Does any other program (windows or linux) do screenshot annotation efficiently?

[Danny D.]

Q: Does any other freeware program do screenshot annotation efficiently?

While almost all programs perform almost all tasks, the three
critical screenshot annotation tasks that are often implemented
inefficiently are:
a) arrowing (should be as simple as click + click + bend ... you're done)
b) texting (should be as simple as click + type ... you're done)
c) circling (should be as simple as click + sweep + click ... you're done)

Other annotation-critical tasks (which most programs do well) are:
d) cropping (should be as simple as click + click ... you're done)
e) converting (should be as simple as file->save as ... you're done)

Programs on windows that fail the simple annotation triad test are:
- IrfanView, GIMP, MSPaint, Photo!Editor, FastOne, & SketchUP

Programs on linux that fail the simple annotation triad test are:
- GIMP, Inkscape, ImageMagick, F-Spot, Viewnior, Krita, Xfig,
- Xara Xtreme, Xpaint, Shutter, Solang, Fotoxx, & Kolourpaint

The only program on Windows that passes that simple test is
Paint.NET; while no program passes that test, unfortunately,
on Linux.

Here is a WINDOWS example: (using Paint.NET)
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/12745022/img/12745022.gif

Here is a LINUX example: (using Kolourpaint)
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/12745771/img/12745771.png

In summary, what is required for efficiency is:
a) arrowing (should be two clicks plus bending to avoid obstacles)
b) texting (should be a single click and then you start typing)
c) circling (should be as simple two clicks)

Amazing as it may sound, out of the score of freeware image
editors listed above, only one performs all three tasks efficiently.

QUESTION:
Do you know of any other freeware image editor that can perform
those three critical screenshot-editing tasks efficiently?

[Jennifer Murphy]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 16:13:04 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
<da...@pleasedontemail.com> wrote:

>Q: Does any other freeware program do screenshot annotation efficiently?

Are there any non-freeware programs that meet your requirements?

[Danny D.]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:11:13 -0700 Jennifer Murphy wrote:

>>Q: Does any other freeware program do screenshot annotation efficiently?
>
> Are there any non-freeware programs that meet your requirements?

I've tested every freeware program that was suggested, so
I'm not an expert on the payware programs.

However, I would be shocked if something professional,
such as Photoshop or PSP didn't meet the three critical
requirements for annotating screenshots for typical DIYs.

Personally, I don't have any professional programs installed.
Therefore ...
May I ask of the Photoshop or PSP folks these three questions:

Q1: When you text, must you draw a bounding box first?

Q2: When you draw arrows, do you only need to draw the beginning
and end points, and can you subsequently modify the curve as needed
to create dashed lines and to flow, as needed, around obstacles?

Q3: When you draw an open circle, is the task as efficient
as simply sweeping out the desired area?

If the answer to the three questions asked of all screenshot
annotation programs is YES (which I presume it would be given people
PAID for the privilege of ease of use), then those payware programs
meet the three critical requirements for annotating screenshots
efficiently.

[Jennifer Murphy]

It seems to me that you have spent an enormous amount of time testing
"free" software, without, apparently, any regard to the cost of your
time. Is it worthless? I don't understand the fixation of things that
are "free"? I believe the old adage that "there is no such thing as a
free lunch".

Why have you not also tested some "payware" offerings? I use Visio for a
lot of the type of markup you mention. It's not free, but I believe it
has a trial version. There is a bit of a learning curve and it doesn't
do everything. ymmv

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 17:41:34 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
<da...@pleasedontemail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:11:13 -0700 Jennifer Murphy wrote:
>
>>>Q: Does any other freeware program do screenshot annotation efficiently?
>>
>> Are there any non-freeware programs that meet your requirements?
>
>I've tested every freeware program that was suggested, so
>I'm not an expert on the payware programs.
>
>However, I would be shocked if something professional,
>such as Photoshop or PSP didn't meet the three critical
>requirements for annotating screenshots for typical DIYs.
>
>Personally, I don't have any professional programs installed.
>Therefore ...
>May I ask of the Photoshop or PSP folks these three questions:
>
>Q1: When you text, must you draw a bounding box first?

No, in Photoshop and Elements.

>
>Q2: When you draw arrows, do you only need to draw the beginning
>and end points, and can you subsequently modify the curve as needed
>to create dashed lines and to flow, as needed, around obstacles?

No, in Photoshop and Elements. You have a wide choice of arrows
(straight, curved, curve direction, barb style, etc), dashed lines and
such. An arrow is like a type character and can be set to size,
position, shape, and color. And, it can be rotated.

>
>Q3: When you draw an open circle, is the task as efficient
>as simply sweeping out the desired area?

Yes, and there are choices that involve holding down certain keys to
make the circle open from the center point or simply open where you
start it. You can also set stroke size and color.

>If the answer to the three questions asked of all screenshot
>annotation programs is YES (which I presume it would be given people
>PAID for the privilege of ease of use), then those payware programs
>meet the three critical requirements for annotating screenshots
>efficiently.

Did you read what you wrote? You *don't* want a YES for Q1. In Q2,
you don't have to bother setting points in Photoshop and Elements.

What you are using is a nice little program, but it's not a new
religion or a cure for cancer. I'm not interested in converting you
to an Adobe product, and I'm certainly not interested in stepping back
to a minor program.

Most people don't buy a program to annotate screen shots. That's one
use, but we buy programs to do that and many other things.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[p-0''0-h the cat (ES)]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 16:13:04 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
<da...@pleasedontemail.com> wrote:

>Does any other freeware program do screenshot annotation efficiently?

http://jetscreenshot.com/

--
p-0.0-h the cat

Attention new posters. Beware: ACF is under attack by a small number of
trolls who post false and misleading replies to questions here, and run
campaigns of lies against some of the long term regulars in order to get
them killfiled.

These are my recommendations to filter their malicious trollspam

By filtering out messages containing q34w...@yahoo.com
<< q34wsk20-at-yahoo.com>> AND <<no...@nowhere.com>> in the "From:" header
and messages containing "ccountrynet" in the path statement you will knock
out more than half or even three quarters of the trollspamming in this group.

I also recommend filtering all crossposts, anonymous remailers, and any
posts with these providers in the path:

eternal-september.org
dotsrc.org
ccountrynet < especially this one
individual.net
easynews.com
anonymous

[Rikishi42]

On 2013-04-21, Danny D. <da...@pleasedontemail.com> wrote:
> Q: Does any other freeware program do screenshot annotation efficiently?
>
> While almost all programs perform almost all tasks, the three
> critical screenshot annotation tasks that are often implemented
> inefficiently are:
> a) arrowing (should be as simple as click + click + bend ... you're done)
> b) texting (should be as simple as click + type ... you're done)
> c) circling (should be as simple as click + sweep + click ... you're done)
>
> Other annotation-critical tasks (which most programs do well) are:
> d) cropping (should be as simple as click + click ... you're done)
> e) converting (should be as simple as file->save as ... you're done)
>
> Programs on windows that fail the simple annotation triad test are:
> - IrfanView, GIMP, MSPaint, Photo!Editor, FastOne, & SketchUP

I find that Irfanview does those tasks rather wall, actually.
What do you find wrong with it ?



--
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson

[JJ]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 16:13:04 +0000 (UTC), Danny D. wrote:
> QUESTION:
> Do you know of any other freeware image editor that can perform
> those three critical screenshot-editing tasks efficiently?

If image editor classification is very important, then try these two (no
screenshot feature; have to use PrintScreen key, then paste from clipboard).

Photo Filtre
Serif PhotoPlus

Otherwise, use Greenshot. A screenshot tool that can do non-eye-candy tasks
for screenshots.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/greenshot/

[Danny D.]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:20:48 -0700 Jennifer Murphy wrote:

> It seems to me that you have spent an enormous amount of time testing
> "free" software, without, apparently, any regard to the cost of your
> time.

That I've spent an enormous amount of time researching is true.

I've often said the biggest expense, by far, of freeware is the cost
of the testing required. Asking questions helps ameliorate that a bit
because you can take advantage of other people's tests (and they of yours).

But the same can be said of anything else in life.

Take the well-known example of buying a car.

I researched buying an automobile such that I knew all the internal
code names for the vehicles being considered and the costs and
code names for the colors and options (which helps immensely when
talking seriously with the three types of dealer sales people
(lot, fleet, and customer service) so that I used type of salesperson
for what they were most useful for.

Lot salesperson: Use him to test drive (leave your wallet at home!)
Customer service: Use her to locate the exact options and vehicle.
Fleet salesperson: Use them to buy the car at a hundred over cost.

Same concept with freeware.

Use each one for what it does best.

[Danny D.]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:20:48 -0700 Jennifer Murphy wrote:

> I believe the old adage that "there is no such thing as a
> free lunch".

While that is true, I do not believe in the old adage that
you get what you pay for.

Having taken economics 101 (micro and macro), it's clear you
pay what other people are willing to pay for.

You're competing with the rest of the world - many of whom may
not have done the research that you've done - so they're making
bad decisions (perhaps).

> Why have you not also tested some "payware" offerings?

I've been using freeware since the early 1990s, and I've concluded
there are few programs most ever have to overtly buy. One is
Microsoft Office - and even then, it's only because everyone else
uses it and because the replacements (open office, star office, etc.)
are not compatible.

Another is a tax program.

But, for photo editing, I've never needed a payware solution.

Of course, I'm not CREATING content from scratch - I merely edit
screenshots - so the needs will dictate the software.

[Danny D.]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:20:48 -0700 Jennifer Murphy wrote:

> I use Visio for a lot of the type of markup you mention.

I've used Visio at work for creating huge flowcharts.
It's a nice program.

But, as you said, it's not free (and trialware doesn't count as
it will expire or watermark the results).

The question is whether PSP and Photoshop (or Visio) do this:

A) Do they just text without having to draw a bounding box?
B) Do they arrow just by clicking two points & bending as needed?
C) Do they circle just by sweeping out the desired area?

If PSP, or PhotoShop, or Visio can do that (which I hope they do
since people PAID for these conveniences), then they meet the
simplest requirement of annotating screenshot for DIYS (which I
write a lot of).

If not - then that would be sad.

[Danny D.]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 16:53:20 -0400 Tony Cooper wrote:

>>Q1: When you text, must you draw a bounding box first?
> No, in Photoshop and Elements.

Good! Efficiency & ease of use is what I'd expect if I paid
for these programs.

>>Q2: When you draw arrows, do you only need to draw the beginning

>>and end points, and can you subsequently modify the curve?

>
> No, in Photoshop and Elements. You have a wide choice of arrows
> (straight, curved, curve direction, barb style, etc), dashed lines and
> such. An arrow is like a type character and can be set to size,
> position, shape, and color. And, it can be rotated.

Hmm... I'm going to presume that means the arrows have an ease
of use that is expected, even though I'm not sure how they work
if you can't set the starting and ending points easily, and then
subsequently modify the curve to flow around obstacles.

>>Q3: When you draw an open circle, is the task as efficient
>>as simply sweeping out the desired area?
> Yes,

Good. Of the three critical annotation tasks, this was the one
that is most often in most programs - but it's on the short list
because some freeware (e.g., Gimp) can't do it easily, even though
the task is considered a basic one in screenshot annotation.

I thank you for the answers for Photoshop and Elements.
I'm a bit confused about the arrow answer - but I presume from
your tone that the arrows are easy & intuitive.

It turns out that the arrows are the HARDEST feature to find
in freeware! That, and simple texting without drawing bounding boxes
(although all freeware does texting but not few freeware does arrowing).

If I had to pick the ONE critical task, it's ease of arrowing that
distinguishes one package from another - therefore it's good to know
that Elements and Photoshop apparently do arrows easily and efficiently.

[Danny D.]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 16:53:20 -0400 Tony Cooper wrote:

> What you are using is a nice little program, but it's not a new
> religion or a cure for cancer.

I heartily agree.

In fact, I hate some things about Paint.NET on Windows, such as the
fact it is slow as a dog (compared to, say, Irfanview); but, man,
does it do arrows well!

I'll be the arrowing on Paint.NET is (almost?) as good as what you
said Elements and Photoshop has. And, the texting is a simple click
and type (which is the way it should be).

Unfortunately, on Linux, it's bothersome that the best I can find,
Kolourpaint, doesn't really do arrows at all (you have to manually draw
them and you can't easily reshape them and it's nearly impossible to dash
them and you have to manually draw the arrow points, etc.).

Plus, you have to draw bounding boxes before you can text in Kolourpaint.

So, I never said they were the cure for cancer - but - they're free - and,
they're the best I can find for the task of annotating screenshots. If
someone suggests better freeware - I'd be ecstatic to test it out.

> I'm not interested in converting you to an Adobe product, and I'm
> certainly not interested in stepping back to a minor program.

This thread originally did not have alt.graphics.photoshop on it; that
newsgroup was added to get the answer of how efficiently payware programs
handled the three critical tasks:
a) Texting by simply typing
b) Arrowing by simply choosing the points
c) Circling by simply sweeping the area

Of course, there are other tasks (but most freeware does them well already):
d) Cropping (especially limiting the cropping to a given ratio, such as 4:3)
e) Saving as another format (especially with vectors, layers & transparency)
f) Creating collages (mixing photos together as a single composition)

> Most people don't buy a program to annotate screen shots. That's one
> use, but we buy programs to do that and many other things.

I agree the professionals have harder goals. For example, one thing I've
found hard to find in freeware is a good "magic wand" such that you can
cut a person out of one photo and insert into another background photo.

But you don't have that tougher problem set with screenshot annotations.

[Danny D.]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 01:31:54 +0200 Rikishi42 wrote:

> I find that Irfanview does those tasks rather wall,
> actually. What do you find wrong with it ?

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear that Irfanview is a great program.

Irfanview is the best freeware out there for some thing:
- It's fast <-- really really fast!
- It crops efficiently <-- almost perfectly (it just needs ratioing)
- It converts to most other formats nicely
- It gives Windows users batch rotation & resizing & renaming
etc.

But, if you've ever used Irfanviews' "Paint Dialog" to edit out
your name and other information from a screenshot, you'll want to
pull your hair out in frustration (as compared to, say, the ease
of performing those same tasks in Linux Kolourpaint).

And, if you've ever tried to draw arrows in Irfanview, for screenshot
annotation, you're crazy (once you see how well Windows Paint.NET does
arrows).

And, IIRC, Irfanview requires you to have to draw a bounding box just
to type simple text (although, if Irfanview did arrowing and editing
better, I'd probably settle for the way it does text as I already
settled for the bounding-box method on Linux 'cuz I can't find any
freeware on Linux that does texting efficiently).

