On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 14:31:01 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <dk3rch5rche5cdaht7906al960ihhd82t0@4ax.com>, at 16:15:22 on
>Tue, 12 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 15:18:17 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <uajochlu1f4k9fql79nc10do0mng7kpo8e@4ax.com>, at 17:21:48 on
>>>Mon, 11 Jul 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>
>>>>Roland doesn't get the Scrooge award. My PaintShopPro dates from 1999.
>>>
>>>It's not about being a scrooge, rather there's no need to be obsessed
>>>with "keeping up with the Jones's" if what you have does the job.
>>
>>But it doesn't. The images you upload are terrible quality: low res and
>>fuzzy. If you had any pride in your work you'd acquire more skills, and
>>then probably invest in at least half-decent tools. It needn't cost a
>>lot, either.
>
>An awful lot of the pictures I upload are taken years ago, and are not
>intended to be works of art. They illustrate the discussion, and as such
>are an asset. Yes, some are fairly low-res, but that's because I re-size
>them to be appropriate for a website.

Websites don't have to have tiny images.

>
>But I'm getting a bit bolder, and this one from six years ago is closer
>to the original resolution of three megabytes. But I'm not sure it adds
>much to the narrative of why the photo was taken.
>
><http://www.perry.co.uk/images/kings-cross-90034.jpg>
>
>And this one is a real monster

9.9mp is hardly a 'monster'. It's smaller than a typical 12mp phone camera shot.

> (but again, does the high resolution add
>much to the storyline; but I'm quite pleased by the vertical verticals)

Presumably corrected in inPixio 11? Did you actually pay for it, or do you have the free edition?

>- and the majority of my bridge-bash photos these days are scraped from
>newspaper articles and Facebook postings.
>
><http://www.perry.co.uk/images/28th-Jan-2022.jpg>
>
>>>I've tried a more recent version of Paintshop *Elements*,
>>
>>Sorry, but there's no such program, and never has been.
>
>Fair enough. It's called Photoshop Elements.

Yes, or it might have been PaintSshop Pro. I've owned several versions of both in the past, but have subsequently moved
on to much better products.

>
>>>and it's pants. No extra functionality that matters, and a user
>>>interface mired
>>>in a fatal combination of cotton wool and glue.
>>
>>No functionality at all, as there was no such program.
>>
>>>Bragging about how much you've spent on the new-and-shiny is mostly the
>>>territory of the deeply insecure.
>>
>>Absolutely nobody has been bragging about how much they've spent on the
>>new-and-shiny.
>
>Oh please! You are doing it all the time.

Please cite an example.

>
>>It's you that has the inferiority complex, with good reason.
>
>In what sense is being happy, a sign of inferiority?

You happy????? That's surely the best joke of 2022!

