Getting to the Point(er)

 One of my minor pet peeves with graphical interfaces on computers, regardless of operating system, has long been the mouse pointer/cursor. By default, it's usually very small and unobtrusive, and either black or white, which makes it somewhat hard to see and easy to lose track of. This is not a new problem. I have been losing track of my mouse pointer for about as long as I've been using a mouse. Of course, now that I am approaching the upper reaches of middle age and my eyesight isn't what it once was, the issue has become increasingly acute. Fortunately, I have found that I can easily address this problem on all three platforms I use regularly—Mac OS, Chrome OS and Windows—without installing any additional software. As a result, my mouse pointer is larger and more visible on all of my screens. Not only are they larger, but at least on my Windows and Chrome OS computers, they're also an obnoxious shade of purple for added visibility. Colored pointers are also now an available option under Mac OS Monterey, but I'm running a slightly older version that doesn't include this feature, so mine remains black.

The process for each platform is a little different, but not difficult. On Mac OS and Chrome OS, the settings are found under the accessibility settings, while on Windows, they're under the Mouse settings. We'll take each in turn.

Mac OS—Open System Preferences and click the Accessibility icon. In the dialog box that appears, select 'Display' on the menu at the left and then click the 'Cursor' tab at the top of the box and you will get a slider to adjust the size of your pointer. As mentioned earlier, Mac OS Monterey also includes an option to select the colors of the fill and outline of your pointer. Even without the option to change the pointer color from black, it is still quite helpful for it to be a bit larger. My only question is why these settings are located under 'Display' instead of under 'Pointer Control'. 

Chrome OS—For all their simplicity, configuring Chromebooks can be more than a little complicated when it comes to accessing advanced settings. At least this one didn't involve activating any experimental feature flags, as is so often the case, such as turning on the ability to disable and enable the touch pad. 

To access these advanced Chrome OS mouse settings, you need to go through several layers of menus. Begin by clicking the clock in the lower right corner of the screen and then clicking the gear icon at the top of the menu that pops up. For simplicity's sake, I keep that gear icon pinned to the 'shelf' at the bottom of the screen. Once you're in the Settings screen, scroll to the bottom and click 'Advanced' to see more settings. Click 'Accessibility Features' and scroll down until you see a group called 'Mouse and Touchpad'. You will see a switch on the right side labeled 'Show large mouse cursor'. Click this to turn it on and you will see a slider, with which you can adjust the size of the pointer. Just below this is a 'Cursor color' menu to select a color. 

Windows 10—Windows takes a slightly more logical approach, actually grouping these controls under the mouse settings. To access them, click the 'Start' icon in the lower left corner of the screen and select the gear icon to open the System Settings. Select 'Devices' and then 'Mouse' on the following screen. Scroll down and you will see a heading called 'Related Settings'. Under that, you will see 'Adjust mouse and cursor size'. Click that and you are presented with controls for both the size and color of the mouse pointer. 

 Somehow, I had stumbled onto this setting on my Windows laptop long before I searched for them on my MacBook Pro and Chromebooks, but I am now glad to have a larger pointer on all of those machines, plus my office computer. A bigger cursor is a small thing, but it does make a real difference. Even though this setting is buried under a few layers of menus in all three operating systems, it's definitely worth seeking out.

Keurig 2.0—Big Upgrade for Little Money

 I freely admit that I am often a late adopter of new technologies, tending to wait until I can get what I want on the cheap--like thrift store cheap. This has certainly been the case with Keurig coffeemakers. It seemed like everyone was getting them when they first came out back in the early and mid-2010s, but I held out as I watched the wave of castoff drip coffeemakers on thrift shop shelves crest. Then, in about 2017, I spied a one-cup Mr. Coffee, built around the Keurig system for about the cost of a fast food meal and I decided that was cheap enough to give it a try. 

Not surprisingly, I was immediately hooked on the convenience and variety, and every year or two, I'd find an irresistible deal on a newer, fancier machine at a dirt cheap price and decide an upgrade was warranted, and move my previous favorite to my office to make room for the new one at home. The previous office machine might get donated back, passed on to a friend or family member, or simply put on a shelf as an extra, in case one of my daily use machines went bad.