[Savageduck]

As far as a technically free (it is part of the Mac OS bundle)
application I use for simple annotation, including arrows, is "Preview".
So I can do stuff like this.
< http://db.tt/TvLjnQMr >

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <2013042121394580278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> As far as a technically free (it is part of the Mac OS bundle)
> application I use for simple annotation, including arrows, is "Preview".
> So I can do stuff like this.
> < http://db.tt/TvLjnQMr >

preview does what he needs but he doesn't have a mac.

[bugbear]

Danny D. wrote:
> Q: Does any other freeware program do screenshot annotation efficiently?
>
> While almost all programs perform almost all tasks, the three
> critical screenshot annotation tasks that are often implemented
> inefficiently are:

Try googling

screenshot annotation

if that's what you want, rather than "proving" that image
editors aren't screenshot annotators.

BugBear

[Danny D.]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:39:45 -0700 Savageduck wrote:

> As far as a technically free (it is part of the Mac OS bundle)
> application I use for simple annotation, including arrows, is "Preview".
> So I can do stuff like this.
> < http://db.tt/TvLjnQMr >

I was on Linux when I saw this, so, I had the best of the worst
for arrows - but sometimes it's nice to have curved arrows as
shown here for your photo.
http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/12755909/img/12755909.jpeg

Does this Macintosh application curve them?

NOTE: The Windows Paint.NET arrows are vastly superior to what I drew
just now with Kolourpaint on Linux - but the point is the same.

[Danny D.]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 01:23:32 -0400 nospam wrote:

> preview does what he needs but he doesn't have a mac.

This is the USENET, so, we have all types - therefore, it's nice
to answer the questions for all three major platforms:

Best freeware arrows on Windows: Paint.NET (far better than all the others)
Best freeware arrows on Linux: Kolourpaint (just so so ... nothing special)
Best freeware arrows on Mac: Preview? (but does it text & circle?)

Arrows are very important when screenshot anontating because you
may wish to flow around objects in a graceful way that follows
the inherent curves of the screenshot.

[Savageduck]

On 2013-04-22 08:26:04 -0700, "Danny D." <da...@pleasedontemail.com> said:

> On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 21:39:45 -0700 Savageduck wrote:
>
>> As far as a technically free (it is part of the Mac OS bundle)
>> application I use for simple annotation, including arrows, is "Preview".
>> So I can do stuff like this.
>> < http://db.tt/TvLjnQMr >
>
> I was on Linux when I saw this, so, I had the best of the worst
> for arrows - but sometimes it's nice to have curved arrows as
> shown here for your photo.
> http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/12755909/img/12755909.jpeg
>
> Does this Macintosh application curve them?

No. It is only intended for making on the fly simple annotations.

With Adobe's Photoshop and Illustrator, where you have several ways of
going about dealing with this sort of thing using text layers and
vector graphics all sorts of stuff is possible. Unfortunately you are
only seeking free solutions in the Linux World, so there is little
point in going further. However, it might be worthwhile for you to
check "Inkscape".
< http://inkscape.org/ >

> NOTE: The Windows Paint.NET arrows are vastly superior to what I drew
> just now with Kolourpaint on Linux - but the point is the same.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Danny D.]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:57:33 +0100 bugbear wrote:

> Try googling screenshot annotation
> if that's what you want, rather than "proving" that image
> editors aren't screenshot annotators.

Interesting point, especially when it comes to freeware.

Since you're experienced with freeware, you're aware that the goal
is to have as few programs as possible that get the job done.

The main job for screenshot editors, is, basically, the following
[ ] Crop (preferably with an option for standard aspect ratios such as 4:3)
[ ] Read & convert to/from desired formats (certainly jpg, gif, & png)
[ ] Cut & paste & move objects on the screen (layers & transparency are helpful)
[ ] Annotate text (with standard font, color, & transparency options)
[ ] Circle objects (again, with standard color, thickness, & shape options)
[ ] Point to objects (this is the hardest of all features to find in freeware)

Since most image editors handle most of those tasks, my point is
contrary to yours, in that I feel image editors can certainly perform
screenshot annotations.

However, the hardest feature to find in freeware image editors is
the "arrowing" feature. In fact, on Linux, I still have never found
an image editor that handles arrows anywhere near as well as Paint.NET
does on Windows.

And, on Windows, no other image editor handles arrows as well as
Paint.NET does. Why not? I'm not sure - but kudos to whomever it is
that wrote Paint.NET as only they understood arrows.

I'm told, from the professional folks on a.g.p that Photoshop and
Elements handle arrows well, so, again, we have the case that image
editors can certainly perform screenshot annotation tasks.

I will take a look at the screenshot annotators for Linux, but, from
a quick scan, most seem to concentrate on the image-capture task, which
is so trivial to accomplish at a single keyclick on all operating
systems that I have to wonder why they promote the capture task so
much. But I'll take a look & report back, just in case there's a good
one out there on Linux just waiting to be discovered.

[o...@two.three]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 17:13:04 +0100, Danny D. wrote
(in article <kl136g$79r$1...@speranza.aioe.org>):

> Here is a WINDOWS example: (using Paint.NET)
> http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/12745022/img/12745022.gif
>
> Here is a LINUX example: (using Kolourpaint)
> http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/12745771/img/12745771.png
>
> In summary, what is required for efficiency is:
> a) arrowing (should be two clicks plus bending to avoid obstacles)
> b) texting (should be a single click and then you start typing)
> c) circling (should be as simple two clicks)

Personally I'd take a different approach, namely:

(a) paste each screenshot into a larger canvas

(b) use the empty margins for the textual annotations

(c) use straight lines, with or without arrowheads and boxes or circles, to
link each annotation to the relevant sections of the screenshot.

Any general comments would go underneath the screenshot.

This should give a much clearer, cleaner presentation with no need for curved
and over-under arrows or for putting text on the screenshot itself.

Just my thoughts as someone who, I confess, has only ever annotated
screenshots very quickly and crudely. Feel free to curse me as a fool for
not actually answering your questions.

[Whisky-dave]

On Monday, April 22, 2013 4:59:26 PM UTC+1, Danny D. wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:57:33 +0100 bugbear wrote:
>
>
>
> > Try googling screenshot annotation
>
> > if that's what you want, rather than "proving" that image
>
> > editors aren't screenshot annotators.
>
>
>
> Interesting point, especially when it comes to freeware.
>
>
>
> Since you're experienced with freeware, you're aware that the goal
>
> is to have as few programs as possible that get the job done.

I thought it was to get it done for free, or am I missing the point.

[Danny D.]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:00:27 +0100 one wrote:

> Personally I'd take a different approach, namely:

No approach is wrong.

> (a) paste each screenshot into a larger canvas
> (b) use the empty margins for the textual annotations

This is a fine approach. In fact, my recent example on a.h.r
(alt.home.repair) for cleaning toilet bowls with pool acid used
a larger canvas, with a white background, just as you suggest:
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/12756361/img/12756361.png

> (c) use straight lines, with or without arrowheads and boxes or circles, to
> link each annotation to the relevant sections of the screenshot.

Straight lines are fine; but sometimes a curved line will avoid
obstacles and provide a more seamless integration. Any good
screenshot editor will allow both - plus - Paint.NET allows
dashed arrows, various arrowheads, double-headed arrows, etc.

> Any general comments would go underneath the screenshot.

I agree it is especially useful to grow the canvas of the screenshot
in order to edit below (or to the right). I had not mentioned this
as a requirement simply because most photo editors already grow
the canvas reasonably easily. For example, in Kolourpaint on Linux,
you just grab the sides and expand, and the canvas automatically
grows. You contract the canvas the same way. Very efficient.

[notbob]

>
> Best freeware arrows on Windows: Paint.NET (far better than all the others)
> Best freeware arrows on Linux: Kolourpaint (just so so ... nothing special)
> Best freeware arrows on Mac: Preview? (but does it text & circle?)

You haven't googled for linux image annotate yet, have you? If you
had, you'd have run across shutter. I don't know if it has curved
arrows, as I've not tried it, but it sounds good.

nb

[Danny D.]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:50:47 +0000 Danny D. wrote:

> I agree it is especially useful to grow the canvas of the screenshot
> in order to edit below (or to the right). I had not mentioned this
> as a requirement simply because most photo editors already grow
> the canvas reasonably easily. For example, in Kolourpaint on Linux,
> you just grab the sides and expand, and the canvas automatically
> grows. You contract the canvas the same way. Very efficient.

One point to make though, even though all programs can grow
the canvas, is that it's generally done in one of two ways.

1. You accurately specify the size & shape to grow (down to the pixel);
2. Or, you simply stretch & contract the canvass as needed.

Most freeware uses the first method, e.g., The GIMP, as shown below
(which is instantly accurate, but time consuming since you often
have to size & resize the canvas by trial and error):
http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/12756530/img/12756530.png

However, I prefer the elegant simplicity of the second method,
as shown below using KolourPaint on Linux:
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/12756637/img/12756637.png

As always, the goal is to get the job done in the most efficient
manner possible. Otherwise, you won't bother with the screenshot.

You'll notice, for example, VERY FEW people bother to screenshot
what they doing. I do it all the time. Why? Because it's so efficient
for me - that it only takes a few seconds.

If everyone screenshotted like I do, the USENET would be even more
useful than what it is today. All it takes is the right freeware.

[Rikishi42]

On 2013-04-22, Danny D. <da...@pleasedontemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 01:31:54 +0200 Rikishi42 wrote:
>
>> I find that Irfanview does those tasks rather wall,
>> actually. What do you find wrong with it ?
>
> I'm sorry if I wasn't clear that Irfanview is a great program.
>
> Irfanview is the best freeware out there for some thing:
> - It's fast <-- really really fast!
> - It crops efficiently <-- almost perfectly (it just needs ratioing)
> - It converts to most other formats nicely
> - It gives Windows users batch rotation & resizing & renaming
> etc.

Well, cropping, resizing and converting are the main uses I have for it, so
I'm mostly satisfied with it.

> But, if you've ever used Irfanviews' "Paint Dialog" to edit out
> your name and other information from a screenshot, you'll want to
> pull your hair out in frustration (as compared to, say, the ease
> of performing those same tasks in Linux Kolourpaint).

Not something I often have a need for. Been there, done that, and it's not
it's main feature. :-)

> And, if you've ever tried to draw arrows in Irfanview, for screenshot
> annotation, you're crazy (once you see how well Windows Paint.NET does
> arrows).

Well, I'm crazy. Or not just very demanding. I sometimes do that with
Irfanview, and the result may not be very nice, but it's good enough for me.

> And, IIRC, Irfanview requires you to have to draw a bounding box just
> to type simple text (although, if Irfanview did arrowing and editing
> better, I'd probably settle for the way it does text as I already
> settled for the bounding-box method on Linux 'cuz I can't find any
> freeware on Linux that does texting efficiently).

I've allways regretted not having a Linux version of Irfanview. But hey,
that's what virtual machines and office Windows laptops are for !

[Tony Cooper]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 03:43:56 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D."
<da...@pleasedontemail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 16:53:20 -0400 Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>>>Q1: When you text, must you draw a bounding box first?
>> No, in Photoshop and Elements.
>
>Good! Efficiency & ease of use is what I'd expect if I paid
>for these programs.
>
>>>Q2: When you draw arrows, do you only need to draw the beginning
>>>and end points, and can you subsequently modify the curve?
>>
>> No, in Photoshop and Elements. You have a wide choice of arrows
>> (straight, curved, curve direction, barb style, etc), dashed lines and
>> such. An arrow is like a type character and can be set to size,
>> position, shape, and color. And, it can be rotated.
>
>Hmm... I'm going to presume that means the arrows have an ease
>of use that is expected, even though I'm not sure how they work
>if you can't set the starting and ending points easily, and then
>subsequently modify the curve to flow around obstacles.

You place the arrow anywhere in the image and then move it to the
specific point you want it to be located. Dead simple. If you want
it longer or shorter or fatter or thinner, you use Free Transform. If
you want it curved or distorted or whatever, you use Transform.

If you want a second or third arrow, you merely copy/paste that layer
and move the arrow on that layer. You don't have to re-draw the
arrow.

[Savageduck]

BTW: here are a couple of curved arrows, a circle and some text done in
Photoshop on to of what has become my annotation demo.
< http://db.tt/Q5JNM5Fz >


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[hjmler]

"Danny D." <da...@pleasedontemail.com> wrote in message
news:kl136g$79r$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> Q: Does any other freeware program do screenshot annotation efficiently?
>
> While almost all programs perform almost all tasks, the three
> critical screenshot annotation tasks that are often implemented
> inefficiently are:

> a) arrowing (should be as simple as click + click + bend ... you're done)
> b) texting (should be as simple as click + type ... you're done)
> c) circling (should be as simple as click + sweep + click ... you're done)
>
> Other annotation-critical tasks (which most programs do well) are:
> d) cropping (should be as simple as click + click ... you're done)
> e) converting (should be as simple as file->save as ... you're done)
>
> Programs on windows that fail the simple annotation triad test are:
> - IrfanView, GIMP, MSPaint, Photo!Editor, FastOne, & SketchUP
>

> Programs on linux that fail the simple annotation triad test are:
> - GIMP, Inkscape, ImageMagick, F-Spot, Viewnior, Krita, Xfig,
> - Xara Xtreme, Xpaint, Shutter, Solang, Fotoxx, & Kolourpaint
>
> The only program on Windows that passes that simple test is
> Paint.NET; while no program passes that test, unfortunately,
> on Linux.

>
> Here is a WINDOWS example: (using Paint.NET)
> http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/12745022/img/12745022.gif
>
> Here is a LINUX example: (using Kolourpaint)
> http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/12745771/img/12745771.png
>
> In summary, what is required for efficiency is:
> a) arrowing (should be two clicks plus bending to avoid obstacles)
> b) texting (should be a single click and then you start typing)
> c) circling (should be as simple two clicks)
>

> Amazing as it may sound, out of the score of freeware image
> editors listed above, only one performs all three tasks efficiently.

>
> QUESTION:
> Do you know of any other freeware image editor that can perform
> those three critical screenshot-editing tasks efficiently?
>

look for last freeware edition of FastStone Capture

[Gordon Freeman]

"Danny D." <da...@pleasedontemail.com> wrote:

> And, if you've ever tried to draw arrows in Irfanview, for screenshot
> annotation, you're crazy (once you see how well Windows Paint.NET does
> arrows).
>
> And, IIRC, Irfanview requires you to have to draw a bounding box just
> to type simple text

If you use the Irfanview Paint plugin to do text you don't need to select
an area first, you just click where you want the text and a text box pops
up to enter the text. Only downside is it's a bit more clunky than the text
appearing directly on the picture as you type.