You are by far the most miserable poster in this group.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tbpiud$26b97$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:31:09 on Tue, 26 Jul
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tbdjvi$2vgto$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:35:14 on Fri, 22 Jul
>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>> On 2022-07-22 06:20:04 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <tbbv5c$2fq4v$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:33:46 on Thu, 21 Jul
>>>>> 2022, Bob <email@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I like value for money, too, but that means getting a good price
>>>>>>>> for a high quality product, not buying the cheapest tat available.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's a false dichotomy. I have never recommended people buy "the
>>>>>>> cheapest tat". But if your argument is so weak you have to descend
>>>>>>> to tactics like that, it can't be a very good one.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, is a Pixel 6 "Cheap Tat"? Mr Google will be disappointed
>>>>>>> hear that. Unlocked, 5G, 50 Megapixel Camera, 128GB, £445 on
>>>>>>> Amazon down from list price of £599.
>>>>>> Looking at the history of the Google Pixel line, the longest
>>>>>> lifetime in terms of software support of any model so far is 3 years
>>>>>> 3 months from launch date. The Pixel 6 is already 8 months old, so
>>>>>> I would expect it to have about 2 and a bit years of support left.
>>>>>> Historically, iPhones tend to get aroud 5 years, though several
>>>>>> models have exceeded 6 years support (the 6S will finally be dropped
>>>>>> later this year after 6 years 9 months). If I had £500 to spend on
>>>>>> a new phone, I'd go for the new iPhone SE, that can reasonably be
>>>>>> expected to have a good 5 years' more support life left in it,
>>>>>> rather than one that will be defunct in half that time. YMMV.
>>>>> Most people (especially those on contracts) will get a new phone in
>>>>> less than three years and "losing support" isn't the end of the world,
>>>>> anyway. While we all need to be security-conscious, phone-bourne
>>>>> malware doesn't seem to be the thing it was once predicted to be. New
>>>>> features (eg NFC would be very topical, but let's not forget 5G) as
>>>>> well as the need for a new battery (one way or another after a couple
>>>>> of years) are also things that drive people to get a new phone.
>>>>
>>>> For a lot of people who get a new phone every couple of years, they
>>>> help pay for the new phone by selling on the old one. For many people
>>>> on lower incomes, getting a phone with the latest features (in terms of
>>>> what the OS offers) is something they do on the 2nd hand market. The
>>>> second hand price will be driven by factors like whether the older
>>>> phone being sold on is still regarded as a good phone, and being able
>>>> to run the current generation OS is an important part of that. Taking
>>>> a couple of examples of 2 and a bit year old phones (that at the time
>>>> of launch were regarded as broadly equivalent in terms of hardware and
>>>> market positionning):
>>>>
>>>> iPhone 11. Launched autumn 2019. Based on experience, should expect OS
>>>> support for at least 3 more years. Base model price at launch: $699.
>>>> Current eBay price: ~£300
>>>
>>> That's a 64GB, the 256GB is still around $800 new.
>>>
>>>> Pixel 4: Launched autumn 2019. Based on experience, this year's
>>>> Android release will be the last one for it. Base model price at
>>>> launch: $799. Current eBay price: ~£130
>>>
>>> To be fair, the Pixel (and former Google phones) have always been about
>>> twice the price of other branded models. I only introduced them into the
>>> thread to rebut the suggestion that all Android phones were "cheap tat".
>>
>> Nobody said any such thing. 'Cheap tat' refers only to *your* purchases.
>
> We can always rely upon you to repeat the same old tired lies.

You obviously don't like hearing it, but it's the truth, based purely on
your own statements.

In message <7k3deh90ck2of2hrvhgjb2eid7l0vr4vp9@4ax.com>, at 15:22:12 on
Sun, 31 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 14:31:01 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <dk3rch5rche5cdaht7906al960ihhd82t0@4ax.com>, at 16:15:22 on
>>Tue, 12 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 15:18:17 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <uajochlu1f4k9fql79nc10do0mng7kpo8e@4ax.com>, at 17:21:48 on
>>>>Mon, 11 Jul 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>remarked:
>>>>
>>>>>Roland doesn't get the Scrooge award. My PaintShopPro dates from 1999.
>>>>
>>>>It's not about being a scrooge, rather there's no need to be obsessed
>>>>with "keeping up with the Jones's" if what you have does the job.
>>>
>>>But it doesn't. The images you upload are terrible quality: low res and
>>>fuzzy. If you had any pride in your work you'd acquire more skills, and
>>>then probably invest in at least half-decent tools. It needn't cost a
>>>lot, either.
>>
>>An awful lot of the pictures I upload are taken years ago, and are not
>>intended to be works of art. They illustrate the discussion, and as such
>>are an asset. Yes, some are fairly low-res, but that's because I re-size
>>them to be appropriate for a website.
>
>Websites don't have to have tiny images.

Lots of them do, especially if optimised for mobile.

The main photos on the National Rail home page are 290x250, for example.
(or 940x309 in the footer, smaller for the Railcard advert)).

