A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 7 » Windows 7 Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What's a good free desktop screen recorder?



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old November 14th 18, 11:31 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default What's a good free desktop screen recorder?

"Bill in Co" wrote

| There don't seem to be any listings or reviews of their programs that I've
| found (but I only looked briefly), nor have I found out much of anything
| about this "videotool.net" company, or even where it is based. If you
want
| to be suspicious of something, I think this is a case in point.
|

Yes. That's as I described in my own experience.
But I tried it. I monitored for any suspicious activity.
It's one of the few that never tried to call home at all.
And it works.

| just that you (generally) get what you pay for.

?? Was anyone talking about being willing to
pay for this? The question was about "good free".

I also don't think that's necessarily true when it
comes to software. There are lots of factors. Many
good products are free because there's just no
market for selling them. Most of the software I use
is free. And I also use it because it's usually the best
I've found. I've paid for some that I think is worth it.
But with most things there's no need to pay.

At the other extreme are the corporate monopoly
products -- MS Office and Photoshop. In that case
you get less than you pay for, since equivalents can
be had far cheaper.

Then there are things that are not the best but are
good enough. Example: PDF XChange Viewer free version
can edit PDFs. It's not as capable as Acrobat, but it does
what I need and Acrobat is ridiculously overpriced.

There used to be a popular editor for VBScript that
was $175, and that was maybe 15 years ago. Crazy
expensive. It was popular because they marketed,
seemed to have partnered with Microsoft, and got
classes to require that students buy it. Clever marketing.
But it wasn't much different from Notepad++. They
just got the right people to keep repeating that it was
the Cadillac of editors and all the sheep decided it
must be worth $175. Because people rarely actually
think for themselves.

We could go on all day coming up with examples like that.
Why do people pay $2 for a bottle of tap water that's
not even as good as what comes from their sink and
probably has nano-plastic contamination? In fact,
it may very well be the same water as from their sink,
if they're lucky. There's no regulation. Are they
getting what they pay for? No. They're paying $2 and
getting essentially nothing. They're getting what
lots of other people told them is a good thing to buy.
Then they throw away the bottle, creating unnecessary
pollution while also requiring that they pay $2 again
next time they want a drink of water. Selling water
that nobody needs, and making an environmental mess
doing it, is a multi-billion dollar industry. Yet the
intelligentsia discuss whether Dasani or Poland Springs
is better.

Then they go to the gym to pay for the
right to walk, dressing in $200 worth of official
exercise clothing. Because you can't just wear any
old thing if you want to do official walking. And they
buy a power bar to improve
their health, which is actually just sugar, maybe
hydrogenated fats, stale oats, and whatever rancid
vegetable oil fell off a truck this week. ("Safflower
and/or coconut and/or palm kernel....") But they
saw it on TV and the package says "Natural!... Power..."
and something about Omega-3. So they buy it.
Probably for 4 bucks.

Did you ever see the video from Jimmy Kimmel
of people outside a gym in LA being asked about
gluten? Very funny and very telling...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdJFE1sp4Fw

| Also, from the posting Arlen gave, you'll notice it's using an old mp4
| codec, and not the h.264 version.

I don't see Arlen's posts and I don't really
understand what that means. Smaller files? The
Videotool people seem to have written their own
stuff, but I don't know anything about video
programming, so I can't assess it. What's superior
about h.264 and what's the old version?

| Maybe somebody can
| investigate a few of their programs further.

Like you, perhaps? If everyone tries some
of them, we get a good sample.

It looks to me like Videotools is a small, non-US
shareware company. Probably non-English, as Paul
noted. But that doesn't make them suspicious.
The software works. I should note, though, that I'm
not picky in this case. I haven't looked into options
with any of this software in terms of resolution,
FPS, etc. If I use it, it will only be to do something
like send an instruction video to a friend trying to
set up email. Compression is probably the most
important factor to me.


Ads
  #62  
Old November 15th 18, 12:56 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Bill in Co
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,927
Default What's a good free desktop screen recorder?

Mayayana wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote

There don't seem to be any listings or reviews of their programs that
I've found (but I only looked briefly), nor have I found out much of
anything about this "videotool.net" company, or even where it is based.
If you want to be suspicious of something, I think this is a case in
point.


