Invisible wrote:
> gregjohn wrote:
> 
>> Any other products out there?
> 
> I use IrfanView a lot - but I don't know if it does what you want...
> 

I second the use

Post a reply to this message

"gregjohn" <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
> It has the Vista zombie look and feel to
> it, in that it prevents you from having full power to do what you want 
> with
> your images, except for the purposes it purposes you to have.
>

God help you. I was trying to make little things (coupon-like) to insert 
into a couple cards for christmas (much like shay printing out photos of his 
gifts since he waited too long to buy them). This on my parents computer 
which has been simply an email/MS Office computer for years. I was reduced 
to using MS Paint and almost threw the computer into a snow pile. MS Office 
wouldn't work with the images correctly, it was bizzare. Any text I typed on 
the same document that the image was in wouldn't show in print preview or 
print. I kept lying to myself saying it will only take a few more minutes so 
it's pointless to download Gimp.

Post a reply to this message

If all you're doing is resizing images, IrfanView should work just fine...
--
Dan
GoofyGraffix.com

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> (Notepad, btw, is a cool app.  All the time I'm copying stuff which comes with
> all kinds of unwanted rich text or other garbage.  Sometimes, "All I want is
> the ASCII, ma'am.")

  It's not cool if you can't open a file (which might have non-printable
characters, different types of newlines, etc), make a modification and then
save it without the program modifying anything else than what you modified
explicitly.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

you're joking, right?  ok, I'll bite:  I loved the IE javascript debugger when I
used to do javascripting on the platform.  Something like:  "You have an error
on line 148" when actually the .js file only had about 60... thankfully,
Firefox gave the exact scoop...

Post a reply to this message

Ross wrote:
> I was reduced to using MS Paint and almost threw the computer into 
> a snow pile. MS Office wouldn't work with the images correctly, 
> it was bizzare. Any text I typed on the same document that the image
> was in wouldn't show in print preview or print. I kept lying to myself
> saying it will only take a few more minutes so it's pointless to
> download Gimp. 
> 

Microsoft has reached it's tipping point with Office 2007/Vista.

Post a reply to this message

Tom Galvin <tom### [at] impnospamorg> wrote:
> Ross wrote:
> > I was reduced to using MS Paint and almost threw the computer into
> > a snow pile. MS Office wouldn't work with the images correctly,
> > it was bizzare. Any text I typed on the same document that the image
> > was in wouldn't show in print preview or print. I kept lying to myself
> > saying it will only take a few more minutes so it's pointless to
> > download Gimp.
> >
>
> Microsoft has reached it's tipping point with Office 2007/Vista.

From thefreedictionary.com:


Lexicographers are smarter than I thought.  ;-)

Best Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

There appears to be someone at MS whose job is to dream up ways to get 
between the user and his/her data.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: iso-8859-1, 31 lines --]

> The coolest Microsoft application ever, IMNSHO,  ***was***  Microsoft Photo
> Editor.  The HDD died on the WinXP laptop I use in my place of employment. With
> the new HDD came the latest suite of Office products.  To my chagrin,  Microsoft
> Photo Editor is gone and replaced by Microsoft Office Picture Manager.  It is
> terrible.

  Seriously, it just seems like common trend inside Microsoft: First develop
a software which is between acceptable and actually pretty good, and then
develop new versions of that software which have changes for and only for
the sake of change, at the cost of usability.

  I have never understood that. MS has its own program and GUI design
documents which are not half-bad, but they don't seem to follow them at
all. It seems that their rule number one is "we *must* make the new
version look&feel different, no matter what the cost". It seems unthinkable
to them that they would release a new version which actually looks and
feels the *same* as the old version, but which has bug fixes and enhanced
features.

  Windows Media Player is a prime example of this. Compare all versions
of it from version 6 to the current one. The newer the version, the more
bloated, the harder and more unintuitive to use, and the more horrible
they get with each version. If it was just the eyecandy then it would be
ok (after all, most media players are skinnable, so it's kind of ok).
But it's not only that. They must change how it works and how it is used.
Old = bad, change = good. It doesn't matter if it changes to less usable
and less intuitive, as long as it changes.

  I must admit I haven't followed the details between the different
versions of MacOS X, but I have the feeling that while they have implemented
some changes to the UI and functionalities, they have tried to keep it
easy and intuitive to use. Eye-candy yes, but not at the cost of usability.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Seriously, it just seems like common trend inside Microsoft: First develop
> a software which is between acceptable and actually pretty good, and then
> develop new versions of that software which have changes for and only for
> the sake of change, at the cost of usability.
> 
>   I have never understood that.

It's quite simple. You've got to make it look different so everybody 
will look at it and immediately go "oh, hey, COOL! It's NEW!"

Usability? What's that then?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message