Seeing a Keurig at a a thrift shop at all used to be a novel experience and it would never stay on the shelf long, but in the last couple of years, first generation Keurigs have started proliferating the shelves and the occasional 2.0 machine began to catch my eye. Inevitably, it seemed, they were missing parts, usually the drip tray, and they always wanted a premium price, even in rough condition, so I decided to content myself with what I had.

That all changed a few weeks ago, when I spotted a Keurig 2.0, complete for $15. I initially resisted it, but eventually gave in to temptation a week later and went back to have a second look at it. The machine was still there, but there was another one next to it on the shelf, in slightly better condition for $10. Such are the vagaries of thrift store pricing. Then, as icing on the proverbial cake, I found the stainless steel carafe to go with it on the next aisle over, priced separately for $4, so I bought both.

Even though I have been using Keurig machines for five or six years, I've always kept a drip coffeemaker next to it for those occasions when I wanted to make a pot of coffee. It's not every day, but sometimes, that's just what's needed. This new acquisition offered the potential to streamline things down to only one machine.

Making a pot of coffee with the Keurig requires one of two things: extra large--and extra expensive--K-cups or a large capacity, reusable coffee pod. Either of these options unlock extra menu options for the carafe and large commuter mugs. Since I have a good amount of loose ground coffee on hand for the drip coffeemaker, I opted to go that route and ordered a two-pack of reusable pods online. To be honest, I rarely see the larger K-cups in the store and they're usually over-priced when I do.

As I suspected would happen, my first attempt, using the same two scoops of coffee grounds that I would put in the drip coffeemaker, resulted in somewhat weak tasting coffee, albeit a little better than I had experienced with single-cup reusable pods. On my second attempt, I employed a trick I had successfully tried with single-cup pods on other machines, which is to add a tiny amount of instant coffee, which yields stronger flavor without inflicting instant coffee's often bitter edge onto it. 

With that little adjustment, I have decided the flexibility of the Keurig 2.0 is sufficient to justify not only the cost of acquisition but is justification to finally retire the drip coffeemaker. I know that I will not use the carafe every day, but on the occasions when I want or need to do so, it combines the convenience of the Keurig with the larger capacity of the drip coffeemaker into an excellent single solution. 

UPDATE—Now that I've had this machine for about a month, I've found it to be a worthwhile investment. The drip coffeemaker is retired and off the kitchen counter, and the few times I have wanted a pot of coffee, the carafe setup has been more than adequate. My only minor gripe about the machine is I can't manually shut it off. The virtual power button on the touch screen will turn it on, but then touching it after making a cup o coffee will not turn it off. I do not know whether this is a design feature or a malfunction, but the easy workaround is to set the automatic shutoff for 15 minutes. All in all, it's a quirk I can live with.

UPDATE: January 2025--A few months ago, I found a better solution for the weak coffee problem when using ground coffee in the reusable pods. I got hold of a coffee grinder and grind things up a little finer. It yields richer tasting coffee without resorting to adding instant. 

Let There Be (More) Light

A few years ago, I decided my front walk area was too dark at night, so I replaced a non-functional gas post light with a solar LED fixture that fit on the gas light's post. Equipped with a simple photocell, it turned itself on at dusk and usually remained on until the battery ran down, putting out enough light to be ornamental but not enough to make a functional difference. The fixture was fairly expensive and the internal battery, which was charged by the solar panel on top, only lasted a short time before it would no longer take a charge. Replacements were expensive and hard to find.

In time, I decided I needed something more practical, so I got a couple of motion activated, solar powered LED floodlights, which helped greatly; however, because of their placement between the two front windows, the ends of the walkway were still in relative shadow. 

For whatever reason, most likely laziness, that remained the status quo for several years, but as one light has grown noticeably dimmer over they years, I finally decided more light was needed, so I ordered two more solar lights of a similar design. 

The new lights arrived yesterday and I promptly installed them. Even with a proper masonry bit, drilling holes in bricks is no easy task, but now that they're up, the walkway is without shadow from end to end. The new fixtures are not identical to the old ones; they actually offer more illumination with their 144 smaller LED's versus the old ones' 20 larger LED's. While the older ones have their LED's only on the front, the newer ones have them on the front and sides, offering a wider spread of illumination. 

