Keyboard

[Charles]

Due to my neurological disability I am wondering if there is a way to
disable the left CTRL and/or ALT keys on my keyboard. When I am typing
letters or emails I am constantly bring up other windows and programs
because, I think, my wrist is hitting one of these keys as I type and I'm
not aware I'm doing it until I look up and something is on my screen that
shouldn't be there. I have very little feeling and dexterity in my hands.
Thanks for any help

 

[Big Al]

Due to my neurological disability I am wondering if there is a way to
disable the left CTRL and/or ALT keys on my keyboard. When I am typing
letters or emails I am constantly bring up other windows and programs
because, I think, my wrist is hitting one of these keys as I type and I'm
not aware I'm doing it until I look up and something is on my screen that
shouldn't be there. I have very little feeling and dexterity in my hands.
Thanks for any help

You (or anyone) might try opening the keyboard and disassembling the key
switches themselves. I've done hardware repair for years and personally
if I had a spare keyboard or a $10 replacement, I'd break something
inside, unsolder the switch or something. You might just be able to
pop the switch out too. And by switch, I mean the key itself. Even if
its a membrane keyboard, something has to push down on that membrane and
it could be cut off.

All this means is you can't return the keyboard to the original
condition. But I don't know of too many keyboards that don't have two of
each.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Due to my neurological disability I am wondering if there is a way to
disable the left CTRL and/or ALT keys on my keyboard. When I am typing
letters or emails I am constantly bring up other windows and programs
because, I think, my wrist is hitting one of these keys as I type and I'm
not aware I'm doing it until I look up and something is on my screen that
shouldn't be there. I have very little feeling and dexterity in my hands.
Thanks for any help

Try SharpKeys, at http://www.randyrants.com/sharpkeys/

It will let you reassign or disable any keys you want.

 

[Nepatsfan]

Due to my neurological disability I am wondering if there is a way to disable
the left CTRL and/or ALT keys on my keyboard. When I am typing letters or
emails I am constantly bring up other windows and programs because, I think,
my wrist is hitting one of these keys as I type and I'm not aware I'm doing it
until I look up and something is on my screen that shouldn't be there. I have
very little feeling and dexterity in my hands. Thanks for any help

I can't vouch for its abilities, but I've seen this program offered as a
suggested solution to a similar question. The downside of using this program is
that it requires Microsoft's .NET Framework 2.0.

SharpKeys 2.1
http://www.randyrants.com/2006/04/sharpkeys_21.html

Microsoft .NET Framework Version 2.0 Redistributable Package (x86)
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...cb-4362-4b0d-8edd-aab15c5e04f5&DisplayLang=en

Here are two web sites that offer registry fixes that will disable the Ctrl key.

Courtesy of Kelly Theriot, MS-MVP
Line 163, right hand column, Disable/Enable Cap Locks Key
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/xp_tweaks.htm

Disable Caps Lock
http://johnhaller.com/jh/useful_stuff/disable_caps_lock/

Good luck

Nepatsfan

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I can't vouch for its abilities, but I've seen this program offered as a
suggested solution to a similar question. The downside of using this program is
that it requires Microsoft's .NET Framework 2.0.

SharpKeys 2.1
http://www.randyrants.com/2006/04/sharpkeys_21.html

I've been using an older version, 1.1, which is still available.
Unlike version 2.1, it doesn't require the .net framework, and it
works fine.

I'm not sure why you think its using the .NET Framework 2.0 is a
downside, but if bothers you (or the OP), use the older version.

 

[Nepatsfan]

I've been using an older version, 1.1, which is still available.
Unlike version 2.1, it doesn't require the .net framework, and it
works fine.

I'm not sure why you think its using the .NET Framework 2.0 is a
downside, but if bothers you (or the OP), use the older version.

On a few occasions when I've suggested someone download a program that requires
the .NET Framework, they've posted back asking why they need to add a component
that takes up 100MB on their hard drive to run a 1MB program. Since then, If I
know the program requires the .NET Framework, I've tried to mention this fact up
front. I could have used a better word than 'downside' to describe this
requirement.

BTW, SharpKeys 1.1 requires .NET Framework 1.1.

Nepatsfan

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On a few occasions when I've suggested someone download a program that requires
the .NET Framework, they've posted back asking why they need to add a component
that takes up 100MB on their hard drive to run a 1MB program.

Just to put that 100MB into perspective, you can buy a 160GB hard
drive these days for around $50 US. That means that 100MB is about 3
cents worth of disk space.

*Millions* of bytes sounds like a lot, until you do the arithmetic and
realize how little their dollar value is.

Not to mention that the .net framework will likely be needed for more
than that single program.

Since then, If I
know the program requires the .NET Framework, I've tried to mention this fact up
front. I could have used a better word than 'downside' to describe this
requirement.

OK.


BTW, SharpKeys 1.1 requires .NET Framework 1.1.

Thanks. I hadn't realized/remembered that. I have all the .net
framework files installed here, and don't let them concern me, since
they use a *tiny* amount of disk space.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Just to put that 100MB into perspective, you can buy a 160GB hard
drive these days for around $50 US. That means that 100MB is about 3
cents worth of disk space.

*Millions* of bytes sounds like a lot, until you do the arithmetic and
realize how little their dollar value is.

Not to mention that the .net framework will likely be needed for more
than that single program.

