> :->As an accountant myself, I can't for the life of me understand why OS/2
> :->insists on turning off NUM when the PC BIOS has been told to turn it on.
> Another opinion;
> As a non-accountant myself, I can't for the life of me understand why
> anyone would -want- the NumLock -on- all the time.
1- The inverted-T cursor section serves more reliably, segretating basic
movement from other functions
2- Once one learns to use a ten-key for entering numbers, any other
method for enterning a significant amount of them is ludicrous. If your
accountant or bookkeeper didn't have the numpad, you would be paying her
for more hours.
Quote:> The only time I use
> the number keypad is for entering data in my checking account once a
> month, it's easy enought to hit NumLock when I want it. All other
> times I use the top row of number keys.
Consistent use of the cursor-only section for movement and the numpad
only for num functions allows consistent and consequently more reliable
and predictable input. There is no need to check the num status to
assure desired entry or nagivational results. If I had my 'druthers, the
top row keys would only generate numbers when shifted, allowing all
those other top row keys to be more easily accessed. NUMLOCK would not
only lock the numpad to numbers, it would also reverse the default of
the top row keys.
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the
Bible." George Washington
Team OS/2 *** SCSI ONLY since 1990
Felix Miata *** http://www.gate.net/~mrmazda