Perhaps the biggest difference is the presence of a push-button switch on the front of the new ones, which toggles between four operational modes--constantly on (dim), dim/bright (contstantly on dim, automatically going to full brightness when motion is detected), (off/bright) (off until motion is detected, then to full brightness), and completely off. I'm using the off/bright mode to mirror the operation of the older ones, which have no switch and are simply motion activated. 

The beauty of these motion activated lights is that they are only on for less than a minute at a time, providing light only when it is truly needed. This means the internal storage batteries are never fully depleted. Also, each one costs about the same as a conventional floodlight bulb and they require no wiring. They are completely self-contained and are ready for service almost as soon as they are mounted. A simple, practical and cost-effective solution, these lights are an excellent value, well suited for the needs of renters and home owners alike. 

 

Another Week, Another Chromebook

 About a week ago, I did a slightly naughty thing. I bought a new laptop that I absolutely didn't need, but it was an insane deal I just couldn't pass up. I got wind of this dirt cheap Lenovo Chromebook bargain at Best Buy from an article on Chrome Unboxed called "A $79 Chromebook That's Actually Worth Having". Yeah, that really isn't a typo. I actually snagged a brand new Chromebook for not quite the cost of two tanks of gas. 

It's a Lenovo 3, 11.6-inch Chromebook, which is listed for $99 at bestbuy.com, but with a free My Best Buy membership they whack another $20 off. Oh, and shipping is free as well. I opted for free home delivery, which took about four days (ordered on Friday night, arrived the following Tuesday morning), but I could have picked it up for free at my local Best Buy store in as little as an hour after ordering--assuming the store was open when I placed the order, which it was not. Being lazy and better able to resist attempted up-sells online than in person, home delivery was the more attractive option. 

So, what is a $79 laptop even like? Well, first off, it's a Chromebook, so it's basically a glorified browser in a box. The intent is that you will use it primarily with Web-based functions, via the built-in Chrome browser, but there's actually a little more to the story since you can run Android apps, installed from the Google Play Store, as well as Linux apps in a virtual machine environment called Crostini--provided you're not afraid of using the Terminal command line to install applications. It's actually easier than it sounds. I have the latest Debian Linux builds of LibreOffice productivity suite, Thunderbird email client and and Extended Service Release (ESR) of the Firefox Web browser, as well as a simple solitaire game called Aisle Riot and a MahJongg tile matching game,  These cover the basics and that's really what the Chromebook experience is all about. 

The screen is small, only slightly larger than my 10-inch Amazon Fire tablet, but reasonably sharp. The keyboard is a bit cramped, yet responsive, the speakers are tinny, and the track pad is, well, a track pad. All that said, the build quality is decent, not outstanding, but decent--and surprisingly better than one might expect for a notebook computer at this ridiculously cheap price point. 

As I've said before, the secret to satisfaction with a Chromebook is to have reasonable and realistic expectations. Accept it for what it is, don't expect it to be something it's not, and you'll be fine, especially for the price you're (not) paying for it. Compared to computers running Mac OS, Windows, or even Linux, Chromebooks have relatively limited capabilities, so while there are Chromebooks with price tags in excess of $1,000, it's more reasonable to expect to pay a limited price for one.  Honestly, you wouldn't catch me spending more than about $300 for one. 

Since I now own two Chromebooks, the above mentioned Lenovo and an HP Chromebook 14a, it begs the question of which I prefer. In terms of what's under the hood, they are very comparable. The big difference is the screen size and I have to say the HP's 14-inch screen is a clear winner there. The Lenovo's 11.6-inch screen offers barely enough real estate to be usable and the smaller form factor makes the keyboard feel relatively cramped, although still usable. The one thing the Lenovo has over the HP is its two USB-A ports, compared with the HP's single USB port, which is perpetually occupied by a receiver for my Logitech wireless mouse. 

