Sorry Ann, didn't mean to offend. But even a change to the 100K number you cite would be helpful. 75K is an artifact of the days of 300 baud modems. It's not even in keeping with the capability of current dial-up modems. Paul On Jun 20, 2006, at 11:31 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
> Paul Stenquist wrote: >> >> I was going to comment on the size restriction as well, but decided >> not >> to stir the pot. But since you bring it up: yes it is a problem. It's >> very difficult to prepare an acceptable image at less than 75K. I find >> that I have to strip the metadata, so I do a save for web. But at 600 >> pixels or less on the long side, it's hard to provide an image that >> viewers can actually see. These limits are an historic artifact from >> the early days of the list and PUG. It's really time to change them. >> But every time that has been suggested, it seems there was an outcry >> of >> unfair to dialup users. Perhaps dial-up is virtually dead, and we can >> mover forward >> On Jun 20, 2006, at 9:13 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >> > What, Paul, you too? > > Dial-up is NOT dead by a long shot. > I can't even get anything else in my neighborhood right > now even if i could afford it.... and I can't. > > As it is, I can't see half the stuff you guys post to the > list to look at because it > takes so long to load and it slows down the system trying. > > I wish I could have faster access - it takes me too long to > list things on ebay, too > long to do everything, but what part of some of us don't > have the bucks don't you > guys understand?? > > IT really is very hurtful > > ann > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