Yes. That's as I described in my own experience.
But I tried it. I monitored for any suspicious activity.
It's one of the few that never tried to call home at all.
And it works.

just that you (generally) get what you pay for.


?? Was anyone talking about being willing to
pay for this? The question was about "good free".


Actually, many of the items on his site have a suggested "Buy Now"
(donation) price, and there is a tab for Donations starting at $50, so go
figure. Yes, the question is about GOOD free, and I think that's still a
bit up in the air (as to how good it is - see my comment on codecs and
compression).

I also don't think that's necessarily true when it
comes to software. There are lots of factors. Many
good products are free because there's just no
market for selling them. Most of the software I use
is free. And I also use it because it's usually the best
I've found. I've paid for some that I think is worth it.
But with most things there's no need to pay.


For some things I'm with you.

At the other extreme are the corporate monopoly
products -- MS Office and Photoshop. In that case
you get less than you pay for, since equivalents can
be had far cheaper.


I'm not sure there really is an *equivalent* of Photoshop. Like I wouldn't
call GIMP an *equivalent*. For MS Office I'd say the same thing too,
although there are some pretty good clones. WPS Office or Softmaker Free
Office comes to mind. Or maybe LibreOffice. But, let's be honest - none
of these are *equivalent*.

Then there are things that are not the best but are
good enough. Example: PDF XChange Viewer free version
can edit PDFs. It's not as capable as Acrobat, but it does
what I need and Acrobat is ridiculously overpriced.


OK, but as you say, it's not equivalent.

snipped some for brevity


Also, from the posting Arlen gave, you'll notice it's using an old mp4
codec, and not the h.264 version.


I don't see Arlen's posts and I don't really
understand what that means. Smaller files? The
Videotool people seem to have written their own
stuff, but I don't know anything about video
programming, so I can't assess it. What's superior
about h.264 and what's the old version?


Yes, it means smaller files. A LOT smaller files due to *much* better
compression. Something similar applies to WMV files, too: WMV9 is vastly
superior to WMV7.

If these freebie programs are using the old codecs, then you're really not
getting much. But ok, I'll concede they're at least better than MPG
(mpeg2), for what that's worth. :-)

Maybe somebody can
investigate a few of their programs further.


Like you, perhaps? If everyone tries some
of them, we get a good sample.


I'll think about it - perhaps moreso with regards to the "mp4 video
converter", which I'd probably have more use for, since I'm not doing much
"screencasting" these days. :-)

It looks to me like Videotools is a small, non-US
shareware company. Probably non-English, as Paul
noted. But that doesn't make them suspicious.
The software works. I should note, though, that I'm
not picky in this case. I haven't looked into options
with any of this software in terms of resolution,
FPS, etc. If I use it, it will only be to do something
like send an instruction video to a friend trying to
set up email. Compression is probably the most
important factor to me.


If compression is the most important factor to you, I don't think this is
all that great. As I mentioned, it's not even using the h264 codec for its
mp4 files, from what was posted, so I feel it's a bit stuck in the stone
age. :-) But it also might be why it is free, too.


  #63  
Old November 15th 18, 03:20 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default What's a good free desktop screen recorder?

"Bill in Co" wrote

| I'm not sure there really is an *equivalent* of Photoshop.

Paint Shop Pro

|For MS Office I'd say the same thing too,
| although there are some pretty good clones. WPS Office or Softmaker Free
| Office comes to mind. Or maybe LibreOffice. But, let's be honest - none
| of these are *equivalent*.
|
I'd agree Libre Office is not equal, but I would
say it's equivalent. If you're in a corporate job
where you need 100% consistency with MS Office
then you need MS Office. But if you just need to
do what MS Office can do then there's Libre Office.
Similarly with PSP. I think there's another option,
too, that used to be Mac-only, but I can't think of
the name now. I've been using PSP for 20 years.
I'm sure there's a filter or two that PS has and PSP
doesn't. But the main reason PS is a success is
the same reason MS Office is a success. They've
established a standard in business, with people
for whom wasting hundreds of dollars on overpriced
software is a bargain compared to not using the
standard.

