New Permitted Size for Posted Images

I am using 1280 x 1024 resolution on my 19" monitor, which I don't consider to be too archaic, and the new larger permitted image sizes (1024) for posted images are causing a horizontal scroll bar on my browser window, which is annoying!

I preferred the old 800 pixel limit!

Mike

Mike-DT6 wrote in post #4658022
I am using 1280 x 1024 resolution on my 19" monitor, which I don't consider to be too archaic, and the new larger permitted image sizes (1024) for posted images are causing a horizontal scroll bar on my browser window, which is annoying!

I preferred the old 800 pixel limit!

Mike

Oh well. We are doomed if we do and if we don't. Before raising the size limit many complained that 800 was too small. Now some complain the size is too big.

It's okay, I'll get a bigger monitor!

Alternatively, can you just trim a few pixels off the limit? Just enough to get rid of the horizontal scroll bar when on 1280 x 1024 resolution would be fine, thanks!

Mike

If you're using Internet Explorer, you can turn on the automatic image resizing feature. Then it doesn't matter what size the pictures are.

I expect other internet browsers have the same feature.

I'll give that a try, but if I get jagged edges I'll willingly go back to my horizontal scroll bar!

Mike

Pete wrote in post #4658433
If you're using Internet Explorer, you can turn on the automatic image resizing feature. Then it doesn't matter what size the pictures are.

I expect other internet browsers have the same feature.

Anyone know if firefox can do this?

It's always difficult for the forum admins to know when to make a switch like increasing image size. It's almost a guessing game as to when is the optimum time to raise that bar. The evolution of personal computers is driving these changes, and it's based on what serves the majority of members best. Whereas there are still some members with smaller displays incapable of showing 1024 pixel images without scrolling, the fact is, most can. Similarly, the number of people with dial-up connections is very small relative to the number of members with high-speed connection.

I had an interesting experience recently that illustrated this perfectly. I wanted a small monitor to put on the corner of my desk. I went to the local Best Buy, and the smallest monitor they had in stock was 17". I was really hoping for 14", but would have settled for 15". They have a 15" monitor listed on their website, but not in the store.

We can't hold back the natural evolution of the forum to accommodate the lowest common denominator. The world is changing, and the capabilities of the average computer/user are increasing. Today's entry-level machines are fully the equal of the high-end machines of just a few years ago, and high-speed internet is available to a significant majority of users.

Even the phone companies had to stop supporting telephones with cranks on them eventually.

Actually I think it must have been a false alarm, so apologies for any unfounded criticism! I certainly did get a horizontal scroll bar with the image I was complaining about and I did check its size (which was 1024 pixels wide), BUT I have since looked at other maximum permitted images and got no horizontal scroll bar!

Something else must have caused it. I didn't think I was too far behind the times with 1280 x 1024 on a 19" monitor!

Mike

Mike-DT6 wrote in post #4681108
Actually I think it must have been a false alarm, so apologies for any unfounded criticism! I certainly did get a horizontal scroll bar with the image I was complaining about and I did check its size, BUT I have since looked at other maximum permitted images and got no horizontal scroll bar!

Something else must have caused it. I didn't think I was too far behind the times with 1280 x 1024 on a 19" monitor!
Mike

Right. You should be golden.

belmondo wrote in post #4680554
Even the phone companies had to stop supporting telephones with cranks on them eventually.

Not yet they haven't, every time I answer the phone there is some crank on the other end of the line

Mike-DT6 wrote in post #4681108
Actually I think it must have been a false alarm, so apologies for any unfounded criticism! I certainly did get a horizontal scroll bar with the image I was complaining about and I did check its size (which was 1024 pixels wide), BUT I have since looked at other maximum permitted images and got no horizontal scroll bar!

Something else must have caused it. I didn't think I was too far behind the times with 1280 x 1024 on a 19" monitor!

Mike

Information in the poster's identification sidebar, usually but not always the name, can cause the post to start farther over than customary. Maybe we should give larger image size limits to people with short names (absent other factors like my large avatar or awarded titles) and smaller image size limits to people with verylongnamesthatseemt​ogoonforever@somehorre​ndouslylongdomain.com.

I'm currently on a 480x640 screen, so IM(ns)HO 800x800 was too big. :{)#

neil_r wrote in post #4681131
Not yet they haven't, every time I answer the phone there is some crank on the other end of the line

Then either you're in IT support or suffering from an upcoming election. In either case you have my deepest sympathy!

How about that Firefox question?

Anybody know?

Firefox can do this, I recall I had a bare of a time finding out how to turn that feature OFF as I preferred scrolling to the "autosquashed" image..

Let me see if I can find the setting..

Nope, it won't work for images embedded in a forum...

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=266876

Last post..
Not sure why IE can do it then..