 I have worked around this for the HP with a portable USB-C docking station, which incorporates a couple of USB-A ports, SD and micro SD card slots, HDMI video and a pass-through USB-C port. It seems to work best with the power cord plugged into the USB-C slot to power both the computer and the docking station. The Lenovo's second USB-A port is nice for allowing the flexibility to plug a mouse receiver into one and a flash drive into another. 

So, who is a Chromebook for? The likely answer is probably most of the computer-using public. It's a minimalist platform for people with correspondingly minimalist computing needs. If you spend the majority of your computing time surfing Web pages, checking emails, watching videos and maybe doing a little online shopping, then a Chromebook is all you really need. For me, a Chromebook will never be a daily driver. It just feels too constraining and I do have a need for functionality it cannot readily provide. That said, the ability to install and run certain Linux apps does help. I'll readily admit that I had no real need for a second Chromebook, but I'm sure I'll find a few uses for it, especially as I generally prefer the laptop form factor to that of a tablet computer. 

Addendum, 9 September
Now that I've had this $79 Chromebook for a few weeks, I have to admit it's growing on me. I frequently take it to work with me for quick, personal tasks, for which I would prefer not to use my work computer. Operationally, it actually feels a tad faster than my HP Chromebook 14a, but the compact size is, at best, a bit of a mixed blessing in that while the cramped screen real estate is often a strain on my middle-aged eyes, especially since the resolution is maybe one step above mediocre; however, the device's small size and accompanying feather weight make it an ideal grab-and-go machine. Also, the keyboard has a nice, positive touch that makes it pleasant to use, despite it being a little cramped. 

For me, Chrome OS is generally less annoying than Windows (I still consider myself to be a Mac user, first and foremost) and truly succeeds in combining simplicity with functionality. Although I can get work done on it fairly easily, it's still not my favorite computing experience and it will never be able to fully replace a Mac OS or Windows laptop. Oddly enough, when I look at the devices I use regularly, this diminutive Lenovo Chromebook comes closest to being a solid replacement for a tablet. Honestly, except for reading e-books, I much prefer the laptop experience, even a limited one like a Chromebook, to that of a tablet with a virtual, onscreen keyboard. The next time I need to replace a tablet, perhaps I'll consider something like a Chromebook Duet. We'll see when the time comes.

In the end, when I consider how little I paid for this little laptop--less than a tenth what I paid for my first desktop computer in 1991--a Mac Classic with a monochrome ink jet printer bundled in for about $1,600--it's an incredible value for what it is, especially adjusted for three decades of inflation, and I don't regret this (admittedly superfluous) purchase one bit.

Addendum, 3 October
I have identified one minor gripe, more aesthetic than functional, about this Lenovo Chromebook, and that is the satin finish on the lid, which shows finger prints horribly. They can be wiped away (mostly) with a soft cloth, but it still detracts from the look of the thing, especially considering how much I carry it around and handle it closed, mainly putting it in and out of its bag. By comparison, my work computer, a Lenovo ThinkPad X1, has a matte finish that does not show fingerprints nearly as much. As I said, it makes no difference from a functional standpoint; it just looks messy.

Got Meter?

 Whether you call it a multimeter, multitester or VOM (volt/ohm/milliammeter) or just a meter, it's an essential piece of electrical test equipment that deserves a place on any workbench or toolbox. So what are these devices used for? 

A VOM is actually four measuring devices in one. They can be used to measure AC or DC voltage, amperage and resistance or continuity. Some even have additional functions such as a thermometer. Common uses include measuring voltage checking whether a circuit is live, testing batteries, and determine exact levels of voltage, amperage and resistance.

Analog or Digital?
One of the first things you are likely to notice when looking at meters is they have one of two types of displays—analog or digital. Analog meters, which have a needle indicator pointing to numbers on a scale (or often multiple scales) have been around for about a century while digital meters with numerical displays first appeared some 40 or so years ago and have steadily grown in popularity over time. Which type of meter to buy is largely just a matter of personal preference. The perform exactly the same function.

Analog Advantages
Traditional analog meters have a small learning curve as one learns which scale to read for a particular function. These are labeled and often color coded to correspond with the scales on the selector switch. Sometimes a scale requires multiplying by tens or sometimes hundreds to take an accurate reading. The main advantage of an analog meter is it's easier to see how much a reading varies. 

