Please resize your images...

[S/V Elusive]

Lets see ... I was in the Navy and also going to school. We were running (at school) a PDP1170 and had JUST got terminals in that could a) be used to create your deck, and b) actually send and receive a msg amongst the other terminals (and the control op). The course still required we create, execute and debug using the deck of cards - cause, "it is a permanent media and will be around forever." But then again, in the Navy, we were still using teletype and streaming tape.

[hellosailor]

Rick-
Sell my Hayes 1200B ?! Never!

It earned a warn corner by the stove.<G> Although, you can buy a pretty nice laptop now for less than what that puppy cost.

[knottybuoyz]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Rick-
Sell my Hayes 1200B ?! Never!

It earned a warn corner by the stove.<G> Although, you can buy a pretty nice laptop now for less than what that puppy cost.

Yeah really! Those were the first with fax capability if I remember correctly. I've got an old 300 baud modem kicking around somewhere, probably snuggled up to the ole' Commodore 64 in the closet. Think I first used the Hayes to access Arpanet for NATO cataloguing purposes. It was one of my jobs to coordinate CCG's spare parts inventories and we use(d) the NATO cataloguing system. That was probably early 90's.

[zephyr4]

The first modem I used was 300 baud also. You jammed the phone into rubber cups after dialing the number. I remember typing faster than messages could display on the recipient's computer.

Recently I told the high school students I teach one of those "I am so old stories" about programming with punched cards. They didn't know what punched cards were! I *really* felt old then.

[Starbuck]

Coot, I appreciate your experience, but can't help but notice that 95% of your (longish) post #13 is in the past tense.

It's a different world. Not saying you're wrong about anything; however, I do think expectations have changed.

[coot]

Originally Posted by CaptainJeff

Coot, I appreciate your experience, but can't help but notice that 95% of your (longish) post #13 is in the past tense.

It's a different world. Not saying you're wrong about anything; however, I do think expectations have changed.

It was past tense because I was talking about what used to be, but I see your point that expectations have changed. The one thing that did the most to make the internet popular was pretty graphics on web pages. You can hardly find a web page that displays properly in a text-only browser any more.

I don't oppose to large images on principle, but if I am using broadband and still pages take too long to load, then I think it makes sense to at least consider whether a large image really contributes something useful to the communication that would not be similarly served by a small image.

It will only get worse, of course. I expect that I will live to see web forums that only accept postings in the form of video of the poster speaking. Once that catches on, 30% of internet traffic will be video of somebody saying "and... um... uh..."

Here is a useful technique I use for reading a web forum:

I get the list of messages I am interested in, usually from the "new messages" list. Then I open several different messages, each in a new window. I lower all the windows except the first message, then read it. While I am reading it, the others continue to load. When I finish the first message, I close it, open a new one, then push it to the bottom. This leaves the second message visible, and I read that, and so on...

I don't remember if you can lower windows on Microsoft Windows, but you can minimize them. You can also use multiple tabs if you like tabbed browsers.

The idea is that I always have something to read while I wait for some other window to load. If you get too many going at once, they just get in each other's way, but with a small number of windows it helps cut down on the wait time. Before I hit reply here, I reloaded this page to see how long it would take -- it was 41 seconds. I wouldn't have known if I didn't explicitly check because I was reading about battery chargers while it loaded.

[Boracay]

Those large images would make it practically impossible for a member who does not have a high speed connection to access the Forum.

This would include most of those actually on a boat.

[Weyalan]

While I understand the frustration of dial-up users, I concur with the poster above who suggested it would be sensible for dial-up users to adjust the settings on their browser so that they don't automatically download images, rather than expecting the majority of users to modify their posting to suit the minority.

The ability to see good quality pictures really enhances my browsing experience, I don't want to see grainy thumbnail sized jpegs. Sorry.

[Boracay]

Whats wrong with this image?

[Charlie]

Ok I'm ignorant. How do you post pictures in a thread. I've been trying to find out how to do this for the past couple of days and have not been able to figure it out. I'm sorry if this is already been posted somewhere but I couldn't find it.

Thanks in advance

On review I guess I did it but am not sure how?

BTW this is a picture of my new invention for those of us who have Children. It is called the kiddy reef. When children get out of hand you just put them in, Do a couple of "accidental" jibes in 25 kts plus and the kids are . . . Beware to set kids out of the way of shrouds. When I patent the lubbers version I'll be rich.

[Weyalan]

Chris,

In order to accommodate your request, you are going to need to give me a quick lesson in HTML. I would be more than happy to post lorge sized images as low-rez thumbnails linking to the high rez image... if I knew how to do it (luddite; me). Any clues?

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by Charlie

Ok I'm ignorant. How do you post pictures in a thread. I've been trying to find out how to do this for the past couple of days and have not been able to figure it out. I'm sorry if this is already been posted somewhere but I couldn't find it.

There are several ways. That picture was posted in the "Attach Files", that's one way you have found. These are not saved in the "photo Gallery".

Another way is to upload to the "Photo Gallery" and then copy it's address (ending with a .jpg) and paste it in the drop down menu (Insert Image) that is located in the message box (at top) of a "Reply Post". You can copy the thumbnail also.

Another way is to insert it between a [ & img & ] and [ & / & img & ]brackets, and that should drop in a picture.

There are more ways but this should get you started.................._/)

[Boracay]

When I post resized images I follow these steps.
1) Download Microsoft PowerToys.
2) Left click on your large image and select resize.
3) Locate the resized image (in the same folder as the original) and rename it to something suitable for public consumption.
4) Scroll down your "Reply to Thread" window to find the "Manage Attachments" button.
5) In the "Manage Attachments" pop up window select the "Browse" button and locate the resized image in your computer. Open it.
6) You will now find the resized image attached to your post. It does not appear in Preview mode but will appear when you press the "Submit Reply" button.
This is a lot easier than it sounds, and should be no harder than insering an image in your code. It is mostly the same as placing an attachment in an email.

[Charlie]

Thanks Del:

I should be able to make it work from here.