Can we improve screenshot DPI

In article , Wolf K
wrote:


[...]
From the user's POV a standard method would mean they
wouldn't, for example, have to worry about whether someone else can open
the files sent to them, something that happens far too often when
volunteers get together to get something done.
the users have a standard method: file/open..., drag/drop or even just
tap the space bar, regardless of format. it 'just works'.
[...][

I wasn't talking about how to open a file.

yes you were.

this is what you wrote:
wouldn't, for example, have to worry about whether someone else can open
the files sent to them, something that happens far too often when

you *specifically* mentioned worrying about opening files.

if you weren't talking about opening files, why did you mention it and
what were you talking about? that there are many formats?

users don't give a **** how many formats there are. all they care about
is that they can get their work done.

Your repeated misreading indicates that you have a serious problem
relating statements in context.

i'm going by what you wrote.

On Aug 26, 2017, Wolf K wrote
(in article ):

On 2017-08-26 15:07, nospam wrote:
[...]
Ordinary users have a
huge variety of devices and software. Most of them buy new(er) stuff
every 5 to 10 years,
most people replace their computer every 3-5 years and 2-3 years for
mobile.

That may be true globally, but the devil is in the details.

which means legacy systems abound.
no they don't.
[...]

What I can't understand is
a) why you keep making categorical either/or statements.

Wolf K, meet nospam. Nospam, Wolf K.

b) why you refuse to believe other people's reports.

Welcome to the nospam vortex.

BTW: Is this response the right way up?

Data point for you: About a month ago, the secretary for a local
volunteer group that I belong to sent around a document, then sent it
again in different format, because too many recipients couldn't open it.

Just use a digital cutting torch. ;-)

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 17:24:47 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2017-08-26 15:07, nospam wrote:

[...]
From the user's POV a standard method would mean they
wouldn't, for example, have to worry about whether someone else can open
the files sent to them, something that happens far too often when
volunteers get together to get something done.
the users have a standard method: file/open..., drag/drop or even just
tap the space bar, regardless of format. it 'just works'.
[...][

I wasn't talking about how to open a file.

Your repeated misreading indicates that you have a serious problem
relating statements in context.


-BINGO-

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Wolf K
wrote:


And it supports my opinion that standards should not be left up to
developers. Too many clashes between people with limited imaginations
and unlimited egos. Your tidbit about devs who assumed unchanging de
facto standards, aka past practice, reinforces that opinion.
those standards should be left to developers because they're the ones
who will be using the standards.

Your comment completely misunderstands my intention. But this time I
won't explain it to you.

you completely misunderstand software development.

My comment wasn't about about software development, it was about people.
Last I looked, the class "people" still included the class "software
developers". You probasbly have more up-to-date information than I, of
course.

developers are the only people who are in a position to decide what
should be part of a given software/hardware standard since they're the
ones who have to deal with it going forward, not people as a whole and
certainly not end users in any way.

In article , Wolf K
wrote:


Data point for you: About a month ago, the secretary for a local
volunteer group that I belong to sent around a document, then sent it
again in different format, because too many recipients couldn't open it.

big deal.

that just means she doesn't know what she's doing and also has nothing
to do with the existence of legacy systems. find another volunteer
asap.

It meant that she understood that she hadn't taken the existence of
legacy machines into account. When she circulated a document that she
had prepared on her machine, she ran into a common problem: A few of the
recipients didn't have the software that could read it. The secretary
output the document in a format those old system could read. So you see,
the glitch had everything to do with the existence of legacy systems.

there's nothing to take into account.

distribute a pdf and anyone can read it, even on old outdated systems.

user error.

BTW, I've run into the same problem, which is why I now circulate only
RTFs or PDFs.

so why didn't she do as you do, distribute a pdf?

like i said, she didn't know what she was doing.

And why did this stupid glitch happen? For reasons that have nothing to
do with software development, but everything with to do with people.
Such as deciding to break compatibility in order to force software
updates in order to increase revenue.

microsoft had a long history for doing exactly that and could get away
with it because they had a monopoly where people had no choice but to
suck it up.

fortunately, those days are gone.

In article , Wolf K
wrote:

this is what you wrote:
wouldn't, for example, have to worry about whether someone else can open
the files sent to them, something that happens far too often when

you *specifically* mentioned worrying about opening files.

Which you took to mean "how-to-open", but which the context (packaging
data) makes quite clear meant "able-to-open". The fact is that too many
people still run into the problem of not being able to open a file, not
because they don't know how, but because their system can't handle that
particular data-package.

they don't run into that problem much anymore.

the vast majority of files are in well established formats, such as
jpeg, pdf, mp3, etc., which every system can handle.

those who use niche formats (e.g., dicom) will have the necessary
software to handle it.

In the Olden Days (which you should recall,
what with your decades of experience), that was in fact so common that
image-viewer ads (for example) touted the number of different file
formats they could open. Even today, the latest upgrade to one of my
programs highlights that it can not only open but process more file
formats than ever before.

and just how often do you actually *use* all of those obscure formats?

if you weren't talking about opening files, why did you mention it and
what were you talking about? that there are many formats?

Well, of course. That still causes problems, even if you don't run
across it.

it doesn't cause problems because the common formats are supported and
the rare ones are just that, rare.

users don't give a **** how many formats there are. all they care about
is that they can get their work done.

Yeah, and they royally ****ed off when they can't open a file because
it's in a format their software can't open.

simple solution: download the appropriate software.

user error.