Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Computing/2011 December 26

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 26

PC laptop that looks as good as a MacBook Pro

I am looking for a non-Apple laptop that looks as good as a MacBook Pro and has just as good specs. Does anyone have any suggestions? --Melab±1 ☎ 04:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Try an ultrabook. They're lightweight, compact and (mostly) nice-looking laptops with good specs, by definition. It's a pretty new market at least here in NZ, so there's not many in existence yet. sonia♫ 04:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to be as thin as a MacBook thou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.76.47 (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

HP Envy --178.208.197.58 (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

RAGE 128 PRO AGP 4X TMDS

I am working with a system having "RAGE 128 PRO AGP 4X TMDS" graphics card, according to dxdiag. I went to this page, which claims to enable Advanced OpenGL for said graphics device. When i ran it it said i have no hardware that is compatible on this machine, or something to that effect. Can i enable OpenGL on this computer or is the card simply too old? I would think if its too old there wouldnt be a website saying it can be enabled. =\

Thanks for any help

Edit: I am running windows XP Pro 5.1, by the way. 216.173.144.164 (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Reducing file size of JPG's

What's the best way of reducing file sizes of JPG's on a Windows XP computer? I have seven of my mother's Christmas party photos that she took on a Nikon digital camera. I'd like to email them to a relative on the other side of the world, but each file is about two megabytes, and sending fourteen megabytes of images by email doesn't sound like a great idea (zipping them doesn't help, but IIRC JPG's are already compressed?). Isn't two megabytes quite big for a JPG file anyway? I'm pretty good with computers, but clueless with images, since I'm totally blind. My mother can probably help me with things that require sighted assistance, but she's not very computer-literate. Thanks for any help that you can provide. Graham87 14:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It depends on your software but try to right-click one of the files and see if there is an option to send to mail recipient with a choice of size. If it works and you want to send multiple files in the same mail then mark all of them first, for example with Ctrl + left-click, and then right-click one of them. You can also send an email to yourself if you want your own copy of the versions with reduced size. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you thought about uploading them to something like Flickr? Flickr will save the image in a variety of sizes; it'll be quick to load up, but if they want to have the full quality version (and 2MB is not large for a full quality photo JPEG) they just have to click a bit and it's theirs. You can set privacy settings on it so just your family can see them. It's what I'd do, anyway, if I wanted to distribute a bunch of photos. It's stone cold simple and doesn't require that the people on the other end do anything other than click a link. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Opening and saving the image under a new filename in MS Paint will often reduce the filesize of jpgs (but also reduce the image quality). You could try an online tool such as this which seems to work quite well. If you are comfortable installing new programs into your computer, paint.net has a very good jpg quality/size modifier tool. 82.45.62.107 (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

1) Besides reducing resolution and quality, another option is cropping the image. If the subject of a photo is tiny and the background uninteresting, cutting off much of the background can be a good option. Of course, knowing what portion to crop does require a sighted person.

2) Knowing how the images will be used at the other end is also important. If they intend to print them out as 8.5" × 11" photos and frame them, then you will probably want maximum resolution. If they only intend to view them online, then a much smaller resolution is acceptable. If you can let us know what the height and width of your pictures is, in pixels, we can tell you whether that's appropriate for printed photos or viewing online. I also agree with the advice to post them online instead of mailing them, as this allows the recipient to choose the resolution. StuRat (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! I right-clicked on the images in Windows explorer and found a "reduce size" option, and emailed them in 640x480 resolution. Then I re-read the messages above, thought I'd at least *try* Flickr, and found it surprisingly easy to use for screen reader users! So I uploaded the images there also, in full resolution, naturally. They were all 3648x2736, which I gather would be suitable for printing, as only fairly high-quality images on Wikipedia seem to be anywhere near that resolution. Graham87 09:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

300 dots per inch is typical for printing, which would make your pics print at a bit over 12 inches by 9 inches. 640×480 is a bit on the small side for viewing online, so hopefully they will use Flickr to get the full res. Incidentally, what screen reader do you use ? JAWS ? StuRat (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I use JAWS, as it says on my user page. I ended up using the Windows Flickr uploading tool to upload the images, which was fairly easy to use as well. Graham87 05:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, glad we could help. I'll mark this question resolved. StuRat (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Resolved