In message , Mayayana
writes:
[]
recently mounted my monitor on a drawer slide because
I was leaning forward so much it was hurting my neck.
now I just sit down and pull the monitor toward me...
So I can't lean forward. Though I'm not sure what
the radiation from that close display might be doing to
my eyes.

CRT or LCD?

| When you say they want "vacation photos to fit on disk", do you mean "to
| fit on _a_ disc", i. e. to make a CD (or, I guess these days, a DVD), to
| give to friends/relatives?

No I just meant that a lot of people are constantly
taking 10MB phone shots and then want to save them
on their computer. The people who complain that they

Yes; I've yet to buy (or use at work!) a digital camera where one of my
first actions is to change the default resolution to other than the
maximum. (I use higher resolution when I _need_ it.) But I'm very much
in the minority in this: virtually everyone I know takes all pictures at
maximum resolution.

need to buy a 4 TB hard disk because the 2 TB is full.

It's not just the storage space needed: needlessly big images take a lot
longer to load, and then to zoom, pan, and so on. But we dinosaurs
haven't grasped the point: technology will just improve the speed of
processors, and the size and access speed of storage, such that such
considerations become irrelevant. Which I have to accept, though I hate.

They don't edit. They don't cull their collection. They
also don't resize the images for better storage. They
don't really get the system. They just think of it as
"photos" that came from their phone and went onto their
hard disk. It's like the people who invite you for dinner
and have a 7' high bookcase full of photo albums.
("These 3 albums are little Ricky's christening. Wait'll
you see! And it was so cheap at the drugstore to
get all the shots printed!")

For someone like that, who's not familar with file
formats and doesn't edit photos, a BMP would just
be a JPG that's very big. They wouldn't see the
point.

And for the use they're putting them to, there wouldn't _be_ a point (in
keeping bitmaps). Their pictures are probably looked at no more than
[insert your number of choice here; I'd say between 5 and 10] times.

| (I remember using a Sony camera at work, that had a floppy drive built
| in - and you could get several pictures on, of acceptable quality! [That
| camera also had something I've never seen before or since: the ability
| to use ambient light to backlight the display.])

Wow. 1.44 MB? They must have been small images.
But I suppose they were also 256 colors?

I can't remember. It _was_ some time ago! The novelty at the time was
the fact that it _had_ the built-in drive; the novelty looking back, was
the ability to turn the backlight off. I don't _think_ they were 256
colours, though I'm pretty sure they _were_ JPEG, so not _that_ small.
(I think it might have been 1 or 2 megapixel [though for the uses we
had, I suspect I selected VGA a lot of the time].)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The first objective of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make Parliament
utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overturn or diminish trial by
jury ..." Lord Devlin (http://www.holbornchambers.co.uk)