The only trouble with arrows in Irfanview is you can't reposition them
except by hitting undo and trying again, having moveable arrows would
require them to be stored as separate objects, but Irfanview works directly
with the pixels, it doesn't do objects or layers, for that you need a
proper drawing program. I use Photoshop when I want to be able to
reposition lines, re-edit text, etc., but overall Irfanview is fine for
most of the simple image editing and annotating I want to do.

[Alan Meyer]

On 04/21/2013 02:20 PM, Jennifer Murphy wrote:
...

> It seems to me that you have spent an enormous amount of time testing
> "free" software, without, apparently, any regard to the cost of your

> time. Is it worthless? I don't understand the fixation of things that
> are "free"? I believe the old adage that "there is no such thing as a
> free lunch".
...

Doesn't commercial software require the same amount of reading reviews
and testing?

There are a few commercial products that are so well established
(Windows, Office, Photoshop, Acrobat, Flash, etc.) that you may not need
to test them, but there are a lot of freeware programs in that category
too (Linux, Apache, OpenOffice/LibreOffice, MySQL, Python, Perl, Java,
Emacs, vim, etc. For image viewing or editing IrfanView [viewing] and
the GIMP [editing] have been around forever and are really good.)

Free has some financial benefits that go beyond initial purchase price,
including:

Put it on all of your computers at no extra charge.
Update to latest version at no extra charge.

If you have 3-4 computers in your household and new versions of the
software come out every 3-4 years, over 10 years, the cost advantages
add up.

I also like the security you get with open source programs. Security
holes get found and plugged. If you're running Linux, the security and
stability updates will happen automatically, not just for Linux itself,
but for all of your applications. On Windows, Microsoft will do that
for Microsoft's products, but for the rest you're dependent on whatever
update policies the vendor provides. Oftentimes you get very
inconvenient demands from 3 or 4 different programs that clamor for
separate updates - where Linux applies all of them automatically and at
once.

The authors of open source programs don't have the same motivation or
the same opportunity to bury spyware in their products. Even if they
wanted to they know that other programmers would spot it and blast them.

Besides the spyware issue, open source programs are often better behaved
with regard to not installing third party toolbars, not running
services, not grabbing file extension handlers without permission, not
putting stuff in the Windows registry that doesn't go away during an
uninstall, etc. I'm not saying that all commercial programs are
offenders in those areas, or that no open source programs are, but my
impression is that the track record for open source is better in these
areas.

And if you install a free program and two weeks later learn about a
better one, you're not out any money for the product you no longer want
to use.

Alan

[Eric Stevens]

Here is something is something as an annotation demo that I did a
couple of years ago.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31088803/Cover%201.jpg
Warning: an A3 original.
I notice some of the thinner lines have suffered slightly in the
multiple translations from the original 'PSPImage' (or may be a form
of aliasing on my screen?)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <kl4p3p$ull$1...@dont-email.me>, Alan Meyer <ame...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> > It seems to me that you have spent an enormous amount of time testing
> > "free" software, without, apparently, any regard to the cost of your
> > time. Is it worthless? I don't understand the fixation of things that
> > are "free"? I believe the old adage that "there is no such thing as a
> > free lunch".
>

> Doesn't commercial software require the same amount of reading reviews
> and testing?

the point is he only looked at free solutions, ignoring a whole class
of apps just because he's too cheap to spend a couple bucks on quality
software. how much did he really save by wasting so many hours without
finding a solution?

> There are a few commercial products that are so well established
> (Windows, Office, Photoshop, Acrobat, Flash, etc.) that you may not need
> to test them, but there are a lot of freeware programs in that category
> too (Linux, Apache, OpenOffice/LibreOffice, MySQL, Python, Perl, Java,
> Emacs, vim, etc. For image viewing or editing IrfanView [viewing] and
> the GIMP [editing] have been around forever and are really good.)

emacs and vim? seriously? the gimp is not 'really good', it's roughly
where photoshop was a decade ago. openoffice might be ok by itself but
it won't work particularly well for those who exchange files with
others who use the real thing. apache, mysql, perl and python are not
apps people run. java is a security nightmare, as is flash.

> Free has some financial benefits that go beyond initial purchase price,
> including:
>
> Put it on all of your computers at no extra charge.
> Update to latest version at no extra charge.

depends on the apps.

many paid apps work the same way. all apps from the mac app store do.

> If you have 3-4 computers in your household and new versions of the
> software come out every 3-4 years, over 10 years, the cost advantages
> add up.

depends on the apps.

meanwhile, using software that does exactly what is needed is usually
well worth whatever extra expense might be incurred.

> I also like the security you get with open source programs. Security
> holes get found and plugged. If you're running Linux, the security and
> stability updates will happen automatically, not just for Linux itself,
> but for all of your applications. On Windows, Microsoft will do that
> for Microsoft's products, but for the rest you're dependent on whatever
> update policies the vendor provides. Oftentimes you get very
> inconvenient demands from 3 or 4 different programs that clamor for
> separate updates - where Linux applies all of them automatically and at
> once.

again, depends on the apps.

some paid apps auto-update, and on a mac, all apps from the app store
update automatically (unless disabled). also, linux updates don't
necessarily affect apps.

> The authors of open source programs don't have the same motivation or
> the same opportunity to bury spyware in their products. Even if they
> wanted to they know that other programmers would spot it and blast them.

the authors of open source programs don't have the same motivation to
make their products not suck either, namely money. money is a very big
motivator.

that's why commercial software is usually significantly more capable
and more reliable than open source solutions. it's why pros use
photoshop instead of the gimp. there is the occasional exception, but
it's rare.

> Besides the spyware issue, open source programs are often better behaved
> with regard to not installing third party toolbars, not running
> services, not grabbing file extension handlers without permission, not
> putting stuff in the Windows registry that doesn't go away during an
> uninstall, etc. I'm not saying that all commercial programs are
> offenders in those areas, or that no open source programs are, but my
> impression is that the track record for open source is better in these
> areas.

depends on the app and what options the user picked in the installer.
often, avoiding that extra stuff is nothing more than deselecting a
checkbox.

> And if you install a free program and two weeks later learn about a
> better one, you're not out any money for the product you no longer want
> to use.

that's why you use the trial version first or do more research before
purchase.

[Danny D.]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:24:19 -0700 Savageduck wrote:

> BTW: here are a couple of curved arrows, a circle and some text done in
> Photoshop on to of what has become my annotation demo.
> < http://db.tt/Q5JNM5Fz >

Exactly! Those arrows are beautiful!

I especially like the variable width of the streamlined arrows
(although I would have made the point a lot smaller!). :)

And the text is fine ... as is the circle and ellipse.

Those three things are the hardest to find in freeware, done well:
1. Text (just typing without having to define an area)
2. Arrows (you draw them and the arrows are automatically put in)
3. Circles, boxes, ellipses, etc. (often used to isolate something)

I presume they were all easy to add in both Photoshop & Elements?

[Danny D.]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:14:36 -0400 Tony Cooper wrote:

> If you want a second or third arrow, you merely copy/paste that layer
> and move the arrow on that layer. You don't have to re-draw the
> arrow.

That's a very nice feature, especially when you have tiered arrows,
as shown in the Bugatti picture.

[Danny D.]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:48:32 -0400 Alan Meyer wrote:

> Besides the spyware issue, open source programs are often better behaved

Regarding behavior ...

One huge difference I've noted in installing freeware over
bloatware is the HUGE difference in installation & removal times.

For example, installing iTunes (freeware but also bloatware), takes
quite a long time, adds hidden daemons (such as bonjour & apple device
services), and doesn't even respect the place you tell it to put it.

Likewise with Office, which takes forever to install, and anything
from Adobe or Oracle (even Quicktime, ironically, takes forever to
install).

With almost all freeware, they install quickly - and - best of all,
they almost always uninstall just as quickly.

[Danny D.]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 00:17:22 -0400 nospam wrote:

> the point is he only looked at free solutions, ignoring a whole class
> of apps just because he's too cheap to spend a couple bucks on quality
> software. how much did he really save by wasting so many hours without
> finding a solution?

The canonical rule in all software whenever you have a task to accomplish,
is to first perform that task in freeware - and then - only when you
can't possibly perform it in freeware - by then - you know enough to
figure out what features in the payware are worth paying for.

If you just dumbly go and buy payware, you'll never know what could
have been done just as easily in freeware - and - worse yet - you may
not have the best solution but you're stuck with it (unless you have
infinite money).

For example, if you need to burn a DVD, on Windows, you try imgburn.
Likewise, on Linux, you'd try K3b or Brasero to burn DVDs.
If the freeware doesn't do what you need, then (and only then), you
bother researching & buying Nero or the equivalent in payware.

The beauty of doing it first in freeware, even if you fail, is that
you then know EXACTLY what you need in the payware - hence - you'll
make a much smarter payware decision.

Bringing it back to the point, were I to consider payware for screen
annotation, I know EXACTLY what I want that payware to do BEFORE I
lay down the money for the payware.

Freeware is, essentially, the 1st step in the payware decision tree.

[Poutnik]

Danny D. posted Tue, 23 Apr 2013 05:26:40 +0000 (UTC)

>
> The canonical rule in all software whenever you have a task to accomplish,
> is to first perform that task in freeware - and then - only when you
> can't possibly perform it in freeware - by then - you know enough to
> figure out what features in the payware are worth paying for.
>

.........

> Freeware is, essentially, the 1st step in the payware decision tree.

Very good point.
To buy it, and to know why I have bought it
are qualitatively very different levels.


--
Poutnik

[Danny D.]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:48:32 -0400 Alan Meyer wrote:

> Doesn't commercial software require the same amount of
> reading reviews and testing?

Here's one functional freeware/payware decision tree:

a) Define the task you need to accomplish:
e.g., Let's say you want to create a pencil drawing from this JPG:
http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/12760612/img/12760612.jpg

b) Find & test the best freeware for the task:
e.g., Inkscape: Path->Trace Bitmap->(o)Edge detection->Update->OK
Or, Gimp: Filters->Edge Detect->Difference of Gaussians
etc.
http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/12760601/img/12760601.jpg

c) If that freeware fails, or only partially performs the desired task,
then, after having tested it, you now know much more about what to
look for in the payware that you shell out your hard-earned cash for.

In fact, the payware, to be worth anything, has to do the task better,
or easier than the freeware did it - or - it has to do a task that the
freeware just couldn't do.

The point is:
Armed with freeware knowledge, you'll make better payware decisions!

[nospam]

In article <kl56v5$oej$6...@speranza.aioe.org>, Danny D.

<da...@pleasedontemail.com> wrote:

> In fact, the payware, to be worth anything, has to do the task better,
> or easier than the freeware did it - or - it has to do a task that the
> freeware just couldn't do.

which is almost always the case, otherwise nobody would pay for it.
they'd use the free stuff.

as they say, you get what you pay for.

> The point is:
> Armed with freeware knowledge, you'll make better payware decisions!

nonsense. the best way to make a decision is ask those who have done
similar tasks what the various options are.

[nospam]

In article <kl562f$oej$5...@speranza.aioe.org>, Danny D.

<da...@pleasedontemail.com> wrote:

> > the point is he only looked at free solutions, ignoring a whole class
> > of apps just because he's too cheap to spend a couple bucks on quality
> > software. how much did he really save by wasting so many hours without
> > finding a solution?
>
> The canonical rule in all software whenever you have a task to accomplish,
> is to first perform that task in freeware - and then - only when you
> can't possibly perform it in freeware - by then - you know enough to
> figure out what features in the payware are worth paying for.

that is the stupidest thing i've heard in a very long time.

if you don't know what features you need to do a task, how the hell are
you going to find freeware to do it?

there also might be freeware that does whatever it is but the user
experience sucks and paid software is just more pleasant to use.

> If you just dumbly go and buy payware, you'll never know what could
> have been done just as easily in freeware - and - worse yet - you may
> not have the best solution but you're stuck with it (unless you have
> infinite money).

nobody said to ignore freeware. if a free solution does the job,
great. however, if a paid solution does a better job, then *that* could
be the way to go, rather than suffer with something that doesn't work
that well only because it's free.

evaluate all options and choose the best tool for the job.

> For example, if you need to burn a DVD, on Windows, you try imgburn.
> Likewise, on Linux, you'd try K3b or Brasero to burn DVDs.
> If the freeware doesn't do what you need, then (and only then), you
> bother researching & buying Nero or the equivalent in payware.

or just use what's built into the os.

> The beauty of doing it first in freeware, even if you fail, is that
> you then know EXACTLY what you need in the payware - hence - you'll
> make a much smarter payware decision.

nonsense. you need to know that *before* you start looking for any
software.

> Bringing it back to the point, were I to consider payware for screen
> annotation, I know EXACTLY what I want that payware to do BEFORE I
> lay down the money for the payware.

you should know what you want before you look at any solution, free or
paid. otherwise you'll waste your time looking at dozens of apps and
get nowhere.

> Freeware is, essentially, the 1st step in the payware decision tree.

no it isn't. look at all options and see which one best fits the task.

[nospam]

In article <kl55o3$oej$4...@speranza.aioe.org>, Danny D.

<da...@pleasedontemail.com> wrote:

> > Besides the spyware issue, open source programs are often better behaved
>
> Regarding behavior ...
>
> One huge difference I've noted in installing freeware over
> bloatware is the HUGE difference in installation & removal times.

a huge generalization, contradicted by your other post regarding cd
burning software.

installing either of the two examples you list is more involved than
paid software which is nothing more than dragging the app to wherever
or clicking a download button. but when have facts mattered to linux
zealots anyway.

> For example, installing iTunes (freeware but also bloatware), takes
> quite a long time, adds hidden daemons (such as bonjour & apple device
> services),

those *have* to be installed for itunes to work.

> and doesn't even respect the place you tell it to put it.

that is a flat out lie.

> Likewise with Office, which takes forever to install, and anything
> from Adobe or Oracle (even Quicktime, ironically, takes forever to
> install).

big apps take longer to install than small ones.

> With almost all freeware, they install quickly - and - best of all,
> they almost always uninstall just as quickly.

again, it depends on the apps. there is plenty of freeware that's a
bitch to install (particularly on linux) and plenty of paid software
that's trivial, as simple as dragging or clicking a download button.