>>But I'm getting a bit bolder, and this one from six years ago is closer
>>to the original resolution of three megabytes. But I'm not sure it adds
>>much to the narrative of why the photo was taken.
>>
>><http://www.perry.co.uk/images/kings-cross-90034.jpg>
>>
>>And this one is a real monster
>
>9.9mp is hardly a 'monster'. It's smaller than a typical 12mp phone
>camera shot.

It's a "monster" for a shot to illustrate some text, rather than trying
to be a freestanding work of art.

You appear to have this hang-up about posting in native image size. Do
you think National Rail used a first generation 290x250 camera phone?

>> (but again, does the high resolution add
>>much to the storyline; but I'm quite pleased by the vertical verticals)
>
>Presumably corrected in inPixio 11? Did you actually pay for it, or do
>you have the free edition?

I think the free edition (which I'm unaware of) is likely to have a
watermark. So yes, I paid for it. Why the need to heckle about something
so trivial?

>>- and the majority of my bridge-bash photos these days are scraped from
>>newspaper articles and Facebook postings.
>>
>><http://www.perry.co.uk/images/28th-Jan-2022.jpg>
>>
>>>>I've tried a more recent version of Paintshop *Elements*,
>>>
>>>Sorry, but there's no such program, and never has been.
>>
>>Fair enough. It's called Photoshop Elements.
>
>Yes, or it might have been PaintSshop Pro.

Photoshop>>Paintshop is a much more plausible typo than Pro>>*Elements*

>I've owned several versions of both in the past, but have subsequently
>moved on to much better products.

Sometimes keeping things simple has is own benefits. I use "better"
software adjusting colour/contrast now, too. But

>>>>and it's pants. No extra functionality that matters, and a user
>>>>interface mired in a fatal combination of cotton wool and glue.
>>>
>>>No functionality at all, as there was no such program.
>>>
>>>>Bragging about how much you've spent on the new-and-shiny is mostly the
>>>>territory of the deeply insecure.
>>>
>>>Absolutely nobody has been bragging about how much they've spent on the
>>>new-and-shiny.
>>
>>Oh please! You are doing it all the time.
>
>Please cite an example.

Software, phones, cameras, exotic foreign holidays, the list goes on...
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <7k3deh90ck2of2hrvhgjb2eid7l0vr4vp9@4ax.com>, at 15:22:12 on
> Sun, 31 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 14:31:01 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <dk3rch5rche5cdaht7906al960ihhd82t0@4ax.com>, at 16:15:22 on
>>> Tue, 12 Jul 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 15:18:17 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <uajochlu1f4k9fql79nc10do0mng7kpo8e@4ax.com>, at 17:21:48 on
>>>>> Mon, 11 Jul 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>> remarked:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Roland doesn't get the Scrooge award. My PaintShopPro dates from 1999.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not about being a scrooge, rather there's no need to be obsessed
>>>>> with "keeping up with the Jones's" if what you have does the job.
>>>>
>>>> But it doesn't. The images you upload are terrible quality: low res and
>>>> fuzzy. If you had any pride in your work you'd acquire more skills, and
>>>> then probably invest in at least half-decent tools. It needn't cost a
>>>> lot, either.
>>>
>>> An awful lot of the pictures I upload are taken years ago, and are not
>>> intended to be works of art. They illustrate the discussion, and as such
>>> are an asset. Yes, some are fairly low-res, but that's because I re-size
>>> them to be appropriate for a website.
>>
>> Websites don't have to have tiny images.
>
> Lots of them do, especially if optimised for mobile.
>
> The main photos on the National Rail home page are 290x250, for example.
> (or 940x309 in the footer, smaller for the Railcard advert)).
>
>>> But I'm getting a bit bolder, and this one from six years ago is closer
>>> to the original resolution of three megabytes. But I'm not sure it adds
>>> much to the narrative of why the photo was taken.
>>>
>>> <http://www.perry.co.uk/images/kings-cross-90034.jpg>
>>>
>>> And this one is a real monster
>>
>> 9.9mp is hardly a 'monster'. It's smaller than a typical 12mp phone
>> camera shot.
>
> It's a "monster" for a shot to illustrate some text, rather than trying
> to be a freestanding work of art.
>
> You appear to have this hang-up about posting in native image size. Do
> you think National Rail used a first generation 290x250 camera phone?
>
>>> (but again, does the high resolution add
>>> much to the storyline; but I'm quite pleased by the vertical verticals)
>>
>> Presumably corrected in inPixio 11? Did you actually pay for it, or do
>> you have the free edition?
>
> I think the free edition (which I'm unaware of) is likely to have a
> watermark. So yes, I paid for it. Why the need to heckle about something
> so trivial?
>
>>> - and the majority of my bridge-bash photos these days are scraped from
>>> newspaper articles and Facebook postings.
>>>
>>> <http://www.perry.co.uk/images/28th-Jan-2022.jpg>
>>>
>>>>> I've tried a more recent version of Paintshop *Elements*,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but there's no such program, and never has been.
>>>
>>> Fair enough. It's called Photoshop Elements.
>>
>> Yes, or it might have been PaintSshop Pro.
>
> Photoshop>>Paintshop is a much more plausible typo than Pro>>*Elements*
>
>> I've owned several versions of both in the past, but have subsequently
>> moved on to much better products.
>
> Sometimes keeping things simple has is own benefits. I use "better"
> software adjusting colour/contrast now, too. But
>
>>>>> and it's pants. No extra functionality that matters, and a user
>>>>> interface mired in a fatal combination of cotton wool and glue.
>>>>
>>>> No functionality at all, as there was no such program.
>>>>
>>>>> Bragging about how much you've spent on the new-and-shiny is mostly the
>>>>> territory of the deeply insecure.
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely nobody has been bragging about how much they've spent on the
>>>> new-and-shiny.
>>>
>>> Oh please! You are doing it all the time.
>>
>> Please cite an example.
>
> Software, phones, cameras, exotic foreign holidays, the list goes on...

