered how I'd done that, but not before googling something like "xp profiles copying move" and finding a MUCH better solution to the initial problem.

While not logged in as the user in question: Computer Properties\Advanced\Settings and copy the profile information to your intended location. Then manually copy Local Settings, and go to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\ProfileList in your registry. Navigate to the profile in question (you can tell which one it is by the current ProfileImagePath, and then change the %SystemDrive% to make the path the same as the new location.

Reboot, log in, you're done!

Fuck man, that was so pain free I could even manage it on Percoset.

Found here.

Oh dear doG, I'm in the midst of hell. I'm migrating all of my email over to a couple of new IMAP accounts that I have with my Dreamhost sites. This means reconfiguring all the listserv's I subscribe to as well as the email clients on all my machines. What have I done!