goddi

=================== Tom, Thanks for the info. I'll keep my eye opened for the 1015n. Gary

Greetings, I borrowed a friend's NetBook, which is an Acer Aspire One Atom with 1Mb of RAM and the processor is a 1.33 GHz Intel Atom Z520. I played some PTE exe files and they played OK, maybe not perfect. But when I tried to play the same file as an MP4, using Home Cinema as the player, the NetBook choked and rebooted each time. I'd like to get a NetBook but one that has the guts to play PTE MP4 slideshows, without choking. I'd like to know if this problem of rebooting, when an MP4 is played, is caused by having only 1 Mbs of RAM or is it the slow 1.33 processing speed. Or both? If so what would be the minimum specs for a good NetBook to play MP4 without any problems? Thanks... Gary P.S. And, the video card, I would guess, is integrated on the motherboard....but wouldn't all NetBooks have their video card integrated?

========================= Colin, It took me a while, but I found these specs. It has the 16+ million colors, as you state, but it is 24 bit (not the 8 bit, as you mentioned). Is this a positive or a negative? Color Support24-bit-(16.7 million colors) Diagonal Size-23in Diagonal Size (metric)-58.4cm Form Factor-Desktop Image Brightness-250cd/m2 Image Contrast Ratio-1000:1 Image Max H-View Angle-170 Image Max V-View Angle-160 Interface-VGA (HD-15) / DVI / HDMI Max Resolution-1920 x 1080 Response Time-2ms Technology-TFT active matrix Type-LCD display Widescreen-Widescreen Thanks... Gary added later: Oppps, the above is for the XL2370; below is for the P2370 model (pretty much the same, but the 'P' has the TV tuner): • Diagonal Size 23 in - Widescreen • Dot Pitch / Pixel Pitch 0.2655 mm • Max Resolution 1920 x 1080 • Color Support 24-bit (16.7 million colors) • Max Sync Rate (V x H) 60 Hz x 81 KHz • Video Bandwidth 164 MHz • Response Time 2 ms • Video Output None • Signal Input DVI-I, VGA • Features MagicTune , MagicWizard , MagicBright 3 , Sync on Green

================== Peter... Yes, I just discovered that button. And it worked. Before, however, it was not needed. But nice to hear it is not my PC doing bad things.... Hope it gets fixed. Thanks... Gary

Greetings, For some time now, I have been using the Forums 'View New Content' to pull up the posting since my last visit to the Forum. It is really a great way to be able to see only what the new postings are and it normally works great in showing me only what has been posting since my last visit. However, more recently, it has not been consistent. My 'Settings' in the Forum has the 'Show me all new content since my last visit' checked. But, like today, even though I have read all the latest postings, and close the site, and then come back, it shows all the same postings that I had just read. What constitutes a 'last visit'? Is there a way to force a 'last visit' or what makes it clear the already-read-postings? Thanks... Gary

================== I gave it a look but it beats me!!! I can add new text to the black background and it shows up fine. If I add text as a child to one of your text blocks (that does not show up), it also does not show up. Why your text is not showing up is a mystery. I guess, the best way to overcome this problem is to dump the text you have and add it again, and it should show up, as it did in my test??? (V6.5) Gary

Lin, It is difficult to comprehend the loss of a partner of 33 years. It is with great sadness to hear of Sherry's passing. Best wishes to you and your family, Gary

==================== Ronnie, The first box is checked, 'Turn on DEP for all programs and services only', and nothing is in the box below the two radio buttons. Gary

=================== Ok... I installed the 6.5 Beta 15 on my Windows XP PC and played your test slideshow and had no problems. Gary PS And when I go to make an MP4...no problems.

======================== Ronnie, I'm not sure if this will help. But, I played your slideshow on my Windows7, 6.5 Beta15, and had no problems. I then tried opening it on my WindowsXP PC that has 6.0 Final and 6 Beta24 on it. In each of these two versions, I get an error "Sound Files Not Found" (it shows up 5 times in its error message window). I thought what I downloaded was created in 6.0 and it should have worked in my versions on my XP PC, but maybe I misunderstood your posting. Not sure what to make of this. Gary

==================== Peter... You are right, again! This morning, I did another Search for the 'apr'. For some unknown reason, they finally showed up. Maybe, I had accidentally stopped the completion of the search process before it was finished. Windows7's Search feature is so 'quiet' that maybe I thought it was done. It doesn't seem to show something like an hourglass or something that is obvious that it is still working. Anyway, I found a whole bunch of them, from Beta15, back to Beta1. Thanks... Gary

============== nobeefstu... Actually, I think I used 'apr*.ini', with the '*' wildcard and the 'period'. I did both with apr.ini and apr*.ini because Peter had some text in his files after the 'apr'. Doesn't Windows still recognized the '*' wildcard??? I am old enough to have been a fan of DOS! Gary

Greetings, I don't know if this 'problem' is a Beta15 bug or I am still confusing apples and oranges. Here goes: Today, I have been doing a lot of testing/trying difference options to create MP4s. I was always under the impression, from what I've seen in this Forum, that when you choose Screen/Fixed Size of Slide, you are making it so that when you happen to play your MP4 on a larger monitor/TV, the slideshow will not 'expand' beyond the Aspect Ratio you had set. In one of my experiments, I created 2 MP4 slideshows at a 4:3 Aspect Ratio, but one had Fixed Size checked, and one was unchecked. The slideshow that had the Fixed Size checked, was shown on my 40" LED (1920x1080, 16x9) retaining the 4:3 ratio. However, when I played the 4:3 MP4 slideshow that had the Fixed Size unchecked, I expected the show to just expand to just do a best-fit on the LED's screen but not go beyond it. What happened, though, was that the slideshow really expanded way beyond the LED's screen at all sides, losing lots of each image. Is this normal??? If this is normal, it seems that you would want the Fixed Size to always be checked? I always used the 16:9 Aspect Ratio before so I never noticed this 'problem'. Gary