Unlike a digital meter, which uses battery power for all functions, an analog meter uses it only on the resistance scale, where it sends a small current through a circuit to measure resistance. On the voltage and amperage settings, the device is measuring power flowing through the circuit without the need for any other power source. 

Some of my favorite vintage analog meters are from Radio Shack (Remember them?), sold under their Micronta brand. Models worth looking for include the 22-202, 22-203, 22-204, 22-210 and 22-214. Although these models have been out of production for years, they are plentiful on the second-hand market so hold out for a good example. Also worth considering, if have the money to spend is a Simpson 260. The epitome of professional grade, this venerable line has been in constant production since the 1930s and is still made in the USA. Most models use standard AA, D and 9v cells but some take obsolete 15v batteries that are absolutely unobtainable. New Simpson meters are priced in the hundreds of dollars but good second-hand units are available for far less.

Digital Precision
Digital meters show exact numerical values but they can be hard to read if that value is shifting too rapidly. Nonetheless, they are often preferred because they have fewer moving parts and thus are often more durable than their analog counterparts. Because they have largely replaced analog devices, economies of scale often make digital meters a little less expensive than a comparable analog device.

New digital meters range in price from a few dollars to hundreds.  Harbor Freight has even been known to give away their cheapest digital meter for free with a coupon. 

What to Look for in a Vintage or Second-hand Meter
As mentioned above, I prefer older, analog meters because they are usually built better than newer analog models but there is also a bit of risk involved. Three signs of trouble to watch out for are damage or excessive wear to the exterior, signs of battery leakage, and burn marks on the interior circuitry.

If the meter looks beat up on the outside with lots of dirt, scratches, cracks or missing pieces of plastic,  chances are it has seen some heavy use or even abuse. Check the knobs and switches to make sure they move properly. If they don't, this is also a sign the meter should be avoided. As a final part of the exterior inspection, look for missing case screws as they are a sign someone has been inside it before. 

Because these meters can often sit idle for long periods, battery leakage is fairly common. Residue from alkaline batteries can easily be cleaned off with white, distilled vinegar. Buff the contacts with sandpaper and everything should be fine as long as the residue was confined to the battery compartment. Even if the batteries appear good, check the expiry date, replace any that are excessively old and make a habit of checking them periodically for leakage.

Burn marks are a sure sign that a meter has been subjected to an overload and the meter should be avoided unless you are comfortable replacing the damaged components, which will usually require some soldering skills. Of course, an overload could also damage the circuit board itself.

Finally, check the fuse(s). A cylindrical glass fuse can also be examined visually to see if the filament is intact If a fuse is opaque or discolored, it is probably bad. The definitive test, of course, will be with a multimeter set on the ohms setting. If the needle moves all the way across on an analog meter or you see the number one on a digital unit, you have continuity and the fuse is good. No movement or the number zero indicates a blown fuse. Make sure you replace it with one of the same rating. Even though fuses may look alike, they have different amperage ratings. Read what's inscribed on the metal contacts at the ends of the fuse or even better, check to see if the fuse requirements are on the device itself or the instructions, if you have them.

My Favorite Wireless Input Devices

It's been almost a decade since I last used a desktop computer as my daily driver but I've never been able to acclimate myself to a touch pad. For me, they are awkward to use and since I have the bad habit of 'lazy' wrists resting on either side of the touch pad, I tend to brush against it and send my cursor caroming off in random directions. The solution for me has been to use an external mouse and disable the trackpad. To be clear, I am not going in and cutting wires. All major operating systems—Mac OS, Windows, Linux, Chrome OS—offer a procedure to turn the touch pad off and back on. Windows and Mac OS can do this automatically when an external mouse is connected to or disconnected from a USB port. And when I'm using a laptop as part of a permanent workstation, such as my desk at work, I also like to use an external keyboard, just because it gives me greater flexibility to achieve a more ergonomic setup.