| Yes, it means smaller files. A LOT smaller files due to *much* better
| compression. Something similar applies to WMV files, too: WMV9 is
vastly
| superior to WMV7.
|
| If these freebie programs are using the old codecs, then you're really not
| getting much. But ok, I'll concede they're at least better than MPG
| (mpeg2), for what that's worth. :-)
|

Interesting. I'd be curious to see someone do a
test, comparing the two. It sounds like you're
not sure whether it's old or not, but if something
else makes smaller files I'd be interested. Though at
this point, of all the things I tried that work on XP,
only Cute and the ByteScout program were without
problems. Bytescout also uses its own libraries
and saves as WMV9. But it did try to call an IP
at Cloudflare.

When I open the Cute video I made in Avidemux it
says codec 4CC: DIVX. VLC just says it's MPEG-4.
Encoded by Lavf54.63.104. That's all Greek to me.
I don't know anything about video encoding options.
You're saying that's outdated and much bigger than
it needs to be?

| Maybe somebody can
| investigate a few of their programs further.
|
| Like you, perhaps? If everyone tries some
| of them, we get a good sample.
|
| I'll think about it - perhaps moreso with regards to the "mp4 video
| converter", which I'd probably have more use for, since I'm not doing much
| "screencasting" these days. :-)
|
I was thinking more that you could try some of
these screen recorders. So far no one but me is
reporting tests. As for converting, I think Avidemux
or VLC can do most of that sort of thing.

| If compression is the most important factor to you, I don't think this is
| all that great. As I mentioned, it's not even using the h264 codec for
its
| mp4 files, from what was posted, so I feel it's a bit stuck in the stone
| age. :-) But it also might be why it is free, too.
|

Yes, but are you sure? It sounds like you
haven't actually tried it. And what's the stone
age? Are we talking 10% bigger? 500% bigger?
If you know about video formats then maybe
you can explain the difference here.


  #64  
Old November 15th 18, 03:20 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.freeware
arlen michael holder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default What's a good free desktop screen recorder?

On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 14:25:24 -0700, Bill in Co wrote:

Also, from the posting Arlen gave, you'll notice it's using an old mp4
codec, and not the h.264 version.


Hi Bill in Co,
That's a good catch on the older codecs, which I hadn't actually noticed.
Hence, I appreciate that you brought it up since I, like you, did NOT see
this program on _any_ review that I had summarized prior in this thread.

I also ran the mp4 file through the latest Handbrake converter freewa
https://handbrake.fr/
Which defaults to re-encoding it as H.264 (if that's needed).
(I'm a noob on video codecs so I'm just bringing this up as a possibility.)

I also use Shotcut freeware to convert from anything to anything, where
Shotcut creates, by default, an H.264/AAC MP4 file, but where Shotcut
can read anything and write anything (IMHO).
https://www.shotcutapp.com/download/

Since ShotCut is probably the best video editor freeware on Windows (IMHO),
I would use that first, before any others, if editing was needed.
  #65  
Old November 15th 18, 03:32 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
arlen michael holder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default What's a good free desktop screen recorder?

On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 21:20:35 -0500, Mayayana wrote:

I was thinking more that you could try some of
these screen recorders. So far no one but me is
reporting tests. As for converting, I think Avidemux
or VLC can do most of that sort of thing.


While Mayayana has been wonderful running most of the tests, be careful
about what he's been saying as he's been literally dead wrong on about a
half dozen things he's said in this thread alone.

It's fine for Mayayana to be dead wrong, but I wouldn't want others to be
misled by his completely incorrect statements which he makes without
bothering to check his facts (Mayayana's statements are very easily proved
dead wrong from the record in this thread).

For example, others have been running tests (e.g., Paul and me) and where
Mayayana says he can't find programs which were already reported multiple
times (with carefully tested URLs) and he keeps "finding" programs which
have long before been reported in this thread.

The good news is that Mayayana's wonderful tests have been incorporated
into all the summary reviews in this thread, for example (with complete
URLs), as have been every comment, including those from Shadow, Paul, Bill,
etc.
  #66  
Old November 15th 18, 05:00 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Bill in Co
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,927
Default What's a good free desktop screen recorder?