[Savageduck]

In Photoshop they are added to a unique layer as a vector graphic
custom shape, using the tool box provided. Then each can be scaled,
rotated, perspective adjusted, warped, and more.

Each element, arrow, circle, text, etc. are added it individual layers,
and can be returned to as you proceed to tweak the effect until you are
ready to flatten those layers to produce your final product.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

Mercedes is going to be miffed that you think that 1936 540K Special,
is a Bugatti.

This is a Bugatti:
< http://db.tt/HAs3aoEP >

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Poutnik]

nospam posted Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:56:29 -0400

>
> In article <kl56v5$oej$6...@speranza.aioe.org>, Danny D.
> <da...@pleasedontemail.com> wrote:
>
> > In fact, the payware, to be worth anything, has to do the task better,
> > or easier than the freeware did it - or - it has to do a task that the
> > freeware just couldn't do.
>
> which is almost always the case, otherwise nobody would pay for it.
> they'd use the free stuff.

There is plenty of payware that have better freeware alternative.
People are tricked to buy it, as do not know better options.

>
> as they say, you get what you pay for.

It is easy to pay for junk.
Sometimes it is unbelievable what authors want to be paid for...

>
> > The point is:
> > Armed with freeware knowledge, you'll make better payware decisions!
>
> nonsense. the best way to make a decision is ask those who have done
> similar tasks what the various options are.

That is already a part of a good decision tree.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

nospam posted Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:56:33 -0400

>
> > The beauty of doing it first in freeware, even if you fail, is that
> > you then know EXACTLY what you need in the payware - hence - you'll
> > make a much smarter payware decision.
>
> nonsense. you need to know that *before* you start looking for any
> software.
>

Before that you cannot know
what freeware cannot provide you,
or just by sufficient way.

What you should know before is
what you want to do,
eventually ways how it can/usually is done.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Poutnik posted Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:15:43 +0200

P.S: You may have not noticed he said payware, not software.

You need in payware something you miss in freeware,
otherwise freeware is sufficient.


--
Poutnik

[Eric Stevens]

Do you call that a Bugatti?

THIS is a Bugatti!
http://www.carsmoveus.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/1299990841497.jpg

(With apologies to Crocodile Dundee).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Whisky-dave]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 5:17:22 AM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <kl4p3p$ull$1...@dont-email.me>, Alan Meyer <ame...@yahoo.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > It seems to me that you have spent an enormous amount of time testing
>
> > > "free" software, without, apparently, any regard to the cost of your
>
> > > time. Is it worthless? I don't understand the fixation of things that
>
> > > are "free"? I believe the old adage that "there is no such thing as a
>
> > > free lunch".
>
> >
>
> > Doesn't commercial software require the same amount of reading reviews
>
> > and testing?
>
>
>
> the point is he only looked at free solutions, ignoring a whole class
>
> of apps just because he's too cheap to spend a couple bucks on quality
>
> software.

A couple of bucks...... just how much does photoshop cost ;-0
btu there are other cheaper alternatives, but I've also seen peoloe spend too much on cheap products.

> how much did he really save by wasting so many hours without
>
> finding a solution?

Not sure that matters unless you practically already know of a solution and have avoided it due to cost.

> > Free has some financial benefits that go beyond initial purchase price,
>
> > including:
>
> >
>
> > Put it on all of your computers at no extra charge.
>
> > Update to latest version at no extra charge.
>
>
>
> depends on the apps.

And the OS of course, I'm running OS X so for me Apple apps are one purchase cost and I can put them on all my other Mac computers for free if they can handle it.

>
> many paid apps work the same way. all apps from the mac app store do.
>
>
>
> > If you have 3-4 computers in your household and new versions of the
>
> > software come out every 3-4 years, over 10 years, the cost advantages
>
> > add up.
>
>
>
> depends on the apps.
>
>
>
> meanwhile, using software that does exactly what is needed is usually
>
> well worth whatever extra expense might be incurred.

For me it would depend on that extra cost whichy for me mean photoshop isn't worth buying niether is Word or excel.

>
>
> some paid apps auto-update, and on a mac, all apps from the app store
>
> update automatically (unless disabled). also, linux updates don't
>
> necessarily affect apps.
>
>
>
> > The authors of open source programs don't have the same motivation or
>
> > the same opportunity to bury spyware in their products. Even if they
>
> > wanted to they know that other programmers would spot it and blast them.
>
>
>
> the authors of open source programs don't have the same motivation to
>
> make their products not suck either, namely money. money is a very big
>
> motivator.

yes that's the bproblem with some such products, even products that say they do the same.

> that's why commercial software is usually significantly more capable
>
> and more reliable than open source solutions. it's why pros use
>
> photoshop instead of the gimp. there is the occasional exception, but
>
> it's rare.

There's also the advantage of phone or on-line support and for some such immediate support is invaluabale.

>
> > And if you install a free program and two weeks later learn about a
>
> > better one, you're not out any money for the product you no longer want
>
> > to use.
>
>
>
> that's why you use the trial version first or do more research before
>
> purchase.

Yep, but reasearching 20 free procdicts can be a pain, researching 10 cheap products is even worse. Which is why such forums as this are useful in getting other opinions.

[Savageduck]

Oh! Come on! You could have come up with a more recent shot of what
probably became German mess kits in 1940.
...and even if it survived WWII, it was just a boulevardier, an
overweight sled, which oozed down the road and would have been less
than adequate on the track.

The magnesium body, 1935 Type 57S Competition, "Electron Torpedo", I
shot at Laguna Seca in 2010 would have left your sled in its dust.

...and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC.
< http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ >
or this 1938 GP streamliner
< http://db.tt/DZTELetj >

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <MPG.2be0446...@news.eternal-september.org>, Poutnik

<pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> > > In fact, the payware, to be worth anything, has to do the task better,
> > > or easier than the freeware did it - or - it has to do a task that the
> > > freeware just couldn't do.
> >
> > which is almost always the case, otherwise nobody would pay for it.
> > they'd use the free stuff.
>
> There is plenty of payware that have better freeware alternative.

not really. there are a few exceptions, but in general, commercial
software is much better, often significantly so.

> People are tricked to buy it, as do not know better options.

bullshit. nobody is tricked into buying anything.

> > as they say, you get what you pay for.
>
> It is easy to pay for junk.

it's also easy to not pay for it.

people are smart enough to decide if something is junk or not.

> Sometimes it is unbelievable what authors want to be paid for...

sometimes it's unbelievable the crap people use just because it's free.

[nospam]

In article <d33bd678-1610-463d...@googlegroups.com>,

Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > It seems to me that you have spent an enormous amount of time testing
> > > > "free" software, without, apparently, any regard to the cost of your
> > > > time. Is it worthless? I don't understand the fixation of things that
> > > > are "free"? I believe the old adage that "there is no such thing as a
> > > > free lunch".
> > >
> > > Doesn't commercial software require the same amount of reading reviews
> > > and testing?
> >
> > the point is he only looked at free solutions, ignoring a whole class
> > of apps just because he's too cheap to spend a couple bucks on quality
> > software.
>
> A couple of bucks...... just how much does photoshop cost ;-0
> btu there are other cheaper alternatives, but I've also seen peoloe spend too
> much on cheap products.

very often, people buy something cheap (and not just software), only to
find out that it doesn't quite work and then they have to go back and
buy something better. they end up paying much more than if they bought
the better product in the first place.

> > how much did he really save by wasting so many hours without
> > finding a solution?
>
> Not sure that matters unless you practically already know of a solution and
> have avoided it due to cost.

it matters if your time is worth something.

> > > Free has some financial benefits that go beyond initial purchase price,
> > > including:
> >
> > > Put it on all of your computers at no extra charge.
> > > Update to latest version at no extra charge.
> >
> > depends on the apps.
>
> And the OS of course, I'm running OS X so for me Apple apps are one purchase
> cost and I can put them on all my other Mac computers for free if they can
> handle it.

the os doesn't matter. what matters is the restrictions of a given app.

the mac app store makes it easy to buy and update apps on multiple
machines but that doesn't mean it can't be done in other ways and on
other platforms. plenty of paid apps have had free upgrades and allow
multiple installs for *years*.

some apps might restrict the number of activations because of piracy.
they know that if they don't restrict it, people will buy one copy and
use it on hundreds of machines (or just pirate it outright). they're
not really worried about one person who has a laptop and a desktop, and
in fact, that situation is usually allowed.

> > meanwhile, using software that does exactly what is needed is usually
> > well worth whatever extra expense might be incurred.
>
> For me it would depend on that extra cost whichy for me mean photoshop isn't
> worth buying niether is Word or excel.

depends on what you need to do. photoshop elements is around $50 and is
significantly more capable than anything free. if elements saves you a
couple of hours (even just one hour), you come out ahead by buying it.

[Poutnik]

nospam posted Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:28:50 -0400

>
> In article <MPG.2be0446...@news.eternal-september.org>, Poutnik
> <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
> > > > In fact, the payware, to be worth anything, has to do the task
> > > > better, or easier than the freeware did it - or - it has to do a
> > > > task that the freeware just couldn't do.
> > >
> > > which is almost always the case, otherwise nobody would pay for it.
> > > they'd use the free stuff.
> >
> > There is plenty of payware that have better freeware alternative.
>
> not really. there are a few exceptions, but in general, commercial
> software is much better, often significantly so.

Many exceptions. In spite of the fact avg quality of commercial software
is higher. It is the same as with avg life of smokers and non-smokers.

Avg is higher for non-smokers, but there is huge number of smokers living
longer than most of non-smokers. And vice versa.

>
> > People are tricked to buy it, as do not know better options.
>
> bullshit. nobody is tricked into buying anything.

You are overestimating people.

>
> > > as they say, you get what you pay for.
> >
> > It is easy to pay for junk.
>
> it's also easy to not pay for it.

You are overestimating people.

>
> people are smart enough to decide if something is junk or not.

Some are, like you. Some are not. There are many not well oriented
people, easily convinced to buy crap, thinking they bough great thing.

>
> > Sometimes it is unbelievable what authors want to be paid for...
>
> sometimes it's unbelievable the crap people use just because it's free.

Sure. Both happens. There is not much to say about payware nor freeware
in general, except of one is paid and one is free.

Both manifest huge range of quality and usability, where standard
deviation is much bigger than average difference, so statistically the
difference is not significant.


--
Poutnik

[notbob]

On 2013-04-21, Danny D. <da...@pleasedontemail.com> wrote:

> Programs on linux that fail the simple annotation triad test are:
> - GIMP, Inkscape, ImageMagick, F-Spot, Viewnior, Krita, Xfig,

> Paint.NET; while no program passes that test, unfortunately,
> on Linux.

Not sure what you are looking for, but krita certainly WILL do the 3
tasks you list. It will import images like jpg's, it will allow you
to draw arrows and circles anywhere on the image, and finally, it does
have a text insertion feature. Perhaps not as easily as you would
like, but it can be done. Granted, krita documentation goes from
atrocious to non-existent, but the application will perform the jobs
you require. Jes gotta be smarter than the tool. ;)

nb

[Square Peg]

It's also helpful to not *BE* a tool.

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:50:58 -0700, Savageduck

<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>On 2013-04-23 03:11:38 -0700, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> said:
>
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:09:49 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2013-04-22 22:16:20 -0700, "Danny D." <da...@pleasedontemail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:14:36 -0400 Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you want a second or third arrow, you merely copy/paste that layer
>>>>> and move the arrow on that layer. You don't have to re-draw the
>>>>> arrow.
>>>>
>>>> That's a very nice feature, especially when you have tiered arrows,
>>>> as shown in the Bugatti picture.
>>>
>>> Mercedes is going to be miffed that you think that 1936 540K Special,
>>> is a Bugatti.
>>>
>>> This is a Bugatti:
>>> < http://db.tt/HAs3aoEP >
>>
>> Do you call that a Bugatti?
>>
>> THIS is a Bugatti!
>> http://www.carsmoveus.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/1299990841497.jpg
>>
>> (With apologies to Crocodile Dundee).
>
>Oh! Come on! You could have come up with a more recent shot of what
>probably became German mess kits in 1940.

The last time I saw it, it was in the International Automobile Mueum
in Geneva. That would have been about 15 years ago. The museum has
closed since then and I don't know what happened to the cars.

>...and even if it survived WWII, it was just a boulevardier, an
>overweight sled, which oozed down the road and would have been less
>than adequate on the track.

It was never made for that. Basically it intended for royalty and
Ettore Bugatti had to approve your table manners. I kid you not.

In any case, 120 mph whould not have been called 'oozing' in the
1930s.

>
>The magnesium body, 1935 Type 57S Competition, "Electron Torpedo", I
>shot at Laguna Seca in 2010 would have left your sled in its dust.

Not in a straight line. They both had about the same maximum speed.

The car you shot appears not to be an entirely genuine Bugatti.
Certainly all major parts are genuine but different parts seem to have
come from different cars. I suspect it is patterned on the Bugatti
Aerolithe.

See http://www.bugattibuilder.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2120

>
>...and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC.
>< http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ >
>or this 1938 GP streamliner
>< http://db.tt/DZTELetj >
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Savageduck]

That is good news. Since the museum has closed it has probably survived
and crossed the boards at some auction house. Check with Jay Leno.

>> ...and even if it survived WWII, it was just a boulevardier, an
>> overweight sled, which oozed down the road and would have been less
>> than adequate on the track.
>
> It was never made for that. Basically it intended for royalty and
> Ettore Bugatti had to approve your table manners. I kid you not.
>
> In any case, 120 mph whould not have been called 'oozing' in the
> 1930s.

Do you mean I am not permitted to bait Eric?

>>
>> The magnesium body, 1935 Type 57S Competition, "Electron Torpedo", I
>> shot at Laguna Seca in 2010 would have left your sled in its dust.
>
> Not in a straight line. They both had about the same maximum speed.
>
> The car you shot appears not to be an entirely genuine Bugatti.
> Certainly all major parts are genuine but different parts seem to have
> come from different cars. I suspect it is patterned on the Bugatti
> Aerolithe.
>
> See http://www.bugattibuilder.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2120

The "Aerolithe" is a totally different car. It is a fast back
streamlined coupe, and while technically a Type 57, its only physical
resemblance to the Type 57 roadsters, is the familiar radiator. The
Type 57 was the basis for a whole line of very different cars between
1935 and 1939.
< http://www.guildclassiccars.com/1935_Aerolithe_coupe_1109/Aerolithe.html >

The Type 57S above was undergoing a full restoration, and is not a
replica as suggested. This car won the Paris Salon of 1935.