============= Peter... Under Folder Options/View, I have 'Show Hidden Files' checked and I have unchecked all "Hide..." options. So all should be found, right? I am using Windows7 and it does not give me any further options in the Search options, so I think if I had an apr*.ini, it would have found it. Have I missed anything...? I remember I used to see an apr.ini file. Gary

================== Peter, Igor... I concur that it is still not picking up previous settings, in Beta15. I did several searches for the 'apr*.ini' and I don't have any such file. Is this a problem??? Gary

========================= Igor, To give you some feedback on your Nearest2.zip example: The Nearest portion (right side) of the slide looks sharper than the Bilinear (left side). However, when the zoom starts, the Nearest side creates many fuzzy vertical (and horizontal) lines as it zooms. Gary

================= nobeefstu... I am slowly putting my brain in gear. In NGOptimizer, it has a place to tick to keep the original size of the image when I reduce it using '80'. I had totally forgot that that option does not actually work. Even if ticked, the image comes out as a 3 x 2 dimensioned image. So that is why the file size is so much smaller than InfanView, which keeps the original size of the image. Ok...with that said, PTE seems to be doing a fantastic job because I can not tell the difference between the small image and the larger image when displayed as an MP4 show on my 40" LED. No, I have not tried optimizing for the web in PS. NGOptimizer was just so easy to use. For what it's worth, I have attached the two images. Gary Two Images.zip

====================== Peter and Dave, While it is obvious that I can't tell the difference between apples and oranges, it is still a wonderment in my mind that PTE can show the same images that have different resolutions but appear to be identical in quality in the slideshow. You mentioned the pixel dimensions. I thought by giving the different file size of each image, that might be a clue. The pixel dimension for the 97Kb image is 1000 x 750 and the pixel dimension for the 854Kb image is 4000 x 3000. And both look identical in PTE. What else puzzles me is if both were reduced using the same '80' setting, why are both so different in final file size? I would think they would both end up the same size. Maybe each software has their own '80' algorithm? I would stick with my old software that gives me the smaller file size without any difference in quality when viewed in PTE when compared with the larger file sized image. But it seems that the different pixel dimension would give some kind of quality difference in PTE...but I don't see it. If none of the above makes any difference in the final quality of the slideshow, what does when you are trying to reduce the size of the final PTE slideshow (given the same image)??? Both were created in PTE at 1920 x 1080. I just created an MP4 of the slideshow and I could not see any quality difference between these 2 images when played on my 40" LED TV. Gary

Greetings, I have a question that has to do with reducing the file size of images I use in PTE. I have been using a program that is no longer available, but it has been an easy way for me to batch-reduce the file size of my images I use in the slideshows. The program I have been using is Net Graphics Optimizer. I use it to batch-reduce the images at ‘80’ and I tell it to keep the original dimensions. However, I recently discovered that, when I look at the image size in Photoshop, it indicates the image’s Document Size is 3.333” x 2.5”, not 13.333” x 10” as is the original size. I did a test using InfanView and also reduced the same image at ‘80’. But InfanView kept the Document Size at 13.333” x 10”. Both are at 300 resolution. So here is my question: I put both of these images in PTE and I cannot tell the difference. How can a 3.333” x 2.5” image (97Kb) be as good (sharp) as a 13.333” x 10” image (854Kb) in PTE? Thanks… Gary

==================== Dave, I had tried that because I had a problem before when the bar was moved too far to the left and it was hiding the Drive list, but Igor fixed that some time ago. I tried moving the bar to the right but it did not make the Drive drop-down list appear. It only appeared after I just happened to move my mouse over that area and then it showed up. You can now move the bar all the way to the left as far as it will go and you will still get the Drive drop-down window (after it showed up). So Igor did a good fix, but the Drive drop-down menu was not there after I first installed the Beta 14. Gary

======== Igor, I notice a little thing that still has to do with that thin red line in the floating waveform. When you have played the audio and the red line is completely at the end of the waveform, and then you stretch the waveform to the max, the red line is not visible on the far right end. If you already know how to find it, it might not be a big deal. But it might cause concern for those who are just starting to use it, and wonder where it went to. This is another reason for putting a red handle on the red line. It would really make it easier to find...and move. Thanks... Gary

============== Thanks, Igor, for the quick response. Gary

====================== Igor, It took me quite a while before I figured out where and how to click on the red line (in the yellow space) to be able to move it, especially when it was at the far left or the far right. Now, I get it. But my suggestion was to put one of those little 'handles' (in red color) that you have placed on the other lines, such as the Fade In line, to make it more obvious and easier to click on. I put the source files on Mediafire: http://www.mediafire.com/file/4voacmnnpfkdxmq/Kayaking The Soca_Jul20-2010_10-07-31.zip Gary

==================== Thanks, Peter and Yachtman, Yes, if my memory is correct, both are "2 ms.". Gary