Mayayana wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote

I'm not sure there really is an *equivalent* of Photoshop.


Paint Shop Pro


I respectfully disagree that it is equivalent (but see my comment below on
equivalence). (And just for the record, I do like PSP, and actually use it,
but only an older version, which satisfies me just fine). I have no need or
use for Photoshop and all it's "elegance" and bloat. That said, I well
imagine a graphics designer or artist most likely would. (I could probably
make a similar comment about the old Adobe Audition 3, but I'll stop here
:-)

For MS Office I'd say the same thing too,
although there are some pretty good clones. WPS Office or Softmaker
Free Office comes to mind. Or maybe LibreOffice. But, let's be honest
- none of these are *equivalent*.

I'd agree Libre Office is not equal, but I would
say it's equivalent. If you're in a corporate job


Equivalent to me means equal to.

where you need 100% consistency with MS Office
then you need MS Office. But if you just need to
do what MS Office can do then there's Libre Office.

Similarly with PSP. I think there's another option,
too, that used to be Mac-only, but I can't think of
the name now. I've been using PSP for 20 years.
I'm sure there's a filter or two that PS has and PSP
doesn't. But the main reason PS is a success is
the same reason MS Office is a success. They've
established a standard in business, with people
for whom wasting hundreds of dollars on overpriced
software is a bargain compared to not using the
standard.


As I said, I use an older version of PSP and really like it. (And I have no
use for Photoshop, either). I'm just not into it. (But audio
restoration - that's another story).

Yes, it means smaller files. A LOT smaller files due to *much* better
compression. Something similar applies to WMV files, too: WMV9 is
vastly superior to WMV7.

If these freebie programs are using the old codecs, then you're really
not getting much. But ok, I'll concede they're at least better than MPG
(mpeg2), for what that's worth. :-)


Interesting. I'd be curious to see someone do a
test, comparing the two. It sounds like you're
not sure whether it's old or not, but if something
else makes smaller files I'd be interested. Though at
this point, of all the things I tried that work on XP,
only Cute and the ByteScout program were without
problems. Bytescout also uses its own libraries
and saves as WMV9. But it did try to call an IP
at Cloudflare.


From what I recall, the difference between h.264 (or x264), and say h.263 or
Xvid, is about comparable to the difference between WMV9 and WMV7 (which
probably makes sense, given the differences in their implementation and when
they came out). I can't recall how much difference in compressibility and
filesize there was, but I distinctly recall it was very significant when I
tried saving some video files using either one. But if you want a
guessestimate, just from memory, I'd say it was on the order of 25-50%
(reduction in filesize for comparable appearance).

There are a lot of articles on the web covering these different codecs for
the interested reader, and the design and understanding of what goes into
each of these different compression modalities. It is *quite* complicated
(on how the macroblocks are encoded, etc, etc), and a bit above my paygrade.
One general tradeoff is the tradeoff made between the required processing
power, compression level, resultant artifacts, and the resultant filesize -
for comparable visual results. The newer codecs require a bit more
processing power (and time) - and that's one big tradeoff. But the ones
I've mentioned aren't even that new anymore. We're now heading into h.265
territory, which offers double the data compression of h.264 (I did find
that documented).

When I open the Cute video I made in Avidemux it
says codec 4CC: DIVX. VLC just says it's MPEG-4.
Encoded by Lavf54.63.104. That's all Greek to me.
I don't know anything about video encoding options.
You're saying that's outdated and much bigger than
it needs to be?

Maybe somebody can
investigate a few of their programs further.

Like you, perhaps? If everyone tries some
of them, we get a good sample.


I'll think about it - perhaps moreso with regards to the "mp4 video
converter", which I'd probably have more use for, since I'm not doing
much "screencasting" these days. :-)

I was thinking more that you could try some of
these screen recorders. So far no one but me is
reporting tests. As for converting, I think Avidemux
or VLC can do most of that sort of thing.

If compression is the most important factor to you, I don't think this is
all that great. As I mentioned, it's not even using the h264 codec for
its mp4 files, from what was posted, so I feel it's a bit stuck in the
stone age. :-) But it also might be why it is free, too.


