Messages

1

Screenshot Captor / Re: Feature Req: Making Objects moveable with cursor keys on the keyboad!

« on: November 08, 2005, 06:13 AM »

adding now.

-mouser (November 08, 2005, 03:51 AM)

:-)

2

Screenshot Captor / Feature Req: Making Objects moveable with cursor keys on the keyboad!

« on: November 08, 2005, 03:49 AM »

Hi!

I've just made a screenshot and wanted to add some text objects. 'Cause the objects are near together I've wanted to
move them as exactly as possible. I tried to do this with the cursor keys on the keyboard but they didn't work. Moving
was only possible with mouse support.

So I would appreciate the possibility to move objects with the cursor keys on the keyboard!


Till

3

Best E-mail Client / Re: Additional Information about Foxmail (from a Foxmail-User)

« on: October 09, 2005, 01:16 PM »

(is there is still no inline spelling?)

-mouser (October 08, 2005, 08:06 PM)

Inline spelling isn't available as far as I know (haven't been using any spell checking in
an email-client yet).Manual spell cheking -like here in the forum- is available.

I think the "Mailbox Manager" is worth it to be mentioned.
For me, it's the best anti-spam-tool , cause it allows me to directly connect to the pop3-server
and to select there which mails I want to fetch. So I can filter the mails on the server and don't
have to do this in my local mailbox.

And last not least! It's totally USB-Stick compatible (once you've installed it you can just copy it's folder)

4

Best E-mail Client / Additional Information about Foxmail (from a Foxmail-User)

« on: October 08, 2005, 06:47 PM »

In the review about Foxmail is written:

There is no inline spelling, and no support for dragging and dropping messages between folders, which is unforunate.

This is wrong! Of course you can move messages between folders and even different mailboxes.

We couldn't get encryption to work

Encryption works with PCKS (e.g. with certificates from VeriSign)

5

Screenshot Captor / Re: Quality of screenshots?!

« on: October 08, 2005, 05:11 PM »

Hi!

A few minutes ago I've downloaded your latest release and compared both programs
again. I don't know if you've changed some settings but now I can't discover any
considerable differences between both programs any more.

If you didn't made any changes than it was the weather here

I can send you the screenshots if you want, but I think it's wasted time!

By the way: today I've mentioned your fantastic support in the "efb.nu" (Essential Freebies) forum and recommended
a donation

6

Screenshot Captor / Re: Quality of screenshots?!

« on: October 08, 2005, 04:22 PM »

Hi!

I just updated Image Eye and opened a screenshot in *.png-format.

The quality is perfect!

So I can live with the noisy effect with *.jpg-files

7

Screenshot Captor / Re: Quality of screenshots?!

« on: October 08, 2005, 12:58 PM »

If Hardcopy does not support PNG I wouldn't use that anyway  PNG is WAY better for screenshots than JPG.

It doesn't support *.png but *.bmp an *.tiff. BMP is losless enough 

Thankfully you discovered a really great program now, just play around a bit with Screenshot Captor and discover all the nice possibilities!

I know about that and I'm very proud off it  ! I wouldn't be here if I didn't like its possibilities!

8

Screenshot Captor / Re: Quality of screenshots?!

« on: October 08, 2005, 12:23 PM »

I've been using the *.jpg-format because it's the only format which is available in both programs.

I set Hardcopy to save the files in the same directory as SC. In the internal viewer of SC the quality of the images were nearly the same.
But in an external viewer ("Image Eye" from www.fmjsoft.com) I saw the difference. I didn't compare Hardcopys own format with an
*.tiff-file from SC.

9

Screenshot Captor / Quality of screenshots?!

« on: October 08, 2005, 12:04 PM »

Before I was using Screenshot Captor I used "Hardcopy" (www.hardcopy.de).
The reason why I changed the programme is the build in image explore in SC.

BUT: The quality of the images shot with Hardcopy seems to be better, even when I set the compression level in SC to "min". 

Are there any plans to improve the quality of the images in the future?