One thing to remember about Bugatti of that era, no two were completely
identical. Most especially the high end models were build with custom
coachwork with several designers involved at that stage of
construction, very much in the same manner as Duesenberg, DelaHaye,
Bentley, and Rolls-Royce.

Some of the most valuable Bugattis are the unrestored running survivors
such as this Type 54GP:
< http://db.tt/kXSlavPM >

You can see the Type 57S in the background/

>> ...and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC.
>> < http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ >
>> or this 1938 GP streamliner
>> < http://db.tt/DZTELetj >


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

Your bugattibuilder.com site seems to have mis-IDed the photos in its
story and speculated on replica status.
Note the "?", the writer seems unsure.

This is the reconstructed Type 57SC with a replica body.
<
http://www.mullinautomotivemuseum.com/car-20-1936-bugatti-type-57sc-competition-roadster.html

>

>> ...and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC.
>> < http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ >
>> or this 1938 GP streamliner
>> < http://db.tt/DZTELetj >
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[PeterN]

On 4/21/2013 4:53 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:


<snip>


>
> What you are using is a nice little program, but it's not a new
> religion or a cure for cancer. I'm not interested in converting you
> to an Adobe product, and I'm certainly not interested in stepping back
> to a minor program.
>
> Most people don't buy a program to annotate screen shots. That's one
> use, but we buy programs to do that and many other things.
>

The businessman side of you is showing. It's all too obvious that you
are more interested in photography, than playing with tools.

--
PeterN

[Tony Cooper]

I am beyond contract with my mobile phone provider, and they keep
sending me letters that I can get a "free" phone if I re-up. I can
get an iPhone4 for 99 cents. However, the minimum data plan required
is 300 mg at $30 a month, or 3 gigs at $40 a month. Nothing in
between.

That's a cute little phone, but - try as I might - I can't see what
I'd do with it. Searching my memory, I can't think of a single
instance in recent months where I would have liked to have a smart
phone.

I used 19 minutes of my 700 minute voice plan last month. That
doesn't include mobile-to-mobile minutes because the basic plan gives
me those free. I never use the camera. I do text, but that's
included in the basic plan for free.

My son has an iPhone and a zillion apps. He went through his apps
with me the other night, and I didn't see one that interested me.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[Danny D.]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:02:12 -0700 Savageduck wrote:

> In Photoshop they are added to a unique layer as a vector graphic

This is a very useful feature that I've never seen in the
freeware mentioned.

It allows a series of custom arrows to be cut and pasted so that
they're consistent.

That's nice - and NOT in the freeware feature set! (AFAIK)

[Danny D.]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 23:09:49 -0700 Savageduck wrote:

> Mercedes is going to be miffed that you think that 1936 540K Special,
> is a Bugatti.

Ooops.

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:54:48 -0700, Savageduck

He's still talking about a replica using Bugatti parts. I think he may
be confused by the unusual chassis taper. It may be that he is looking
at one of the prototype chassis, maybe even that of the Aerolithe.

>
>This is the reconstructed Type 57SC with a replica body.
><
>http://www.mullinautomotivemuseum.com/car-20-1936-bugatti-type-57sc-competition-roadster.html
>>
>
>>> ...and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC.
>>> < http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ >
>>> or this 1938 GP streamliner
>>> < http://db.tt/DZTELetj >
>> --

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Danny D.]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:38:32 +0200 Poutnik wrote:

> You need in payware something you miss in freeware,
> otherwise freeware is sufficient.

Exactly!

This is the three-step software-purchase process I recommend:
1. Try to do the task with the tools you have at hand;
2. If that fails, find & try the best freeware for that task;
3. If that fails, now you know exactly what you want payware to do!

By the time you get to step 3, you'll know what the freeware
does (which will be basic tasks); but if you need more, then
you know exactly what questions to ask of the payware before
plunking down your hard-earned dollars on it.

For example, I bought the Adobe Acrobat Writer even though
CutePDF (and others) creates PDFs; & Foxit (and others)
reads PDFs; & PDF Toolkit (and others) manipulates PDFs.

What I liked about the PDF writer payware was the distiller,
the ability to make text edits, and the shrinker, plus the
ability to convert an entire web page hierarchy to a
link-clickable 8.5x11-inch format PDF document.

Similarly, I bought Recosoft "Pdf To Office" because the
freeware methods failed (however even PDF2Office is highly
imperfect).

Interestingly, I bought Microsoft Office not because it did
*anything* better than the StarOffice OpenOffice equivalents -
but simply because Microsoft Office turns out to be more
compatible with what other people were using.

And, certainly, I buy Turbotax because it provides something
that I am under the impression that freeware doesn't do.
(Although I haven't studied that topic in years so maybe
that isn't the case anymore.)

However, when it comes to image editing, I can get almost all
I need done with freeware. Likewise with simple video editing
(e.g., avidemux); DVD authoring (e.g., DeVeDe); audio editing
(e.g., Audacity); mail user agents (e.g., Thunderbird);
encryption (e.g., TrueCrypt); Chat clients (e.g., Pidgin);
video players (e.g., VLC); recording (e.g., recordmydesktop);
DVD burning (e.g., K3b); iPod sharing (e.g., SharePod);
EXIF manipulation (e.g., jhead, exiftran); WiFi (e.g., Kismet);
etc.

My simple rule that I teach my kids is:
"Never buy payware for a task until/unless freeware can't
do what you need done". You'll buy wisely because you'll
know (by then) exactly what you need the payware to do!

Freeware is the first step in the payware decision tree!

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:47:41 -0700, Savageduck

Why not? After all, I bait you.

>
>>>
>>> The magnesium body, 1935 Type 57S Competition, "Electron Torpedo", I
>>> shot at Laguna Seca in 2010 would have left your sled in its dust.
>>
>> Not in a straight line. They both had about the same maximum speed.
>>
>> The car you shot appears not to be an entirely genuine Bugatti.
>> Certainly all major parts are genuine but different parts seem to have
>> come from different cars. I suspect it is patterned on the Bugatti
>> Aerolithe.
>>
>> See http://www.bugattibuilder.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2120
>
>The "Aerolithe" is a totally different car. It is a fast back
>streamlined coupe, and while technically a Type 57, its only physical
>resemblance to the Type 57 roadsters, is the familiar radiator. The
>Type 57 was the basis for a whole line of very different cars between
>1935 and 1939.
>< http://www.guildclassiccars.com/1935_Aerolithe_coupe_1109/Aerolithe.html >
>
>The Type 57S above was undergoing a full restoration, and is not a
>replica as suggested. This car won the Paris Salon of 1935.

That's true - and its never been seen since.

I wasn't suggesting the car you photographed was a replica. I was
suggesting it was built out of a collection of Bugatti parts.

http://www.hopupmag.com/index.php/weblog/article/C2/ has more of the
story which is consistent with what I read elsewhere. A chassis + a
gear box + and engine.

"A guy we know has been building this car for some time; I think he
bought the (correct, one-off) frame in about 1981. It had been
acquired from the factory when it all ended in 1960 or so. It’s the
show Bugatti from 1935 which was not sold and went back to the
factory and kind of ‘parted out’, if I have it correct. It’s all
righteous Bug parts on that for-real frame and the body thereon
is…magnesium. Oh, yeah. It’s getting wrapped up now for the world
debut - I think the chassis was at Pebble Beach last year to demo
the engine and run it for the plebes. Anywho, it should be in all
the right mags and shows in time."

The photograph/sketch
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/31088803/57222.jpg shows the
intended riveted flange of the elektron guards (wings) as were used in
the Aerolithe. This car undoubtedly has the S type (lowered) chassis
(while the recently made Aerolithe replica seems to have a standard
chassis). The car you photographed has the correct type of chassis
which may well be that of the Aerolithe.

>
>One thing to remember about Bugatti of that era, no two were completely
>identical. Most especially the high end models were build with custom
>coachwork with several designers involved at that stage of
>construction, very much in the same manner as Duesenberg, DelaHaye,
>Bentley, and Rolls-Royce.
>
>Some of the most valuable Bugattis are the unrestored running survivors
>such as this Type 54GP:
>< http://db.tt/kXSlavPM >
>
>You can see the Type 57S in the background/
>
>
>>> ...and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC.
>>> < http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ >
>>> or this 1938 GP streamliner
>>> < http://db.tt/DZTELetj >
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Savageduck]

BTW: the term "Electron" or "Elektron" as used in the context o Bugatti
bodies, refers to the magnesium-aluminum alloy used in the coachwork.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Poutnik]

Danny D. posted Wed, 24 Apr 2013 05:18:18 +0000 (UTC)

>
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 08:38:32 +0200 Poutnik wrote:
>
> > You need in payware something you miss in freeware,
> > otherwise freeware is sufficient.
>
> Exactly!
>
> This is the three-step software-purchase process I recommend:
> 1. Try to do the task with the tools you have at hand;
> 2. If that fails, find & try the best freeware for that task;
> 3. If that fails, now you know exactly what you want payware to do!
>

.................

>
> My simple rule that I teach my kids is:
> "Never buy payware for a task until/unless freeware can't
> do what you need done". You'll buy wisely because you'll
> know (by then) exactly what you need the payware to do!
>
> Freeware is the first step in the payware decision tree!

There are 2 extreme ways in approach to software.
One is celebrating freeware and looking with despect to payware.
The other is doing exact opposite.

The reasonable way is to use what in particular case
fits better you overall needs or requirements.

I prefer freeware but do not make from it unbreakable rule,
even if I have bought except of Windows just 1 SW ever...

--
Poutnik

[Danny D.]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:56:31 -0400 nospam wrote:

> but when have facts mattered to linux zealots anyway.

Actually, I'm not a Linux zealot.

The main reason I'm on Linux is simply that I had replaced my hard disk
and the PC manufacturer wouldn't give me a replacement installation disk
for Windows (even though the license stickers were on the bottom of the PC).

So I put Linux on instead - and I've never looked back.

>> For example, installing iTunes (freeware but also bloatware), takes
>> quite a long time, adds hidden daemons (such as bonjour & apple device
>> services),
>
> those *have* to be installed for itunes to work.

Trust me that you can live perfectly well _without_ iTunes! :)

The _only_ thing that I ever needed to do that only iTunes did well
was to initialize a brand-new iPod or iPhone. While there are Linux
alternatives to iTunes for initializing, iTunes is far easier, in the
end for initializing devices.

However, my rule is to IMMEDIATELY (if not sooner) remove iTunes once
the brand-new device is initialized; then SharePod or copyTransManager
or any of a host of much nicer iTunes replacements are used instead.

Unfortunately, due to iTunes bloatware, you _also_ have to uninstall
a host of unwanted badly behaved programs that came with iTunes, such
as Bonjour, QuickTime, Apple Application Support, Apple Mobile Device
Support, Apple Software Update, etc. (Note: QuickTime Alternative is
a good alternative to Quicktime if you must have it.)

>> and doesn't even respect the place you tell it to put it.
> that is a flat out lie.

Trust me. I know exactly what I'm talking about.

I've installed hundreds of programs, for example, on Windows, and
absolutely NONE of them go into "C:\Program Files".

I know that because I have what I consider to be one of the most organized
software hierarchies in the history of PCs. Absolutely nothing is organized
by brand name, for instance. And, my menus exactly mirror my installation
hierarchy, 1:1, like God meant them to. I could go on and on about how
to properly set up a PC - but - suffice to say, for the longest time,
I never even had an idiotic "Program Files" or "My Documents" or "Common
Files" directory (the defaults being set otherwise in the registry hives).

Suffice to say, you can tell iTunes where to go, and it will go there - but,
ALL THE OTHER bloatware that comes with iTunes (see list above, including
Bonjour) will NOT respect your decision!

Please don't say that's a lie until you've actually tried it (like I have,
very many times over the years). And, trust me, I'm a detail kind of guy
so you can rest assured I took it up with my friends at Apple. It is what
it is and I'm not going to change it - but you calling me a liar doesn't
make it a lie.

In fact, when I had no "Program Files" directory, guess what Bonjour did?
It CREATED its own "C:\Program Files" directory! Can you believe that?

That tells you how badly written Apple software can be?

Note: I'm in the Silicon Valley and my very good friends at Apple tell me
their developers fume about the same stuff that I do ... so I can't blame
the coders. It's a marketing decision. Most Apple customers won't even
understand what I'm talking about because they're a different class of
aficionado. They know stuff I'll never know - but - I know stuff they
can't even fathom because it's just not important to them. They're a
wholly different class of thinkers who don't mind having both a resource
fork and a data fork. :)

>> Likewise with Office, which takes forever to install
> big apps take longer to install than small ones.

I'd correct that generalization to be the generalization that apps from
big companies generally take far (far) longer to install than apps from
small companies do. :)

[Danny D.]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 01:56:29 -0400 nospam wrote:

> the best way to make a decision is ask those who have done
> similar tasks what the various options are.

Which is why I posted on the USENET thousands of times, over
the past 20 years (under a variety of privacy-protecting nyms)
asking questions, testing the answers, and summarizing the
results so that others could easily follow in my freeware footsteps.

For example, here are just a few ways to create pencil drawings
on Linux from photo portraits using vector tracing and edge
detection freeware methods:
- Gimp: Filters->Edge Detect->Difference of Gaussians
- Gimp: Filters->Pencil-Drawing->Blur Radius=4,Strength=1,OK
- Inkscape: Filters->Image effects->Pencil
- Inkscape: Path->Trace Bitmap->(o)Edge detection->Update->OK
etc.

That information was thanks to erudite folks such as
Savage Duck, Bear Ederson, Floyd, Davidson, P-0'0h the cat,
Eric Prilovich, wexfordpress, and others, by way of example.

[Danny D.]

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:28:50 -0400 nospam wrote:

> sometimes it's unbelievable the crap people use just because it's free.

Offhand, I used the following freeware (from memory) when I was on
Windows ...

Which of these do you feel is crap?

- editor/photo/edit/{Gimp,FastOne,IrfanView,Paint.NET,VicManPhotoEditor}
- archiver/IzArc
- browser/{Firefox,Tor,Curl,Lynx}
- cleaner/os/CCleaner
- cleaner/malware/{ad-aware,spybot,spywareblaster}
- calculator/math/geogebra
- uninstaller/{total,zsoft}
- editor/audio/{audacity,mp3_tag_editor}
- editor/cad/sketchup
- editor/text/{gvim,vim}
- editor/pdf/{ghostscript,ps2edit,gsview}
- editor/hex/hexedit
- editor/suite/openoffice
- player/video/{vmediaplayerclassic,vlc}
- format/codec/k-lite
- hardware/burner/imgburn
- format/converter/super
- hardware/dvd/authoring/dvdflick
- hardware/mp3/ipod/sharepod
- hardware/os/process_explorer
- usenet/40TudeDialog
- hardware/chat/pidgeon
- security/encryption/truecrypt
- mailer/thunderbird
- hardware/vaccine/avast
- hardware/wifi/{netstumbler,netcrumbler,wireshark}
- hardware/voip/skype
- hardware/printer/cutepdf
etc.