Yes, but are you sure? It sounds like you
haven't actually tried it. And what's the stone
age? Are we talking 10% bigger? 500% bigger?
If you know about video formats then maybe
you can explain the difference here.


Around 25-50% as my guessestimate from memory (i.e. not 10%, and certainly
NOT 500%!). You might be able to find a good and more accurate comparison
on some websites. (I took a quick look, but didn't).

As I mentioned before, I had worked with some mp4 and wmv video files that
used those types of codecs, and the results were significant enough that I
basically gave up on anything that used either wmv7 or h263, due to the
concominant larger filesizes and poorer compression ratios.


  #67  
Old November 15th 18, 05:39 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.freeware
arlen michael holder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default What's a good free desktop screen recorder?

On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 21:00:03 -0700, Bill in Co wrote:

I do like PSP, and actually use it,
but only an older version, which satisfies me just fine).


Hi Bill in Co,
I looked into my log file to see where my PSP came from, which was he
http://www.oldversion.com/windows/download/paint-shop-pro-5-01

I have no need or
use for Photoshop and all it's "elegance" and bloat.


There _is_ a (sort of kind of pretty much effectively) "free" version of
PhotoShop, where it's an older version (creative suite 2 version) that was
made available by Adobe for re-use (but which works fine for occasional
use).
https://www.techspot.com/downloads/4948-adobe-creative-suite-free.html

The "legal" pundits here love to wax philosophically about that URL, but
that doesn't change the fact that it's (kind of sort of) available from
Adobe & that it certainly works.
  #68  
Old November 15th 18, 03:11 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default What's a good free desktop screen recorder?

"Bill in Co" wrote

| I'd agree Libre Office is not equal, but I would
| say it's equivalent. If you're in a corporate job
|
| Equivalent to me means equal to.
|
A slice of bread might have equivalent nutritional
value to a scoop of pasta, but the two are not equal
and the actual mg of starch or B vitamins won't be
the identical.
Equivalent means essentially the same. "For all practical
purposes". Or as I often see online: "For all intensive
purposes". (The Internet demonstrates that a
surprising number of people are "hearing literate".)

So what I was saying is that for most people who
don't specifically require MS Office in their work,
Libre Office is equivalent. It does all the same things
they might do in MS Office.

I don't have a lot of experience with either. I know
LO doesn't quite handle complex docx tables accurately.
And of course it doesn't handle VBA. Hardcore Word
experts won't be able to live with LO. But most
people don't need all that. I don't need to deal with
people sending me docx with complex tables. I just
need to do contracts, bills, business cards, estimates,
etc and I need to be able to save those as PDF. And
sometimes I need to be able to receive a DOC or DOCX.
LO does all that.

The last time I tried PS was v. 5. It was pretty much
the same thing as PSP. And there's not a lot a graphic
editor needs to do once it handles layers, multiple undo,
etc. So I expect the main difference now with PS is
custom filters. It's the only tool to use for people doing
things like magazine layout. And for graphics pros who
want their peers to think they use PS. Though I only
know one graphics pro. He does architectural renderings
and original "industrial" art. He uses exclusively Corel
Draw on Windows, rather than Adobe on a Mac.

I do some minor original graphics, photo work, and
image editing for websites. I haven't found anything
PSP can't handle. (And Aftershot Pro for RAW images,
though PSP16 handles some of that.) I don't need to
make a fashion model look like she's not anorectic and I
don't need to smoothly remove objects from images
very often.

The point being that these programs are *equivalent*
for most people. Only in certain cases are the high-price
products necessary. Even then it's more for swank than
for functionality. (I know an architect who always buys
the latest MS Office because he doesn't want to be caught
using an older version. He thinks it looks unprofessional.
He's wasting a lot of money, but for his particular
use it's a reasonable investment. He needs to present
himself as a talented, creative winner at the top of his
game in order to get jobs. Being an architect, as with
art in general, is more about swank and reputation
than it is about talent.)

But to an extent I agree with you. GIMP seems to do
most of the same things, but the GUI is such a mess that
I don't consider it to be a contender. Usability counts.

My main purpose in attacking things like PS and
MS Word is to counteract the marketing that trains
people to think they're something special and that their
price is therefore justified. They're not and it isn't.
They just happen to have achieved the status of
being the industry standard.