To be sure, there are a lot of great third party input devices—keyboards, mice, trackballs, etc. out there but many of them have a problem in common—cables. Over the years I have come to greatly prefer the experience of a wireless input devices. These basically come in two flavors: Bluetooth and USB. The former offers the advantage of not requiring a USB port but this is often at the expense of a stable connection. For that reason, I much prefer a wireless USB mouse or keyboard.

The thing is, not all wireless USB peripherals are created equal. Most such devices come with a dedicated USB receiver that is paired with the device with which it shipped and only that device, which presents two major disadvantages. First, if you have multiple wireless devices, each one requires its own USB port. Second, if you lose the receiver, which today very tiny, the device itself becomes useless. Fortunately, one manufacturer has solved this problem.

Logitech, with its Unifying Receiver system, allows up to six devices—mice, trackballs, keyboards—to be paired with one receiver. By doing this, the disadvantages named in the above paragraph are effectively negated. A keyboard and mouse, or even multiples of each, only require a single USB port to from which to operate and lost USB receivers can easily be replaced. 

I have acquired several Logitech keyboards and mice second hand for a pittance from thrift shops and as often as not, the receiver is not present. When I see one that looks promising, I look not only for the receiver but for the asterisk logo, indicating compatibility with a Unifying Receiver. If this logo is present, then I know the device can be used, even if it no longer has its own receiver.

To pair a device with a different receiver, one must download the Logitech Unifying Receiver software from Logitech's Web site, launch it and follow a simple set of on-screen prompts to turn the device off if it is already on and then turn it on to be recognized by the receiver. Once paired, the receiver and input device(s) will work with any computer the receiver is plugged into, regardless of whether the Logitech software is present. But because the software is available only for Windows or Mac OS, users of other operating systems such as Chrome OS or Linux, will need to pair their devices and receivers on a Mac or Windows PC and then transfer the receiver to the Chromebook or Linux computer. On dual-boot systems containing Windows or Mac OS in addition to Linux, one can simply reboot into Linux after pairing under one of the aforementioned supported operating systems.

It should also be noted that while multiple devices (up to six) can be paired with one receiver, the opposite is not true. Multiple receivers cannot be paired with a single device. One cannot, for instance, pair a mouse with separate receivers plugged into two different laptops. One must move the receiver from one device to another. This happens because whenever a device is paired with a new receiver, any previous pairing of that device with another receiver is broken. That said, it is not necessary to re-pair existing devices to a receiver when a new one is added, provided the total is no more than six devices.

The way I see it, Logitech's Unifying Receiver system adds great value to compatible input devices and to my knowledge, no other manufacturer offers anything similar. For this reason, Logitech devices bearing the asterisk logo are the only ones I'll consider buying—new or used, with or without their receiver.

Addendum—Since I have accumulated and used several Logitech wireless keyboards, it would seem appropriate to my impressions of each that I have owned. They are listed in descending order by model number. In general, I will say that none of the keyboards below are actually bad, but the user experience differs greatly.

K850—This is my most recently acquired keyboard and my favorite for several reasons. First, it is the only one I own that is both Windows and Mac OS compatible and automatically detects which platform it is connected to. It can also be paired with up to three wireless receivers. Selecting between them is accomplished via three numbered buttons, just to the right of the F-keys, which double as media keys when pressed in conjunction with either the fn keys on the bottom row. The power switch is located inconspicuously along the right side, just below the top right corner. The crowning glory, though is the ergonomic design of the keys, raised in the middle and lower on the outer edges for a more natural wrist position. It also has a padded, non-slip wrist rest for added comfort. 

K520—I actually have two of these, not because I like this model so much, but because the first one I found had significant wear and I subsequently found one in pristine condition. This model is roughly the same size as the K850 and has separate multimedia keys, as well as special functions included on the F-keys. The power switch is located at the top right corner. Like the models below, it is Windows only but will work with Mac OS, although the modifier keys are mapped differently, such that the Windows start key takes the function of the Apple Command key and the Alt key is mapped as the Option key; however, these are easily reversed in the Mac OS System Preferences. The keys are comfortably rounded but their action is a little imprecise—not bad but not great, either.

K360—The most compact of the four Logitech keyboards I own,  It has flat, square keys, similar to those of a laptop keyboard. The power switch is located conveniently at the top right corner. It has separate media keys that are small  but well labeled. The F-keys double as special function keys. I like the action of the keys, which have a nice amount of resistance. It is my second favorite of the four keyboards.

