 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004New year resolutions
Ha!  SignatureSimon R. Hughes > Ha! Totally agree. I have this thing about setting myself up for failure. I'm against it. SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. > Ha! My resolution stays the same in 2004: 800 x 600. SignatureReinhold (Rey) Aman Lo-tech guy "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <aman@sonic.net> wrote on 01 Jan 2004: > >> Ha! > > My resolution stays the same in 2004: 800 x 600. Get yourself a 17" or larger ViewSonic LCD (VX700) and you will have to increase that to 1024 × 768 at minimum, but 1280 × 1024 to get really good resolution. Mine can go as high as 1600 × 1200, then everything on the desktop is too tiny to see without the magnifier. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. [...] > > My resolution stays the same in 2004: 800 x 600. > Get yourself a 17" or larger ViewSonic LCD (VX700) and you will have to > increase that to 1024 x 768 at minimum, but 1280 x 1024 to get really > good resolution. Mine can go as high as 1600 x 1200, then everything on > the desktop is too tiny to see without the magnifier. I have a super-sharp 17" Sony monitor and prefer 800 x 600. At 1024 x 768, things look too small. I also set colors to thousands, not millions. Personal preferences, I guess. SignatureReinhold (Rey) Aman 2 hrs and 35 minutes till 2004 "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <aman@sonic.net> wrote on 01 Jan 2004: > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 1024 x 768, things look too small. I also set colors to > thousands, not millions. Personal preferences, I guess. They are small. I'm going to buy a magnifying glass, because the magnifier provided with XP takes up too much vertical space. I don't have a choice about colors; it's either high (32 bit) or medium (16-bit), and I don't see a difference. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > They are small. I'm going to buy a magnifying glass, because the > magnifier provided with XP takes up too much vertical space. Your resolution is too high. The Magnifier is a crutch provided for the handicapped; you shouldn't be using it unless you're farsighted. andrew filted: >> They are small. I'm going to buy a magnifying glass, because the >> magnifier provided with XP takes up too much vertical space. > >Your resolution is too high. The Magnifier is a crutch provided for the >handicapped; you shouldn't be using it unless you're farsighted. Note that the original complaint was about things appearing too small on the desktop...unless they've done away with it in XP, it should be possible to increase the size of desktop icons under display options.... (Personally, I wouldn't put it past 'em to have eliminated the option...MS swapped out "Write" for "Notepad" and "Wordpad", making it impossible to insert a simple page-feed into a text document without descending into the abyss that is MS Word...and they took away the "randomize playlist" function in versions of Media Player above 6)....r > (Personally, I wouldn't put it past 'em to have eliminated the > option...MS swapped out "Write" for "Notepad" and "Wordpad" I thought Write and Notepad coexisted. I love Notepad. I've transferred that little program to every upgrade of Windows I've installed. (You want Write, I'll send you Write. It may take me a few days because I have to get off of my other computer which I've not set up yet, but I have it if you want it.) SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. > and they took away the "randomize playlist" function in versions of > Media Player above 6) P.S. Media Player 9 has Shuffle under the Play menu. It seems to have the same effect as Randomize. SignatureDena Jo Delete "delete.this.for.email" for email. "andrew" <andrew@wicked.as> wrote on 02 Jan 2004: >> They are small. I'm going to buy a magnifying glass, because the >> magnifier provided with XP takes up too much vertical space. > Your resolution is too high. If you had been following the discussion with even a modicum of care, you'd have seen that this is the native resolution of the 2 ViewSonic 17" monitors I have. 1024 × 768 is not sharp enough. > The Magnifier is a crutch provided for the handicapped; you > shouldn't be using it unless you're farsighted. I didn't see a warning that said "For use by visually handicapped only" when I turned the magnifier on, so I thought the PC (personal computer in this case) police would probably not be coming to arrest me or even to give me a ticket for wrongfully using a handicapped accessibility feature (ie, "crutch"). Do you think I should eat everything on my dinner plate as well? SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. "CyberCypher" <cybercypher2002_NETSCAPE_@NOSPAM.net> wrote... > "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <aman@sonic.net> wrote on 01 Jan 2004: > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > really good resolution. Mine can go as high as 1600 × 1200, then > everything on the desktop is too tiny to see without the magnifier. If you have an LCD screen, there will be an optimal resolution which corresponds to its native resolution, and you shouldn't use anything else (except perhaps one which exactly divides each dimension, like 800x600 on a 1600x1200 LCD screen). Your 17" ViewSonic probably has a native resolution of 1280x1024, whose 5:4 aspect ratio is idiosyncratic and shouldn't be switched to anything else under any circumstances. Contrast this with CRT screens, which have a much finer set of triangularly-arranged pixels with no native rectangular resolution, but whose separation ("pitch") determines the maximum useable resolution which can be overlaid onto it. Matti "Matti Lamprhey" <matti-nospam@totally-official.com> wrote on 01 Jan 2004: > "CyberCypher" <cybercypher2002_NETSCAPE_@NOSPAM.net> wrote... >> "Reinhold (Rey) Aman" <aman@sonic.net> wrote on 01 Jan 2004: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > aspect ratio is idiosyncratic and shouldn't be switched to > anything else under any circumstances. I agree with you. Both my wife and I have 17" ViewSonic LCD screens, but my wife doesn't like the native 1280 × 1024 resolution; the icons and system font are too small for her. I know we can increase their sizes, but I don't know if we will. My LCD is the VP171, the model that pivots and can display an entire A4 page when turned 90 degrees. Hers is fixed. They both suggested the 1280 × 1024 resolution as optimal. > Contrast this with CRT screens, which have a much finer set of > triangularly-arranged pixels with no native rectangular > resolution, but whose separation ("pitch") determines the maximum > useable resolution which can be overlaid onto it. So that's another difference. Thank you for this information. SignatureFranke: EFL teacher & medical editor. > Ha! New year's resolutions? New Year's resolutions? New-Year's resolutions? Adrian My resolution is to bring the coatee back into style. "Why wear a coat when a coatee will do?" (TM) > My resolution is to bring the coatee back into style. > > "Why wear a coat when a coatee will do?" (TM) "Why wear a goat when a goatee will do?" (TM) m. > > My resolution is to bring the coatee back into style. > > > > "Why wear a coat when a coatee will do?" (TM) > > "Why wear a goat when a goatee will do?" (TM) "Why wear pants when panties will do?" (C) Mike. >>> My resolution is to bring the coatee back into style. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > "Why wear pants when panties will do?" (C) Why wear a truss when a trustee will do? m. > >>> My resolution is to bring the coatee back into style. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > Why wear a truss when a trustee will do? Why climb a mount when a Mountie will do? >>>>> My resolution is to bring the coatee back into style. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Why climb a mount when a Mountie will do? Why be a monk when a monkey will do? m. mUs1Ka@exite.com spake thus: > >>>>> My resolution is to bring the coatee back into style. > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Why be a monk when a monkey will do? Why eat with your gob when a goblet will do? SignatureDavid ===== >>>>>> My resolution is to bring the coatee back into style. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Why be a monk when a monkey will do? Why wear brown when a brownie will do? Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com >> > My resolution is to bring the coatee back into style. >> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > "Why wear pants when panties will do?" (C) "Why wear a smile when a smiley will do?" :-) SignatureOpus the Penguin (that's my real email addy) You snipped my sig! > "Why wear a smile when a smiley will do?" :-) I'd suggest an official AUE coatee, but we'd never agree if the buttons are to be silver or brass. > "Why wear pants when panties will do?" (C) In a book of WWII era jokes, a Brit one was: "Have you heard about the new utility knickers?" "One Yank and they're off." |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.