That may well be, but when you realize that Win98SE (the entire operating
system) could fit in about that same amount of space (well, ok, maybe 200
MB)..... it's got to make you wonder where we're really going (with all the
new bloatware).

 

[Big Al]

That may well be, but when you realize that Win98SE (the entire operating
system) could fit in about that same amount of space (well, ok, maybe 200
MB)..... it's got to make you wonder where we're really going (with all the
new bloatware).

I had Word perfect so I could run it off of a floppy disk. When was
the last time you saw a full feature word processor on a floppy.
1.4meg. And room to save a file or two. And portable to another pc
without registry or windows32 issues.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

That may well be, but when you realize that Win98SE (the entire operating
system) could fit in about that same amount of space (well, ok, maybe 200
MB)..... it's got to make you wonder where we're really going (with all the
new bloatware).

I don't see it that way at all, and I wouldn't choose to use the word
"bloatware."

With almost no exceptions, every new version of any operating system,
and any new version of any other kind of software, does more than its
predecessor. Not surprisingly, that extra functionality takes more
code and makes the result bigger. "Bloat" is not simply using more
resources, but doing the same things and using more resources.

In my view, that's good, not bad, especially since the extra disk
space the newer version takes invariably costs *less* than the amount
the older version took.

But if you would prefer to have a smaller drive and an older operating
system with less functionality, feel free to run Windows 98SE, or
whatever you choose--even DOS 3.0 or earlier.

My first personal computer ran DOS 3.0 on a 20MB hard drive. Yes, the
operating system took much less space, but that 20MB drive cost me
$200. Today, I can buy a 160GB drive for $50. For a quarter of the
disk price, I get much more functionality in a modern operating
system. I think that's great!

Ultimately, my point is that measuring what you call "bloat" in
numbers of megabytes or gigabytes is meaningless. The only significant
measurement is in dollars (substitute your own local currency, if not
dollars). And those dollars spent need to be measured against the
amount of functionality the product provides.

 

[Iceman]

Due to my neurological disability I am wondering if there is a way to
disable the left CTRL and/or ALT keys on my keyboard. When I am typing
letters or emails I am constantly bring up other windows and programs
because, I think, my wrist is hitting one of these keys as I type and I'm
not aware I'm doing it until I look up and something is on my screen that
shouldn't be there. I have very little feeling and dexterity in my hands.
Thanks for any help

Have you tried the on-screen keyboard (Start > All Programs > Accessories >
Accessibility)?

 

[Bill in Co.]

I don't see it that way at all, and I wouldn't choose to use the word
"bloatware."

With almost no exceptions, every new version of any operating system,
and any new version of any other kind of software, does more than its
predecessor. Not surprisingly, that extra functionality takes more
code and makes the result bigger. "Bloat" is not simply using more
resources, but doing the same things and using more resources.

I'm still trying to figure out just exactly what WinXP Home Edition, as an
operating system (and for me as a single user), allows me to do that I
couldn't do (and wanted to do) in Win98SE...

(one thing it does do, however, is remove a bit more control of the
operating system from a user's tweaking, however)

The major thing I've noticed is that WinXP IS more stable (fewer blue
screens), and, of course, will run some newer programs (which, only by the
developer's choice, aren't being written for W9x anymore).

(The NTFS thing is a mixed bag due to its overhead, but, admitedly, on the
whole, seems beneficial).

Then again, the built in Search for Files function in WinXP sucks (as
compared to that in Win98SE), in part due to all the extra crap it filters
out - OR allows in!! - in its searches, rendering it nearly useless).

And of course running SFC gives you no good logging or even choices, for
that matter. (etc)

 

[Bill in Co.]

I had Word perfect so I could run it off of a floppy disk. When was
the last time you saw a full feature word processor on a floppy.
1.4meg. And room to save a file or two. And portable to another pc
without registry or windows32 issues.

Yup. And that's been quite awhile, I'm afraid to say!

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I'm still trying to figure out just exactly what WinXP Home Edition, as an
operating system (and for me as a single user), allows me to do that I
couldn't do (and wanted to do) in Win98SE...

The question of whether you personally consider its changes and
additions valuable is an entirely different one from the point I was
making. It's always your choice whether you want what a new version
provides, and for some people the old version may be good enough.

Nevertheless, there's lots that's new and different in XP over what
was in 98.

(one thing it does do, however, is remove a bit more control of the
operating system from a user's tweaking, however)

You can consider that valuable or not. Your choice.

The major thing I've noticed is that WinXP IS more stable (fewer blue
screens), and, of course, will run some newer programs (which, only by the
developer's choice, aren't being written for W9x anymore).

I think it's *much* more stable.

(The NTFS thing is a mixed bag due to its overhead, but, admitedly, on the
whole, seems beneficial).

Then again, the built in Search for Files function in WinXP sucks (as
compared to that in Win98SE), in part due to all the extra crap it filters
out - OR allows in!! - in its searches, rendering it nearly useless).

And of course running SFC gives you no good logging or even choices, for
that matter. (etc)

 

[Charles]

Thanks Ken, Smart Keys did the trick.

Try SharpKeys, at http://www.randyrants.com/sharpkeys/

It will let you reassign or disable any keys you want.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Thanks Ken, Smart Keys did the trick.

You're welcome. Glad to help. Did you mean SharpKeys, or did you use
another program called "Smart Keys" that I'm unfamiliar with?