 K330—This is perhaps my least favorite of the four Logitech keyboards I own. It is Iinteresting that it is no larger than the K850, but it feels considerably bulkier. It has a separate row of very small media and special function keys that are labeled in a way that makes them difficult to read. My least favorite feature, however, is the power switch, which is located on the bottom of the keyboard, where it is difficult to reach, especially by feel.

A Good Time to be Self-Reliant

 

I am a bargain shopper and I am reasonably handy with tools for both large- and small-scale projects. As a result, I'm seldom deterred from acquiring second-hand items that can be easily repaired, if the price is right. The important thing is to be cognizant of what is—and is not—within the realm of my technical expertise, including my ability to learn new skills or apply existing ones to a new challenge. 

Case in point—I recently won an auction on Shopgoodwill.com for three men’s watches, a Pulsar, a Fossil and a Timex. It turned out they all needed batteries and to have links removed from their bracelets to accommodate my smaller than average wrist. So far, I have the Timex and the Pulsar running. It has also prompted me to acquire some basic watch repair tools so I can adjust bracelets and change my own batteries going forward. After all, any task worth doing is worth acquiring the proper tools.

The Timex, black chrome with an Indiglo dial, was the easiest to work on. I was able to pop the back cover off with a pocket knife and discovered I had the correct battery on hand. I was also able to remove a few links from the expansion bracelet using a jeweler’s screwdriver and needle nose pliers. It had been about 20 years since I’d done particular operation and I had forgotten just how much of a pain it is to work on. I’m not sure if I want to undertake that again in the foreseeable future. The watch shows a bit more wear than the other two and the calendar doesn’t move. Having done everything to this watch necessary to make it minimally serviceable, I feel a good sense of satisfaction. I also recognize my technical limitations and I am thus content to live with the calendar permanently displaying the 27^th.

The Pulsar and the Fossil, both full stainless steel with latching bracelets, also require a case opening tool to access the battery, along with a pin removal tool to allow me to take links out of their bracelets. I found these tools are fairly inexpensive and have ordered them for about what it would cost to have a battery professionally installed. Nonetheless, impatience got the better of me so I took both watches to Batteries Plus, where I was told they were “not allowed” to work on the Fossil but they could install a battery in the Pulsar. They had given me a similar song and dance about an Armitron watch that I own, even though they had replaced its battery in the past. I’m not sure what to make of their reluctance regarding certain brands but I shall be taking that function into my own hands, going forward.

Both of these watches are slightly too large for my wrist, which leads me to believe links have already been removed and the similarity in their respective sizing suggests they may have previously been owned by the same person. I was able to tighten the Pulsar’s bracelet a bit at the clasp but I will also need remove at least one link for proper fitment. The Fossil has no adjustment at the clasp and thus will also need a link or two removed; that is, if I decide to keep it.

The Pulsar was the watch that initially attracted me to bid on this lot and is thus a keeper, while the Timex continues to grow on me, despite the non-functioning calendar, mainly because I like the Indiglo display. Of the three, the Fossil is my least favorite—it’s design leans more toward fashion than function, which just isn’t me. It has no calendar and no numbers or minute markers on the face. While attractive in a minimalist sort of way, it makes timekeeping approximate at best. It might be okay for dressy occasions but definitely not for daily wear. Once I put a battery in it, I’ll wear it for a day or two without adjusting the bracelet before deciding whether to put it up on eBay. The popularity of Fossil watches may make it fairly easy to sell and perhaps for enough to pay for the other two.

While I have grown accustomed over the years to paying to have the batteries replaced in my watches, acquiring the tools to do so myself will result in considerable savings; in fact, the tools will easily pay for themselves on their first or second use, considering that a five-pack of watch batteries typically costs $3-$4, while having a single battery professionally installed costs about $12. That’s a hefty markup. Beyond the monetary savings, self-reliance is an important consideration. I derive pleasure and satisfaction from being able to fix things myself instead of having to pay others to do them for me. For me, the ability to repair things is empowering