Having no luck changing the default font size in the GUI (personalize)
I started looking at the registry
I am in LOCAL MACHINE>SOFTWARE>MICROSOFT>WINDOWS NT>CURRENT
VERSION>FONT DPI.

Does that sound like the right neighborhood?
I see
LogPixels REG_DWORD 0x00000060 (96)
but I haven't screwed with it yet
I am still trying to get the default to 12p
Everything else on personalize changed but the "window" default stays
at 8p with no option to change it.

<gfretwell@aol.com> wrote

| Having no luck changing the default font size in the GUI (personalize)

I'm not sure about Win7, but it should be here:

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Desktop\WindowMetrics

DPI is an anbstract concept, since there's no objective
inch on a monitor, but in general 96 is normal and 120 is
large fonts. But that's not font size. Rather, it just
makes everything 25% bigger, for people with difficulty
seeing. But it can also cause problems with software not
designed to accommodate trhe change.

On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 17:34:48 -0400, "Newyana2"
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

><gfretwell@aol.com> wrote
>
>| Having no luck changing the default font size in the GUI (personalize)
>
> I'm not sure about Win7, but it should be here:
>
>HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Desktop\WindowMetrics
>
> DPI is an anbstract concept, since there's no objective
>inch on a monitor, but in general 96 is normal and 120 is
>large fonts. But that's not font size. Rather, it just
>makes everything 25% bigger, for people with difficulty
>seeing. But it can also cause problems with software not
>designed to accommodate trhe change.
>

I suspect that one under CONTROL PANEL is what you get with the
personalize menu.
I don't really want to just blow up the whole screen, just the fonts.
The strange thing is the personalize works on everything except the
default "window" font and that gets picked up by other programs. I can
change the color and that is how I know which font I am talking about.
Some software honors the font size you specify there, still picking up
the "window" color. Other stuff just uses 8p but still has that color.
I only have "window" set to a strange color so I can see where it is
coming from.
I have managed to get everything else to 12p without changing the
scaling of the display.

<gfretwell@aol.com> wrote

| I suspect that one under CONTROL PANEL is what you get with the
| personalize menu.
| I don't really want to just blow up the whole screen, just the fonts.
| The strange thing is the personalize works on everything except the
| default "window" font and that gets picked up by other programs. I can
| change the color and that is how I know which font I am talking about.
| Some software honors the font size you specify there, still picking up
| the "window" color. Other stuff just uses 8p but still has that color.
| I only have "window" set to a strange color so I can see where it is
| coming from.
| I have managed to get everything else to 12p without changing the
| scaling of the display.

I think there are 2 aspects to that for 3rd-party software.
One is that font properties are often controlled by the software,
even if it's using a system window. Notepad is an example.
Then there's also a fad to create windows entirely from scratch.
For example, Firefox has virtually no elements to its GUI that
come from Windows. They're drawn by the program onscreen.
Others go way overboard. For exmple, I tried installing Avast
on Win10 yesterday to do a malware check. The "window" is
a black rectangle. The "menu" creates dark gray popups. There's
no control over anything.

There is a large fonts, property, though. It dates back at least
to XP. The screen pixels size will control the overall size of objects,
but large fonts will enlarge only fonts. But not all programs will
behave well and if they draw their own fonts they may not know.

I discovered that property by accident once and discovered that
in my own software, the text of labels and buttons was running off
the side. I had to redesign to make sure everything was oversize,
to accommodate people using large fonts. In other cases, text could
be a picture or be owner-drawn. In those cases software won't
conform to the large font setting. It really only applies to cases
where software is using the built-in system controls that Windows
provides.

In message <u7jrfr$3uppl$1@paganini.bofh.team> at Thu, 29 Jun 2023
07:55:35, Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> writes
[]
> I think there are 2 aspects to that for 3rd-party software.
>One is that font properties are often controlled by the software,
>even if it's using a system window. Notepad is an example.

So even included - I guess the hateful word "apps" is relevant here -
can be "third party" in this sense!

>Then there's also a fad to create windows entirely from scratch.
>For example, Firefox has virtually no elements to its GUI that
>come from Windows. They're drawn by the program onscreen.

Chrome likewise, with knobs on: it ditched the title bar yonks ago - or
rather hid it; it's still there, but you only see it _during_ maximise
or minimise, or when something goes wrong! There are even add-ons that
give you back what it would show - which is basically the title that a
web-page designer might have included in their page coding. [I think the
one I use is called Show Title Tag.]

>Others go way overboard. For exmple, I tried installing Avast
>on Win10 yesterday to do a malware check. The "window" is
>a black rectangle. The "menu" creates dark gray popups. There's
>no control over anything.

AVG has its own UI too. It's probably common for AV products, and there
may even be a security advantage.
>
> There is a large fonts, property, though. It dates back at least
>to XP. The screen pixels size will control the overall size of objects,
>but large fonts will enlarge only fonts. But not all programs will
>behave well and if they draw their own fonts they may not know.
>
> I discovered that property by accident once and discovered that
>in my own software, the text of labels and buttons was running off
>the side. I had to redesign to make sure everything was oversize,
>to accommodate people using large fonts. In other cases, text could
>be a picture or be owner-drawn. In those cases software won't
>conform to the large font setting. It really only applies to cases
>where software is using the built-in system controls that Windows
>provides.
>
>
Yes, a lot of prog.s only half-know about it (or use it without
knowing), meaning they do draw their text bigger, but don't enlarge the
box it goes in or the text line spacing, meaning the text goes outside
the box (sometimes overlaying something else on the page, sometimes not
being visible), and sometimes the lines of text partially overprint
themselves.