DISCLAIMER: This is just from memory ... wholly off the cuff ...
so I'm quite sure I missed a bunch ... but tell me which of
this freeware that I remembered above are "unbelievable crap"?

Note: In Windows, it's trivially easy to install into a defined
function-based hierarchy, and, most importantly, to mirror that
hierarchy with the menus. Surprisingly, organizing your software
and mirroring that organization with the menus, is a set of
related tasks that are much harder to perform on Linux than on
Windows. Go figure.

[Danny D.]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:36:39 +0200 Poutnik wrote:

> I prefer freeware but do not make from it unbreakable rule,
> even if I have bought except of Windows just 1 SW ever...

Well, to be clear, no rules are unbreakable - they're just
generalizations.

For example, I told my kids today that processed meats such
as liverwurst and bolongna have tons more bacteria than do
meats closer to the bovine ... so my rule ... for them ... was
buy the food as unprocessed as possible.

Similarly, I've told them that sugary candy is often as
expensive as fruits and vegetables, so, my rule for them was
to look at everything as vitamins per pound, or protein per
pound.

And, perhaps more apropos, I've often postulated the general
rule that most fluids just aren't worth the money you pay for
them at the supermarket ... since they're mostly water anyway ...
and ... more to the point ... water is freeware; so it's just
not worth buying the sugary payware (specifically sodas or
drink mixes that aren't anything but sugary flavored water
anyway).

To bring it back to freeware vs payware, some payware is nothing
but sugary flavored water - in which case - it may be better
overall to just use the freeware water instead! :)

[Savageduck]

On 2013-04-24 00:06:21 -0700, "Danny D." <da...@pleasedontemail.com> said:

> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:36:39 +0200 Poutnik wrote:
>
>> I prefer freeware but do not make from it unbreakable rule,
>> even if I have bought except of Windows just 1 SW ever...
>
> Well, to be clear, no rules are unbreakable - they're just
> generalizations.
>
> For example, I told my kids today that processed meats such
> as liverwurst and bolongna have tons more bacteria than do
> meats closer to the bovine ... so my rule ... for them ... was
> buy the food as unprocessed as possible.

Obviously you were too busy to read this:
<
http://www.sfgate.com/news/medical/article/Study-chicken-ground-beef-are-riskiest-meats-4456184.php
>


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Whisky-dave]

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 3:28:53 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <d33bd678-1610-463d...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > > It seems to me that you have spent an enormous amount of time testing
>
> > > > > "free" software, without, apparently, any regard to the cost of your
>
> > > > > time. Is it worthless? I don't understand the fixation of things that
>
> > > > > are "free"? I believe the old adage that "there is no such thing as a
>
> > > > > free lunch".
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Doesn't commercial software require the same amount of reading reviews
>
> > > > and testing?
>
> > >
>
> > > the point is he only looked at free solutions, ignoring a whole class
>
> > > of apps just because he's too cheap to spend a couple bucks on quality
>
> > > software.
>
> >
>
> > A couple of bucks...... just how much does photoshop cost ;-0
>
> > btu there are other cheaper alternatives, but I've also seen peoloe spend too
>
> > much on cheap products.
>
>
>
> very often, people buy something cheap (and not just software), only to
>
> find out that it doesn't quite work and then they have to go back and
>
> buy something better.

Some good products here ;-)
http://www.kmstools.com/pages/competitor-79

>they end up paying much more than if they bought
>
> the better product in the first place.

It's a possibility, but depends, I've yet to meet anyone that has spent more on cheap software and then gone out and brought photoshop, unless they had the money to spend to start with that is, but then again maybe I know the wrong sort of people.

> > > how much did he really save by wasting so many hours without
>
> > > finding a solution?
>
> >
>
> > Not sure that matters unless you practically already know of a solution and
>
> > have avoided it due to cost.
>
>
>
> it matters if your time is worth something.

Everyones tinme is worth something, which is one of the reasons for fast food, it's more expensive too, you pays yuor money and takes yuor choice.

> > > > Free has some financial benefits that go beyond initial purchase price,
>
> > > > including:
>
> > >
>
> > > > Put it on all of your computers at no extra charge.
>
> > > > Update to latest version at no extra charge.
>
> > >
>
> > > depends on the apps.
>
> >
>
> > And the OS of course, I'm running OS X so for me Apple apps are one purchase
>
> > cost and I can put them on all my other Mac computers for free if they can
>
> > handle it.
>
>
>
> the os doesn't matter. what matters is the restrictions of a given app.

I did say *and* the OS, and changes in the OS does matter as does changing the hardware.

> the mac app store makes it easy to buy and update apps on multiple
>
> machines but that doesn't mean it can't be done in other ways and on
>
> other platforms.

Doesn;t mean it will be either.
Just look at the purchase options for windows7 or 8 and compare to mountain lion.
I can see any way or legally buying windows 8 and installing it on a PC andf laptop legally unless I'm missing something.




Not sure how Apples method affect how windows7 or linux operate plenty of paid apps have had free upgrades and allow
>
> multiple installs for *years*.

Free updates rather than upgrades.

What are the multiple installs adobe offers say compared with Apples Aperature ?

> some apps might restrict the number of activations because of piracy.

yes I know we run things called licsene servers for such things.
Some products we can have 20 running at a time but it could be installed on 50 machines.

>
> they know that if they don't restrict it, people will buy one copy and
>
> use it on hundreds of machines (or just pirate it outright).

Yes isn't that why adobe have license numbers and activation codes.

>they're
>
> not really worried about one person who has a laptop and a desktop, and
>
> in fact, that situation is usually allowed.

it is now years ago it wasn;t and if I just happen to have say Pshop on a Mac laptop can I also install it on my windows desktop without having to pay for it again ?
Never used to be able to, not sure now, not interested now.

> > > meanwhile, using software that does exactly what is needed is usually
>
> > > well worth whatever extra expense might be incurred.
>
> >
>
> > For me it would depend on that extra cost whichy for me mean photoshop isn't
>
> > worth buying niether is Word or excel.
>
>
>
> depends on what you need to do. photoshop elements is around $50 and is
>
> significantly more capable than anything free.

It should be better than free options otherwise people wouldn't buy it would they ?

> if elements saves you a
>
> couple of hours (even just one hour), you come out ahead by buying it.

Maybe, but at approx 3X my hourly pay rate I'd have to use it at least 3 hours to break even and be convinced there was no other practical way of doing it in 3 hours any other way.

On other groups people are discussing how much time they'll save if the brought a SSD drive.

[Mayayana]

| > For example, I told my kids today that processed meats such
| > as liverwurst and bolongna have tons more bacteria than do
| > meats closer to the bovine ... so my rule ... for them ... was
| > buy the food as unprocessed as possible.
|
| Obviously you were too busy to read this:
| <
|
http://www.sfgate.com/news/medical/article/Study-chicken-ground-beef-are-riskiest-meats-4456184.php
| >
|

I think there's a rule that one should never try to
introduce rational thinking, ambiguity or complexity
when dealing with a rule lover. Certainty is a generous
but jealous god.

[o...@two.three]

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:50:47 +0100, Danny D. wrote
(in article <kl3pp7$fn4$1...@speranza.aioe.org>):

>> (c) use straight lines, with or without arrowheads and boxes or circles, to
>> link each annotation to the relevant sections of the screenshot.
>
> Straight lines are fine; but sometimes a curved line will avoid
> obstacles and provide a more seamless integration. Any good

Obstacles can be avoided by using angles in straight lines.

However, my point here is to say that I don't recall you mentioning
TechSmith's SnagIt for Mac and Windows as something you've tried out. I
stumbled across it today and immediately thought of you.

SnagIt is not freeware (rather it's 50-dollar-ware) but it has a 30-day demo
which you might like to try out. As far as I can tell, it can't do
over-under arrows but it seems to meet all your other criteria with a certain
panache. It also does video capture.

Have a look at the videos on SnagIt's Mac page - these seems to have more of
the software in action whereas the equivalent Win page mostly just shows
people saying how good it is:

http://www.techsmith.com/snagit-mac-features.html

[nospam]

In article <esien819gfh6mca0v...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I am beyond contract with my mobile phone provider, and they keep
> sending me letters that I can get a "free" phone if I re-up. I can
> get an iPhone4 for 99 cents. However, the minimum data plan required
> is 300 mg at $30 a month, or 3 gigs at $40 a month. Nothing in
> between.

i thought you had a pay as you go phone.

anyway, if you're considering an iphone, splurge for at least a 4s. the
difference is well worth it. also shop around for plans. there are
unlimited iphone plans around $30.

> That's a cute little phone, but - try as I might - I can't see what
> I'd do with it. Searching my memory, I can't think of a single
> instance in recent months where I would have liked to have a smart
> phone.

a lot of people say that, but once they have a smartphone they find all
sorts of things it can do that they didn't think of.

> I used 19 minutes of my 700 minute voice plan last month. That
> doesn't include mobile-to-mobile minutes because the basic plan gives
> me those free. I never use the camera. I do text, but that's
> included in the basic plan for free.

the camera in the iphone 4 is quite good, so you'd probably use it at
least some of the time, probably with one of the many camera apps
available. however, the cameras in the 4s & 5 are noticeably better.

> My son has an iPhone and a zillion apps. He went through his apps
> with me the other night, and I didn't see one that interested me.

maybe his choice of apps doesn't overlap with yours.

you probably don't have the same selection of apps on your computers
either.

[nospam]

In article <kl7ujd$2om$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Danny D.

<da...@pleasedontemail.com> wrote:

> > sometimes it's unbelievable the crap people use just because it's free.
>
> Offhand, I used the following freeware (from memory) when I was on
> Windows ...
>
> Which of these do you feel is crap?

gimp, without any question, but others include, openoffice, sharepod,
lynx and skype.

[nospam]

In article <daaca6d6-ed9e-4b5a...@googlegroups.com>,

Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:


> > it matters if your time is worth something.
>
> Everyones tinme is worth something, which is one of the reasons for fast
> food, it's more expensive too, you pays yuor money and takes yuor choice.

fast food is not always more expensive. compare the price of mcdonalds
to that of a fancy burger place. i've heard of $20 burgers at some
places.

> What are the multiple installs adobe offers say compared with Apples
> Aperature ?

aperture used to have paid upgrades, just like most adobe products,
until aperture moved to the mac app store. now it's free upgrades.

adobe acrobat reader is free, unlimited installs and unlimited upgrades.

> > they know that if they don't restrict it, people will buy one copy and
> >
> > use it on hundreds of machines (or just pirate it outright).
>
> Yes isn't that why adobe have license numbers and activation codes.

photoshop is one of the most widely pirated apps, so it's no surprise
it has activation.

> >they're
> > not really worried about one person who has a laptop and a desktop, and
> > in fact, that situation is usually allowed.
>
> it is now years ago it wasn;t and if I just happen to have say Pshop on a Mac
> laptop can I also install it on my windows desktop without having to pay for
> it again ?
> Never used to be able to, not sure now, not interested now.

you can install and activate photoshop on two machines, typically a
desktop and laptop.

> > depends on what you need to do. photoshop elements is around $50 and is
> > significantly more capable than anything free.
>
> It should be better than free options otherwise people wouldn't buy it would
> they ?

exactly. photoshop is more capable than the free alternatives, which is
why it sells so well and in high demand by pirates. even pirates don't
want the legitimate free crap, they want the real thing.

> > if elements saves you a
> >
> > couple of hours (even just one hour), you come out ahead by buying it.
>
> Maybe, but at approx 3X my hourly pay rate I'd have to use it at least 3 hours to break
> even and be convinced there was no other practical way of doing it in 3 hours any other way.
> On other groups people are discussing how much time they'll save if the brought a SSD drive.

it will definitely save you 3 hours and probably much more, unless you
don't do very much with a graphic app.

ssd is also a nice performance boost too and can save people valuable
time.

[nospam]

In article <kl7rj4$rsp$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, Danny D.

<da...@pleasedontemail.com> wrote:

> The main reason I'm on Linux is simply that I had replaced my hard disk
> and the PC manufacturer wouldn't give me a replacement installation disk
> for Windows (even though the license stickers were on the bottom of the PC).

why do you need a replacement disk for windows? can't you contact
microsoft and get it activated?

> So I put Linux on instead - and I've never looked back.

you gave up on windows because you can't figure out how to reactivate
windows when swapping a hard drive?

> >> For example, installing iTunes (freeware but also bloatware), takes
> >> quite a long time, adds hidden daemons (such as bonjour & apple device
> >> services),
> >
> > those *have* to be installed for itunes to work.
>
> Trust me that you can live perfectly well _without_ iTunes! :)

not if you have an ipod, iphone or ipad, you can't.

> The _only_ thing that I ever needed to do that only iTunes did well
> was to initialize a brand-new iPod or iPhone. While there are Linux
> alternatives to iTunes for initializing, iTunes is far easier, in the
> end for initializing devices.

in other words, you can't live perfectly well without itunes.

> However, my rule is to IMMEDIATELY (if not sooner) remove iTunes once
> the brand-new device is initialized;

very stupid.

> then SharePod or copyTransManager
> or any of a host of much nicer iTunes replacements are used instead.

sharepod doesn't do everything itunes does, and you even said as much.
one major drawback is it can't access the itunes store.

in other words, no buying music, videos or apps. while music and videos
can be obtained in other ways, such as extracting from one's own cd
collection, apps can't.

> Unfortunately, due to iTunes bloatware, you _also_ have to uninstall
> a host of unwanted badly behaved programs that came with iTunes, such
> as Bonjour, QuickTime, Apple Application Support, Apple Mobile Device
> Support, Apple Software Update, etc. (Note: QuickTime Alternative is
> a good alternative to Quicktime if you must have it.)

there is absolutely no need to uninstall any of that, nor are they
badly behaved. furthermore, quicktime alternative is a pitiful
replacement for quicktime, which works just fine.

> >> and doesn't even respect the place you tell it to put it.
> > that is a flat out lie.
>
> Trust me. I know exactly what I'm talking about.

based on what you've said, you do not.

