Re: Tapble top fusion generator

Albert posted:

"No. Any site should be totally readable in any browser."

Only if it the HTML is programmed set to be compatible with the very
lowest end systems. If you're trying to image the more sophisticated
websites using a low-end laptop with a minimal quality LCD screen or
something like Web TV it's your problem, not that of the poster posting
the site. This is why many of the high-end commercial websites contain
the statement: "Best Viewed in 1024x768 or 1280x1024 scan formats using
32 or 16 bit PPC" for a reason, because your browser can compensate for
difference in this range, automatically correcting the character
display size accordingly. Many older destops with small 14 inch
moritors and limited range graphics driver hardware and desktops cannot
provide this performance, so their browsers do the best they can which,
today, often resulting in an unacceptable graphics presentation.

Remember at the time HTML and browsers first appeared back in the
middle 90s, the common browser was Mosaic, whose outputs were largely
targeted to users having relatively low resolution graphics on their
computers. The Web improved considerably when Netscape first appeared,
and even more when Microft introduced it's series of "Explorer"
browsers. Today serious commercial users employ almost entirely
Acroobat .files for their catalogs on line and datasheets. With .pdf I
believe the needed type fonts become part of the .pdf file itself, but
the type sizes are precisely identical to the type style and format
employed on the original document. For example, dowload one of many
income tax forms published on line by IRS, or those from Intel
providing the technical data on each of the integrated circuits they
produce. You're computer will not be capable of correctly imaging any
of these, if it lacks the required display resoluton.

For years I had used a small (I believe it was 14") NEC Multisync
monitor with my system, until I started to have vision problems
(actually cataracts in both eyes). That when about 7 years ago, I
purchased (my children paid for half the cost as their birthday present
to me) a top-of-the line, 19" Mitsubishi monitor, that allowed the
display enlarged type fonts. That helped for a few years, but I
eventually had to have cataract surgery (lens replacement) in both
eyes. That's when I realized that with even small print, I could go
back to the old practice of displaying from 6 to 8 or more graphics
windows on the screen at the same time, and still clearly read the
contents of each. Now most computer users don't really have a need for
this, but being a long-term embedded sofware engineer, this is a
standard practice among most professional software devopers. One
window display the source code that you are editing, another the
compilation progress, another the error log, while another is used to
monitor trial execution of the object program while running a software
based CPU emulator. Just for fun, another window displays the Microsoft
Explorer web images, and final generally displays a live TV image from
my TV tuner/video capture card just to keep up to date while spending 8
hours or more staring at the display screen while debuggin and editing
source code.

Surprisingly everything except the live tv image worked just fine with
this monitor while being driven by my old Pentium Pro 200 based system.
The new system uses a Pentium 4 processor running at 2.4-Ghz, has
1-Mbyte of main memory, a 250-Gbyte C: system drive, a 20-Gbyte D: data
drive, a DVD read/write drive, and the entire setup cost under $600. I
used An ASUS barebones T2-R Terminator system that NewEgg is selling
for $129 less the processor, $89 worth of memory sticks, $149 for the
250 Gbyte drive from CompUSA, and IIRC the 2.4 Ghz Pentium 4 processor
complete with fan and heatsink was another $189, arguably the most
costly component in the machine -- everything else I salvaged from my 7
year-old 200 Mhz system. Now considering that the typical laptop from
IBM is selling for something like $2,000 to $4,000, one has to ask if
portability is really worth the enormous cost premium over a desktop,
particularly since it has no way near the versatility and performance
of my micro-tower configured ASUS T2 Terminator, or has hauling around
the laptop simply just become some sort of a status symbol just as have
cell phones, Omega Clamshell Watches, and large diamond rings on men?

I post this only becasue it seriously sounds like you need and deserve
a system that is capable of performing up to your needs and not
unreasonable expectations. Other readers my find my personal
expererience helpful to them in making choices. Yes, when traveling I
sometime need to access my email, and inexpensive, used laptops are
great for this application and you are not at a great loss when you
lose at the airport or is is broken, it shouldn't present a great
hardship. For more serious field work, my little "Terminator" can
travel well in a padded, hand carry-on bag, but uncabling it and
reconnecting it in the field is a bit of an effort that I would prefer
to avoid, but needed for critical work where a laptop cannot simply
handle the job.

Just so you comprehend what I am saying, the world will not adapt you
your wants, you must comply with the standards in general use, and
these change every year or two. In the computer world, it's been my
experience that about every 5 to 7 years, you need to upgrade your
system.

Hope this helps...You or others.

Kindest regards, Harry C.

.