You don't know what software I use.
You don't know what phone I use.
You know nothing about my cameras (or any cameras).
I mention places I've been if it's relevant; you mention places that you
visited many years ago as if it's still relevant.

In message <t8np3f$fk4$4@dont-email.me>, at 18:15:11 on Sun, 19 Jun
2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t8mvgu$o2m$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:58:39 on Sun, 19 Jun
>> 2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>> On 19/06/2022 10:57, Recliner wrote:
>>
>>>> The policy has worked surprisingly well in London, but of course most
>>>> travellers have no need to buy tickets, as they're using
>>>> Oyster/contactless/phone to pay for their travel.
>>>
>>> Is that standard contactless or an "App"?
>>
>> Often people use the expression CCC (contactless credit card) to avoid
>> confusion.
>>
>> But in this case when he says "phone" he'll probably be referring to a
>> contactless payment method such as Apple|Google pay, and then there's
>> the in-between which is a banking app that emulates a credit card, such
>> as Amex-Pay.
>>
>> Although the latter is perhaps over-sold because they claim "It's
>> accepted everywhere you can use your contactless Card" when I know that
>> hasn't been true of National Rail TVMs when I've tried.
>>
>> I wonder if those TVMs accept Apple|Google Pay?
>
>Apple/Google Pay is identical to contactless card, as far as the payment
>terminal is concerned, AFAIK.

I'm off on a trip soon, so I might try using Google Pay at a TVM (or
other rail industry payment terminal). Although finding a gap between
the strike days is a challenge.

But today I got an email from Amex saying I won't be able to use
Amex-Pay from November. It's not clear to me if I've been booted off for
failing to use it enough, or they are closing the programme. There's
some breadcrumbs at the Google Play store where the most recent review
says Amex-Pay not working very well (possibly due to an updated version)
and the Amex App description doesn't mention it at all.