> I've installed hundreds of programs, for example, on Windows, and
> absolutely NONE of them go into "C:\Program Files".

why not? who cares where they go.

> I know that because I have what I consider to be one of the most organized
> software hierarchies in the history of PCs.

that's wonderful.

> Absolutely nothing is organized
> by brand name, for instance. And, my menus exactly mirror my installation
> hierarchy, 1:1, like God meant them to.

god uses windows? and why would god care if something is organized by
brand name or not?

> I could go on and on about how
> to properly set up a PC

i'm sure you could, and much of it would be quickly discounted as
stupid. just look at the idiocy above.

> - but - suffice to say, for the longest time,
> I never even had an idiotic "Program Files" or "My Documents" or "Common
> Files" directory (the defaults being set otherwise in the registry hives).
>
> Suffice to say, you can tell iTunes where to go, and it will go there

so it does respect your choice.

> - but,
> ALL THE OTHER bloatware that comes with iTunes (see list above, including
> Bonjour) will NOT respect your decision!

so what? those are background processes. there are many background
processes on a modern computer.

out of the millions and millions of windows users, how many people do
you think avoid putting apps in program files? hint: the number is so
far off the chart that it can be assumed to be zero.

nobody in their right mind is going to worry about edge cases like
that. if you try to fight the way the computer is designed to work, you
*are* going to have problems.

> Please don't say that's a lie until you've actually tried it (like I have,
> very many times over the years). And, trust me, I'm a detail kind of guy
> so you can rest assured I took it up with my friends at Apple. It is what
> it is and I'm not going to change it - but you calling me a liar doesn't
> make it a lie.

it's a lie, which you admitted.

you said itunes doesn't respect where you tell it to go then you said
it goes where you tell it. one of those is a lie.

> In fact, when I had no "Program Files" directory, guess what Bonjour did?
> It CREATED its own "C:\Program Files" directory! Can you believe that?

who cares. how often do people look at what's in the program files
directory? how many care?

> That tells you how badly written Apple software can be?

that doesn't make it badly written. not even close.

itunes isn't perfect (nothing is), but this is without question,
extremely minor and affects almost nobody.

> Note: I'm in the Silicon Valley and my very good friends at Apple tell me
> their developers fume about the same stuff that I do ... so I can't blame
> the coders.

what might that stuff be?

i can guarantee you that developers don't give a shit about putting
apps somewhere *other* than program files. it's not something that gets
a lot of testing because almost nobody does it. there are far bigger
issues to resolve.

> It's a marketing decision.

nonsense. it has nothing to do with marketing. the computer is designed
for apps to go in a certain place, so that's how apps are designed to
work. move them and you may have problems.

> Most Apple customers won't even
> understand what I'm talking about because they're a different class of
> aficionado. They know stuff I'll never know - but - I know stuff they
> can't even fathom because it's just not important to them. They're a
> wholly different class of thinkers who don't mind having both a resource
> fork and a data fork. :)

is that supposed to be some sort of apple-bashing?

anyway, resource forks were way ahead of their time, but they've long
been deprecated.

and don't forget, windows supports multi-fork files, not just two.

> >> Likewise with Office, which takes forever to install
> > big apps take longer to install than small ones.
>
> I'd correct that generalization to be the generalization that apps from
> big companies generally take far (far) longer to install than apps from
> small companies do. :)

bullshit.

[nospam]

In article <kl8jrj$rbh$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

that's hilarious coming from you, the person who has all sorts of rules
about what to do to prevent big brother from tracking people.

[Danny D.]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:11:11 -0400 nospam wrote:

> why do you need a replacement disk for windows? can't you contact
> microsoft and get it activated?

Huh? The brand new hard disk needs an operating system.
Where am I supposed to "get" that operating system?

> you gave up on windows because you can't figure out
> how to reactivate windows when swapping a hard drive?

Um, maybe you know something I don't know.
How do you reactivate something that's not there?
I must be missing something critical here - so please let me know how.

>> Trust me that you can live perfectly well _without_ iTunes! :)
> not if you have an ipod, iphone or ipad, you can't.

I just explained that I have my own iPod & my kid has an iPhone,
and they work perfectly fine without iTunes. We don't need to argue
because this is extremely well known information.

If you still really think you can't populate an iPod/iPhone without
iTunes, you'll need more advice than I am prepared to dish out anyway.

> in other words, you can't live perfectly well without itunes.

Wow. Your repeated inability to comprehend shows that you simply want to
argue - but I know the old adage ... so I refuse to drop down to that
level - where your experience will win out anyway.

Since I refuse to drop to the level of a grade schooler, this
conversation is over. Good luck.

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:36:22 +1200, Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

Just to tidy up loose ends:

--- snip ---

The information accompanying
http://www.bugatti-trust.co.uk/photographs/v/album-19/018+SC0623.jpg.html
throws more light on the matter. I now conclude the car is not rebuilt
on the Aerolithe chassis but more likely that of the 'Torpedo
Competition' with Electron (sic) A.I.A.C.R. body' which was also
exhibited at the Paris show. It appears to be a faithful replica of
that car.

>>
>>One thing to remember about Bugatti of that era, no two were completely
>>identical. Most especially the high end models were build with custom
>>coachwork with several designers involved at that stage of
>>construction, very much in the same manner as Duesenberg, DelaHaye,
>>Bentley, and Rolls-Royce.
>>
>>Some of the most valuable Bugattis are the unrestored running survivors
>>such as this Type 54GP:
>>< http://db.tt/kXSlavPM >
>>
>>You can see the Type 57S in the background/
>>
>>
>>>> ...and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC.
>>>> < http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ >
>>>> or this 1938 GP streamliner
>>>> < http://db.tt/DZTELetj >
>--
>
>Regards,
>
>Eric Stevens

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Savageduck]

It is more than a "faithful replica", it is a faithful full
restoration. There is a difference.
Note: the chassis number for the restoration Type 57S in my shot is
#57222, the original Paris Show chassis.

The Bugatti Trust site has always been a useful reference.

>>> One thing to remember about Bugatti of that era, no two were completely
>>> identical. Most especially the high end models were build with custom
>>> coachwork with several designers involved at that stage of
>>> construction, very much in the same manner as Duesenberg, DelaHaye,
>>> Bentley, and Rolls-Royce.
>>>
>>> Some of the most valuable Bugattis are the unrestored running survivors
>>> such as this Type 54GP:
>>> < http://db.tt/kXSlavPM >
>>>
>>> You can see the Type 57S in the background/
>>>
>>>
>>>>> ...and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC.
>>>>> < http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ >
>>>>> or this 1938 GP streamliner
>>>>> < http://db.tt/DZTELetj >
>> --
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Eric Stevens


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Eric Stevens]

I didn't know about the chassis number but that confirms my guess. Is
the engine number also 235S?

In any case http://www.finishing.com/519/33.shtml is a very
interesting read. The original engine was removed and the body
destroyed while the car was in the factory. I know from another site
that the gearbox is from another car which disappeared in 1958.

So it seems we have the original chassis, probably a different engine,
certainly a different gearbox, and a new body which may have been
built in the wrong material! It's certainly a stretch to call it a
'restoration'. Never mind.

>
>The Bugatti Trust site has always been a useful reference.
>
>>>> One thing to remember about Bugatti of that era, no two were completely
>>>> identical. Most especially the high end models were build with custom
>>>> coachwork with several designers involved at that stage of
>>>> construction, very much in the same manner as Duesenberg, DelaHaye,
>>>> Bentley, and Rolls-Royce.
>>>>
>>>> Some of the most valuable Bugattis are the unrestored running survivors
>>>> such as this Type 54GP:
>>>> < http://db.tt/kXSlavPM >
>>>>
>>>> You can see the Type 57S in the background/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> ...and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC.
>>>>>> < http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ >
>>>>>> or this 1938 GP streamliner
>>>>>> < http://db.tt/DZTELetj >
>>> --
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Eric Stevens
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Savageduck]

As best as I can make out from what I have the engine number is 240S.

> In any case http://www.finishing.com/519/33.shtml is a very
> interesting read. The original engine was removed and the body
> destroyed while the car was in the factory. I know from another site
> that the gearbox is from another car which disappeared in 1958.
>
> So it seems we have the original chassis, probably a different engine,
> certainly a different gearbox, and a new body which may have been
> built in the wrong material! It's certainly a stretch to call it a
> 'restoration'. Never mind.

My understanding is the body material is duplicated "Elektron"
Magnesium/aluminum alloy as use in the original.

Anyway, regardless our bantering, restoration, or partial replication
of any of these great cars can only be commended, and I for one feel
privileged to be able to see them today.

>>
>> The Bugatti Trust site has always been a useful reference.
>>
>>>>> One thing to remember about Bugatti of that era, no two were completely
>>>>> identical. Most especially the high end models were build with custom
>>>>> coachwork with several designers involved at that stage of
>>>>> construction, very much in the same manner as Duesenberg, DelaHaye,
>>>>> Bentley, and Rolls-Royce.
>>>>>
>>>>> Some of the most valuable Bugattis are the unrestored running survivors
>>>>> such as this Type 54GP:
>>>>> < http://db.tt/kXSlavPM >
>>>>>
>>>>> You can see the Type 57S in the background/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...and then there is this very driveable 1937 Bugatti Type 57 SC.
>>>>>>> < http://db.tt/8JKBVixQ >
>>>>>>> or this 1938 GP streamliner
>>>>>>> < http://db.tt/DZTELetj >
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Eric Stevens


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:52:26 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <esien819gfh6mca0v...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
><tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am beyond contract with my mobile phone provider, and they keep
>> sending me letters that I can get a "free" phone if I re-up. I can
>> get an iPhone4 for 99 cents. However, the minimum data plan required
>> is 300 mg at $30 a month, or 3 gigs at $40 a month. Nothing in
>> between.
>
>i thought you had a pay as you go phone.
>

The phone that I got from AT&T when I first signed up went kerflooey.
I bought a pay-as-you-go phone from Walmart and put the SIM card from
the AT&T phone in the new phone. While it started as a PAYG phone,
AT&T sees it as the same phone I received originally.

>anyway, if you're considering an iphone, splurge for at least a 4s. the
>difference is well worth it. also shop around for plans. there are
>unlimited iphone plans around $30.

Thanks, but you don't know the entire situation. I pay for four
lines; one for me, one for my wife, one for my son, and one for my
daughter-in-law. (A gift a few years ago that I've extended) Son
extended the contract when he went to the iPhone, so the provider is
locked in although 3 of the phones are beyond contract.

>
>> That's a cute little phone, but - try as I might - I can't see what
>> I'd do with it. Searching my memory, I can't think of a single
>> instance in recent months where I would have liked to have a smart
>> phone.
>
>a lot of people say that, but once they have a smartphone they find all
>sorts of things it can do that they didn't think of.
>
>> I used 19 minutes of my 700 minute voice plan last month. That
>> doesn't include mobile-to-mobile minutes because the basic plan gives
>> me those free. I never use the camera. I do text, but that's
>> included in the basic plan for free.
>
>the camera in the iphone 4 is quite good, so you'd probably use it at
>least some of the time, probably with one of the many camera apps
>available. however, the cameras in the 4s & 5 are noticeably better.

It doesn't interest me. I'm an avid photographer, but with my Nikons.
If I'm going to go out for photos, I do it with the Nikons. I've got a
P&S camera in the car for quickies and unexpected shots.

>
>> My son has an iPhone and a zillion apps. He went through his apps
>> with me the other night, and I didn't see one that interested me.
>
>maybe his choice of apps doesn't overlap with yours.
>
>you probably don't have the same selection of apps on your computers
>either.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando FL

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:18:35 -0700, Savageduck

So it's not the original engine.

>
>> In any case http://www.finishing.com/519/33.shtml is a very
>> interesting read. The original engine was removed and the body
>> destroyed while the car was in the factory. I know from another site
>> that the gearbox is from another car which disappeared in 1958.
>>
>> So it seems we have the original chassis, probably a different engine,
>> certainly a different gearbox, and a new body which may have been
>> built in the wrong material! It's certainly a stretch to call it a
>> 'restoration'. Never mind.
>
>My understanding is the body material is duplicated "Elektron"
>Magnesium/aluminum alloy as use in the original.

One of the comments in the URL I have given above is:

"I did a bit of further research on the Bugatti riveted aluminum
cars. Three of them still exist, and they are definitely aluminum
bodies. At the time Bugatti called them "Elektron".'

... so may be Phil Reilly and the gang up in Canada (with the
duplicate Aerolithe) may have been mislead into using the wrong
material.

>
>Anyway, regardless our bantering, restoration, or partial replication
>of any of these great cars can only be commended, and I for one feel
>privileged to be able to see them today.

I envy you. One way or another it is a unique motor vehicle.

--- snip ---

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[nospam]

In article <t91hn8p0cpfclv8v9...@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper

<tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> I used 19 minutes of my 700 minute voice plan last month. That
> >> doesn't include mobile-to-mobile minutes because the basic plan gives
> >> me those free. I never use the camera. I do text, but that's
> >> included in the basic plan for free.
> >
> >the camera in the iphone 4 is quite good, so you'd probably use it at
> >least some of the time, probably with one of the many camera apps
> >available. however, the cameras in the 4s & 5 are noticeably better.
>
> It doesn't interest me. I'm an avid photographer, but with my Nikons.
> If I'm going to go out for photos, I do it with the Nikons. I've got a
> P&S camera in the car for quickies and unexpected shots.

suit yourself, but there is quite a bit that can be done with a
smartphone camera that is harder than with other cameras, such as
panoramas. pick the best tool for the job.

then again, you like making more work for yourself.

[nospam]

In article <kl9oeq$eii$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Danny D.

<da...@pleasedontemail.com> wrote:

> > why do you need a replacement disk for windows? can't you contact
> > microsoft and get it activated?
>
> Huh? The brand new hard disk needs an operating system.
> Where am I supposed to "get" that operating system?

same place you got the original.

or just restore from a backup. you do have backups, right?

> > you gave up on windows because you can't figure out
> > how to reactivate windows when swapping a hard drive?
>
> Um, maybe you know something I don't know.
> How do you reactivate something that's not there?
> I must be missing something critical here - so please let me know how.

how did you get windows in the first place?

> >> Trust me that you can live perfectly well _without_ iTunes! :)
> > not if you have an ipod, iphone or ipad, you can't.
>
> I just explained that I have my own iPod & my kid has an iPhone,
> and they work perfectly fine without iTunes. We don't need to argue
> because this is extremely well known information.

with limited functionality, they do. who wants limited functionality?

maybe that's acceptable for you and your kid, but it's not for the rest
of the world. people want more features, not less.

meanwhile, hundreds of millions of people have itunes installed without
problems. there's no reason to avoid it.