Yesterday I built two garden gates and today I have
to install them. With a DeWalt portable drill. Why DeWalt?
Because it works very well and costs far less than the
brands that have achieved status as industry standard.
But those other brands sell well because young hotshot
carpenters want to look official and they've read
the marketing, along with the tainted media reviews,
that say Brand X is a must-have for anyone serious
about their work.

| From what I recall, the difference between h.264 (or x264), and say h.263
or
| Xvid, is about comparable to the difference between WMV9 and WMV7
.....
| guessestimate, just from memory, I'd say it was on the order of 25-50%
| (reduction in filesize for comparable appearance).
|

Then I guess the search continues. I'm mostly
on XP, like you, so I haven't tried some of the
options available, like OBS. I think the bytescout
program saved as WMV9 and that didn't seem
different in size from the mp4 from videotool, but
I didn't do a careful comparison. And as I noted,
the bytescout program was slightly spywarish,
trying to call home to Cloudflare at least once.


  #69  
Old November 15th 18, 06:49 PM posted to alt.windows7.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default What's a good free desktop screen recorder?

Mayayana wrote:

Then I guess the search continues. I'm mostly
on XP, like you, so I haven't tried some of the
options available, like OBS. I think the bytescout
program saved as WMV9 and that didn't seem
different in size from the mp4 from videotool, but
I didn't do a careful comparison. And as I noted,
the bytescout program was slightly spywarish,
trying to call home to Cloudflare at least once.


I'm surprised you haven't written your own by now :-)

There's a couple options for hardware-related capture.
NVidia have their own Shadowplay for screen capture.
On AMD, we have to rely on the capture feature in
MSI Afterburner (which may be a good thing in that
it's less hardware specific - Afterburn is for both
AMD and NVidia).

*******

Apparently Shadowplay for NVidia cards has an option
to record the desktop (instead of sticking with just
game recording). But, not only is it restricted to
NVidia (the OP was AMD), but it's also limited to
certain models.

https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answ...rd-gameplay%3F

GeForce Experience Share uses the dedicated accelerator
for video encoding called NVENC found on Kepler
GeForce 600 series and higher GPUs. For optimal
experience, a GeForce GTX 650 or higher is required.

For more information please visit:

http://www.geforce.com/geforce-exper...m-requirements

The main advantage of that, is the zero CPU load. As
it uses the encoder on the video card to make the
output file smaller.

*******

The closest AMD gets is "MSI Afterburner", which doesn't
list screen recording, but the function is there... somewhere.
They mention a term here "Play.TV" but I don't know what that is.

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/co...to_shadowplay/

The release notes could use a rewrite.

https://www.guru3d.com/files-details...-download.html

The setup for the screen recorder is shown here. This individual
set his to "uncompressed" during capture, which implies it
isn't using a video card compression method. Maybe it's only for
games, but that's something a person could test and see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMMW0HkOaQU

Paul
  #70  
Old November 16th 18, 01:44 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default What's a good free desktop screen recorder?

"Paul" wrote

| Then I guess the search continues. I'm mostly
| on XP, like you, so I haven't tried some of the
| options available, like OBS. I think the bytescout
| program saved as WMV9 and that didn't seem
| different in size from the mp4 from videotool, but
| I didn't do a careful comparison. And as I noted,
| the bytescout program was slightly spywarish,
| trying to call home to Cloudflare at least once.
|
| I'm surprised you haven't written your own by now :-)
|

As Clint Eastwood put it, "A man's just got to
know his limitations."


  #71  
Old November 16th 18, 01:48 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default What's a good free desktop screen recorder?

"Wolf K" wrote

| If I need to share a document, I Print to PDF if it has graphics, or
| save in Rich Text Format if it doesn't. RTF has the advantage of being
| easily editable, while many users can't easily edit a PDF.
|

No argument there. I think PDF is entirely unsuitable
for anything except reading. But I find that increasingly
my customers want PDF receipts rather than written.
That's fine with me because it's simpler. I guess that's
the other thing PDF is good for: creating a convincing
illusion of immutability. If people get a receipt they want
it to seem official, not easily editable.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.