The email says: "You can still use Google Pay to make in app and
in-store purchases."
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <t8np3f$fk4$4@dont-email.me>, at 18:15:11 on Sun, 19 Jun
> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t8mvgu$o2m$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:58:39 on Sun, 19 Jun
>>> 2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>> On 19/06/2022 10:57, Recliner wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The policy has worked surprisingly well in London, but of course most
>>>>> travellers have no need to buy tickets, as they're using
>>>>> Oyster/contactless/phone to pay for their travel.
>>>>
>>>> Is that standard contactless or an "App"?
>>>
>>> Often people use the expression CCC (contactless credit card) to avoid
>>> confusion.
>>>
>>> But in this case when he says "phone" he'll probably be referring to a
>>> contactless payment method such as Apple|Google pay, and then there's
>>> the in-between which is a banking app that emulates a credit card, such
>>> as Amex-Pay.
>>>
>>> Although the latter is perhaps over-sold because they claim "It's
>>> accepted everywhere you can use your contactless Card" when I know that
>>> hasn't been true of National Rail TVMs when I've tried.
>>>
>>> I wonder if those TVMs accept Apple|Google Pay?
>>
>> Apple/Google Pay is identical to contactless card, as far as the payment
>> terminal is concerned, AFAIK.
>
> I'm off on a trip soon, so I might try using Google Pay at a TVM (or
> other rail industry payment terminal). Although finding a gap between
> the strike days is a challenge.
>
> But today I got an email from Amex saying I won't be able to use
> Amex-Pay from November. It's not clear to me if I've been booted off for
> failing to use it enough, or they are closing the programme. There's
> some breadcrumbs at the Google Play store where the most recent review
> says Amex-Pay not working very well (possibly due to an updated version)
> and the Amex App description doesn't mention it at all.
>
> The email says: "You can still use Google Pay to make in app and
> in-store purchases."

I think the Amex Pay service is being discontinued. It's no great loss, as
Google Pay works better anyway. I switched last year.

In message <th1rr6$d5fp$2@dont-email.me>, at 16:13:26 on Wed, 28 Sep
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t8np3f$fk4$4@dont-email.me>, at 18:15:11 on Sun, 19 Jun
>> 2022, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <t8mvgu$o2m$2@dont-email.me>, at 11:58:39 on Sun, 19 Jun
>>>> 2022, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>>>>> On 19/06/2022 10:57, Recliner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The policy has worked surprisingly well in London, but of course most
>>>>>> travellers have no need to buy tickets, as they're using
>>>>>> Oyster/contactless/phone to pay for their travel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that standard contactless or an "App"?
>>>>
>>>> Often people use the expression CCC (contactless credit card) to avoid
>>>> confusion.
>>>>
>>>> But in this case when he says "phone" he'll probably be referring to a
>>>> contactless payment method such as Apple|Google pay, and then there's
>>>> the in-between which is a banking app that emulates a credit card, such
>>>> as Amex-Pay.
>>>>
>>>> Although the latter is perhaps over-sold because they claim "It's
>>>> accepted everywhere you can use your contactless Card" when I know that
>>>> hasn't been true of National Rail TVMs when I've tried.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if those TVMs accept Apple|Google Pay?
>>>
>>> Apple/Google Pay is identical to contactless card, as far as the payment
>>> terminal is concerned, AFAIK.
>>
>> I'm off on a trip soon, so I might try using Google Pay at a TVM (or
>> other rail industry payment terminal). Although finding a gap between
>> the strike days is a challenge.
>>
>> But today I got an email from Amex saying I won't be able to use
>> Amex-Pay from November. It's not clear to me if I've been booted off for
>> failing to use it enough, or they are closing the programme. There's
>> some breadcrumbs at the Google Play store where the most recent review
>> says Amex-Pay not working very well (possibly due to an updated version)
>> and the Amex App description doesn't mention it at all.
>>
>> The email says: "You can still use Google Pay to make in app and
>> in-store purchases."
>
>I think the Amex Pay service is being discontinued.

I suspect that's the case, but wonder why they haven't got to balls to
say it up front.

>It's no great loss, as
>Google Pay works better anyway. I switched last year.

Depends if you want to sell your soul to Google, rather than an
independent bank.
--
Roland Perry