> If you still really think you can't populate an iPod/iPhone without
> iTunes, you'll need more advice than I am prepared to dish out anyway.

you can, however, functionality is more limited than with itunes, as i
said.

some of what can't be done without itunes includes full backups, smart
playlists, editing tags and much more. also, many things are much
easier to do in itunes than on an iphone or ipad.

you may be ok with limited functionality, but others certainly are not.

to say that someone doesn't need itunes is flat out false.

> > in other words, you can't live perfectly well without itunes.
>
> Wow. Your repeated inability to comprehend shows that you simply want to
> argue - but I know the old adage ... so I refuse to drop down to that
> level - where your experience will win out anyway.

i'm not arguing. i'm refuting your ludicrous claims. plus, you're
contradicting yourself.

> Since I refuse to drop to the level of a grade schooler, this
> conversation is over. Good luck.

translated: you know you're wrong and can't back anything up so you
back out. why am i not surprised.

bye bye.

[bugbear]

Danny D. wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:57:33 +0100 bugbear wrote:
>
>> Try googling screenshot annotation
>> if that's what you want, rather than "proving" that image
>> editors aren't screenshot annotators.
>
> Interesting point, especially when it comes to freeware.
>
> Since you're experienced with freeware, you're aware that the goal
> is to have as few programs as possible that get the job done.

I'm not "aware" of that, in fact I disagree. I would far rather
have a larger number of dedicated programs, than a single
jack of all trades.

And this applies to "software", wether paid for or not.

BugBear

[bugbear]

Danny D. wrote:
> One point to make though, even though all programs can grow
> the canvas, is that it's generally done in one of two ways.
>
> 1. You accurately specify the size & shape to grow (down to the pixel);
> 2. Or, you simply stretch & contract the canvass as needed.
>
> Most freeware uses the first method, e.g., The GIMP, as shown below

Gimp supports (1) (2), and (indeed) hybrid modes (2) constrained
in various ways by (1).

BugBear

[Whisky-dave]

On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:11:06 PM UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <daaca6d6-ed9e-4b5a...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > it matters if your time is worth something.
>
> >
>
> > Everyones tinme is worth something, which is one of the reasons for fast
>
> > food, it's more expensive too, you pays yuor money and takes yuor choice.
>
>
>
> fast food is not always more expensive. compare the price of mcdonalds
>
> to that of a fancy burger place. i've heard of $20 burgers at some
>
> places.

But it's not a true comparison is it.
http://most-expensive.net/burgers-world, they lok nothing like a local burger joint offering 2 burgeres for 99p lunchtime special, well the pictures don;t look and I doubt teh actual products will either.

> > What are the multiple installs adobe offers say compared with Apples
>
> > Aperature ?
>
>
>
> aperture used to have paid upgrades, just like most adobe products,
>
> until aperture moved to the mac app store. now it's free upgrades.

Updates not upgrades, I'm still at version 3 IIRC which is what I brought.
The most recent was an update not an upgrade.

> adobe acrobat reader is free, unlimited installs and unlimited upgrades.

Yes so is preview, and quicktime and safari .....

> > > they know that if they don't restrict it, people will buy one copy and
>
> > >
>
> > > use it on hundreds of machines (or just pirate it outright).
>
> >
>
> > Yes isn't that why adobe have license numbers and activation codes.
>
>
>
> photoshop is one of the most widely pirated apps, so it's no surprise
>
> it has activation.

yes I know it's never stoped me from using it but it has stopped me from buying it.

> > >they're
>
> > > not really worried about one person who has a laptop and a desktop, and
>
> > > in fact, that situation is usually allowed.
>
> >
>
> > it is now years ago it wasn;t and if I just happen to have say Pshop on a Mac
>
> > laptop can I also install it on my windows desktop without having to pay for
>
> > it again ?
>
> > Never used to be able to, not sure now, not interested now.
>
>
>
> you can install and activate photoshop on two machines, typically a
>
> desktop and laptop.

But on 2 OS's if not why not?
Not the easist of sites to work out what you;'re getting .

http://www.adobe.com/uk/products/photoshop.edu.html
------------------------
Photoshop CS6 update

The Adobe Photoshop 13.0.4 update enables support for new HiDPI displays on the Mac platform for a dramatic improvement in image fidelity and resolution. This update applies to all languages of Photoshop CS6.
------------------------
a couple of paragraphs later
-------------------------
Adobe Photoshop CS6 update

The Adobe Photoshop 13.0.3 update enables support for new HiDPI displays on the Macintosh platform for a dramatic improvement in image fidelity and resolution. This update applies to all languages of Adobe Photoshop CS6.

----------------------------

> > > depends on what you need to do. photoshop elements is around $50 and is
>
> > > significantly more capable than anything free.
>
> >
>
> > It should be better than free options otherwise people wouldn't buy it would
>
> > they ?
>
>
>
> exactly. photoshop is more capable than the free alternatives, which is
>
> why it sells so well and in high demand by pirates. even pirates don't
>
> want the legitimate free crap, they want the real thing.

That goes for most things but do those pirates have it because it's the best or because it's the most expensive product ?
When I'm looking for anythnng I always check out the most expensive option so I know what I'm missing in the cheaper options. if I have the option of getting anyhting for a set price I'd tend to opt for the most expensive in the belief that I'm getting something extra for my money.

> > > if elements saves you a
> > > couple of hours (even just one hour), you come out ahead by buying it.
>
> >
>
> > Maybe, but at approx 3X my hourly pay rate I'd have to use it at least 3 hours to break
>
> > even and be convinced there was no other practical way of doing it in 3 hours any other way.
>
> > On other groups people are discussing how much time they'll save if the brought a SSD drive.
>
>
>
> it will definitely save you 3 hours and probably much more, unless you
>
> don't do very much with a graphic app.

Well I don't do that much but I have CS2, Aperature 3.4, iphoto, pixelmator and a free copy of elements(not installed) which came with my scanner.

The product I'm currently using to draw arrows on things is Paint under W7.

> ssd is also a nice performance boost too and can save people valuable
>
> time.

It can but I question the value for most people, there's also concerns over the longer term relibility of SSDs if you're keeping data on them. For most spending the extra $ or £ on memeroy could be a better choice than a SSD.
I'll decide for myself when next in the market for a new computer.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 23:29:24 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Work? Work? Photography is not work for me. I hope I never get to
the point in photography where I choose something because it means
less work for me.

[Poutnik]

bugbear posted Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:56:00 +0100

> > Since you're experienced with freeware, you're aware that the goal
> > is to have as few programs as possible that get the job done.
>
> I'm not "aware" of that, in fact I disagree. I would far rather
> have a larger number of dedicated programs, than a single
> jack of all trades.
>

I suppose the goal is not to have a single program,
tha is able to do everything.....

--
Poutnik

[Whisky-dave]

It would be an intersting goal but most know that it's not realy possible or at least very unlikely to happen, and that goes for most things in life.

[Mayayana]

| > Huh? The brand new hard disk needs an operating system.
| > Where am I supposed to "get" that operating system?
|
| same place you got the original.
|

Circa 1998 a Windows PC came with a Windows CD that
could be used to install Windows on any other PC, or to
reinstall. It was an actual copy of Windows. Since then Microsoft
has gone to great lengths to lock the OS to the hardware
and render a PC as a disposable appliance. With XP, MS
instituted Product Activation, tying Windows to the hardware.
The public has been trained to see Windows as part of the
PC, and trained to see the PC itself as a single unit, when
it's actually just an assemblage of parts put together by
the OEM company in a branded box.

Microsoft now make a lot more profit from people like
Danny D. Most people buy another Windows license with
every PC purchase. And many people buy another PC the
first time their current PC "doesn't work". Meanwhile, pressure
from Microsoft and plunging PC prices have all but eliminated
"white box" PC shops, so it's very difficult to buy any PC
without also buying a Windows license.

It's possible, through various means, to make sure that
one has a backup of the OS in the case of hard disk failure,
power surge, nasty malware, etc., but most people don't
know anything about that and don't realize they're at risk.
Danny D. might also be able to successfully reinstall using
an OEM disk with his existing product key. But where will he
get a basic OEM disk? He can't use his product key with
any other license type. And only people who build their own
computers are likely to have a generic OEM Windows disk.
(Microsoft have been careful to cover all the angles.)

From what I've seen, even the average tech. support
person doesn't create an install disk or make a disk image
for customers. So any failure that can't be fixed by re-installing
from a "restore partition" usually means buying either a new
PC or a new copy of Windows unnecessarily.

Actually, even MacOS could be installed to a "white box"
at one point. Then Steve Jobs returned to Apple and locked
it to their hardware. Probably the Microsofties got the
idea from him. They might not have dared to try pulling
it off otherwise. But Steve Jobs was more clever. He
provided the appearance that Apple was actually building
the hardware, so rendering the software virtually embedded
didn't seem so odd, even though Apple is really just the sole
OEM company for MacOS. They don't make the hardware any
more than Dell does. They just design the package. But Windows
comes in several packages, which dilutes their brand. HP,
Dell and Acer all manage to create the illusion that they
built the hardware, but since there are several Windows OEM
companies there's no "Microsoft computer" in the same way
that there's an "Apple computer". (Apple lovers often refer
to "Wintel" because they've been trained to view Macs as
appliances with embedded software, but there was never
such a monolithic Windows hardware brand.)

[PeterN]

On 4/24/2013 4:11 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <daaca6d6-ed9e-4b5a...@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> it matters if your time is worth something.
>>
>> Everyones tinme is worth something, which is one of the reasons for fast
>> food, it's more expensive too, you pays yuor money and takes yuor choice.
>
> fast food is not always more expensive. compare the price of mcdonalds
> to that of a fancy burger place. i've heard of $20 burgers at some
> places.
>

Fast food is neither.

If you want a cardboard taste, just grind up paper, and cover it with
ketchup, cheaper than a big Mac. Less calories too.




--
PeterN

[nospam]

In article <klbded$4vn$1...@dont-email.me>, Mayayana

<maya...@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> | > Huh? The brand new hard disk needs an operating system.
> | > Where am I supposed to "get" that operating system?
> |
> | same place you got the original.
>
> Circa 1998 a Windows PC came with a Windows CD that
> could be used to install Windows on any other PC, or to
> reinstall. It was an actual copy of Windows. Since then Microsoft
> has gone to great lengths to lock the OS to the hardware
> and render a PC as a disposable appliance. With XP, MS
> instituted Product Activation, tying Windows to the hardware.
> The public has been trained to see Windows as part of the
> PC, and trained to see the PC itself as a single unit, when
> it's actually just an assemblage of parts put together by
> the OEM company in a branded box.

everything is an assemblage of parts.

users don't care about the individual parts. they care about the
finished product, a working computer which helps them get work done.

> Microsoft now make a lot more profit from people like
> Danny D. Most people buy another Windows license with
> every PC purchase.

that's because it's bundled with every pc purchase.

> And many people buy another PC the
> first time their current PC "doesn't work".

that's because buying a new computer is usually a much better choice
than putting money into an older computer, broken or not.

> Meanwhile, pressure
> from Microsoft and plunging PC prices have all but eliminated
> "white box" PC shops, so it's very difficult to buy any PC
> without also buying a Windows license.

so what? windows is licensed per machine so you need a windows license.
might as well get it bundled.

> It's possible, through various means, to make sure that
> one has a backup of the OS in the case of hard disk failure,
> power surge, nasty malware, etc., but most people don't
> know anything about that and don't realize they're at risk.

if you don't make backups, then you will be screwed when a hard drive
crashes. this applies to anything, not just windows.

> Danny D. might also be able to successfully reinstall using
> an OEM disk with his existing product key. But where will he
> get a basic OEM disk? He can't use his product key with
> any other license type. And only people who build their own
> computers are likely to have a generic OEM Windows disk.
> (Microsoft have been careful to cover all the angles.)

recovery disk.

> From what I've seen, even the average tech. support
> person doesn't create an install disk or make a disk image
> for customers. So any failure that can't be fixed by re-installing
> from a "restore partition" usually means buying either a new
> PC or a new copy of Windows unnecessarily.

whose fault is that?

> Actually, even MacOS could be installed to a "white box"
> at one point. Then Steve Jobs returned to Apple and locked
> it to their hardware.

nope.

before steve jobs returned to apple in 1997, mac os could *not* be
installed to a generic 'white box'.

apple did have clones in the 90s, but those were really licensed mac
motherboards with minor modifications by the clonemakers. mac clones
was also a really stupid move and caused apple to lose money, which is
why it was ended.

> Probably the Microsofties got the
> idea from him.

windows activation is because windows was widely pirated, not just
people getting it off pirate sites, but those who bought one copy and
installed it on multiple machines.

> They might not have dared to try pulling
> it off otherwise. But Steve Jobs was more clever. He
> provided the appearance that Apple was actually building
> the hardware, so rendering the software virtually embedded
> didn't seem so odd, even though Apple is really just the sole
> OEM company for MacOS. They don't make the hardware any
> more than Dell does. They just design the package.

anyone who thinks a mac is just a repackaged dell or lenovo but with an
apple logo is very mistaken.

> But Windows
> comes in several packages, which dilutes their brand.

it doesn't dilute the brand, but it does confuse people on which
version to buy.

> HP,
> Dell and Acer all manage to create the illusion that they
> built the hardware, but since there are several Windows OEM
> companies there's no "Microsoft computer" in the same way
> that there's an "Apple computer".

there are microsoft computers, which is pissing off their hardware
partners.

> (Apple lovers often refer
> to "Wintel" because they've been trained to view Macs as
> appliances with embedded software, but there was never
> such a monolithic Windows hardware brand.)

nonsense. the term wintel did not originate from apple fans and macs do
not have embedded software either, nor are they appliances.

where do you come up with this shit?

[nospam]

In article <MPG.2be332d...@news.eternal-september.org>, Poutnik

<pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> > > Since you're experienced with freeware, you're aware that the goal
> > > is to have as few programs as possible that get the job done.
> >
> > I'm not "aware" of that, in fact I disagree. I would far rather
> > have a larger number of dedicated programs, than a single
> > jack of all trades.
>
> I suppose the goal is not to have a single program,
> tha is able to do everything.....

the goal is to get whatever is necessary to do what the user needs to
do, not meet some goal of having the most or the fewest apps.