XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-10   
   From: not.email@all.invalid   
      
   On Thu, 22 Jan 2026 20:24:20 +0000, J. P. Gilliver wrote:   
      
   > On 2026/1/22 8:55:19, Daniel70 wrote:   
   >> On 22/01/2026 7:10 am, Andy Burns wrote:   
   >>> Daniel70 wrote:   
   >>>> Chris wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> What house in any decent area doesn't have jewellery?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Mine .... but then, I don't have a Misses, either! ;-P   
   >>> A nice watch?   
   >>>   
   >> Who needs a Watch .... when I've got my 'phone'?? ;-P   
   >   
   > I can glance at my wrist (cheap blue plastic CASIO - had it for years)   
   > far more quickly than I could at a 'phone, if I had one (and both my   
   > hands are free, too).   
      
   Yes, its faster. Also I find digital faster too. I can look at the digital   
   clock here and have the time almost as fast as my eyes can focus. An   
   analog clock takes longer to read. Some people claim an analog clock is   
   better for fuzzy (approximate) time. I prefer to do my own fuzzing (like   
   saying "it's about four" when the time is 4:06).   
      
   > Plus, if I _had_ a smartphone, I'd presumably   
   > mostly be doing something with it (if not, why have one?), so would have   
   > to change/minimise to see the clock (or peer at tiny digits along the   
   > edge of the display).   
      
   --   
   Mark Lloyd   
   http://notstupid.us/   
      
   "If at first you don't succeed, look at it this way - you failed."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)