Ones that do things themselves - especially where they use _only_ a
picture of the text involved - are a pain to "screen reader"
users/writers (the name is historical, as they do a lot more than just
read, but is still used) - the software that allows visually
impaired/handicapped users to access what's on screen, via speech or
Braille; the reader software writers have to cater for each individual
such interface, rather than just intercepting calls to the standard
Windows functions. (Where only a picture of text is used, they have
little chance [OK, OCR _could_ be used, but isn't reliable, especially
if funny fonts and/or strange colour combinations or backgrounds are
used.]) In theory, this could lay at least webpage designers open to
prosecution under disability legislation, but that's a very uphill
struggle, even warning them about the possibility, as it "looks OK" to
them, and they've probably used multiple layers of subcontractors to
create the webpage anyway (they have someone else "make" the website,
and that someone else uses other lazy software, and so on).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Look, if it'll help you to do what I tell you, baby, imagine that I've got a
blaster ray in my hand." "Uh - you _have_ got a blaster ray in your hand." "So
you shouldn't have to tax your imagination too hard." (Link episode)

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| So even included - I guess the hateful word "apps" is relevant here -
| can be "third party" in this sense!
|

I'm never certain what people mean by apps. Steve Jobs
popularized the word to mean programs on cellphones. But
Microsoft seems to be using it specifically to describe Metro
applets, which depend on a different API and probably don't
have any direct control over the GUI. They probably have
to use some kind of widget set -- buttons, labels, textboxes,
etc. -- provided by the RT runtime. (Or whatever they're calling
it this month.)
But some people seem to use app to mean any software
program. On the bright side, at least no one says "proggie"
anymore. :)

| Chrome likewise, with knobs on: it ditched the title bar yonks ago - or
| rather hid it; it's still there, but you only see it _during_ maximise
| or minimise, or when something goes wrong! There are even add-ons that
| give you back what it would show - which is basically the title that a
| web-page designer might have included in their page coding. [I think the
| one I use is called Show Title Tag.]
|

I tried to get the menu bar back on Chromium. The best
option available was a menu under the main toolbar. That's
a good example of software that ignores MS guidelines.
They're so cellphone-philic that they want to make it look
like a cellphone app no matter where it is. I don't understand
that logic. With big computer screens there's just no logic
in hiding the menu behind 3 dots or bars over in the corner.
Nor does it make sense to hide the title bar. I rarely run
any program fullscreen on my 27" monitor.

| Ones that do things themselves - especially where they use _only_ a
| picture of the text involved - are a pain to "screen reader"
| users/writers

Yes. I think the first culprit with that approach as
music player software, maing GUIs that were skinned with
a picture of a boom box or some such. They pick up a "button"
click by tracking coordinates. Did the left button just
click between 300 and 380 pixels H and 560-600 pixels
V in the window client area? Then play was pressed!

Though I sympathize somewhat. Accessibility is a big
issue for $500 software bought by 3 million people. With
shareware that often doesn't even get paid for, accommodating
screen readers is not high on the list of priorities. At one point
I started making my own buttons, using pictures of text as
you mentioned. I did it because it looked much nicer than
the default Windows buttons. Those buttons may sometimes
be a problem for screenreaders or people who don't speak
English, but I'm writing software that no one pays for and
that blind people are not likely to use. If people in France
or Denmark want a language option they can pay me for it.:)

On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 12:33:39 -0400, "Newyana2"
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>
>| So even included - I guess the hateful word "apps" is relevant here -
>| can be "third party" in this sense!
>|
>
> I'm never certain what people mean by apps.

There's enormous inconsistency in what people mean by it, and that's
why I never use it at all. If I did, I'd be almost guaranteed to be
misunderstood by some people.

On 6/30/2023 9:59 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 12:33:39 -0400, "Newyana2"
> <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
>> "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>>
>> | So even included - I guess the hateful word "apps" is relevant here -
>> | can be "third party" in this sense!
>> |
>>
>> I'm never certain what people mean by apps.
>
> There's enormous inconsistency in what people mean by it, and that's
> why I never use it at all. If I did, I'd be almost guaranteed to be
> misunderstood by some people.
>

A Metro.app ends in EXE like a Win32 application.

calc.exe

Except that, the executable is empty. Double-clicking that
file "makes the screen blink". It is officially executable,
but the execution time is just for "exit(0)". It does not
launch that way. It is not "conventional".

Inside calc.exe is a manifest, a list of things that need
to be launched, in order for a Metro.app (from the curated
Microsoft Store) to launch. Launching of them does not
happen in a conventional fashion. There are some other
rules for getting the loader, to load one.

bash$ file amcap.exe <=== win32 sample application, 32 bit

amcap.exe: PE32 executable (GUI) Intel 80386, for MS Windows

bash$ file /mnt/c/Windows/System32/calc.exe <=== metro.app 64 bit bogus executable (manifest)

/mnt/c/Windows/System32/calc.exe: PE32+ executable (GUI) x86-64, for MS Windows

bash$ file /mnt/c/Windows/SysWOW64/calc.exe

/mnt/c/Windows/SysWOW64/calc.exe: PE32 executable (GUI) Intel 80386, for MS Windows

If I open the Metro.app with 7ZIP, it contains

ICON\
MANIFEST\
GROUPS_ICON\
version.txt

The manifest in a Metro.app looks like this:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<!-- Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation -->
<assembly xmlns="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:asm.v1" manifestVersion="1.0">
<assemblyIdentity
name="Microsoft.Windows.Shell.calc"
processorArchitecture="x86"
version="5.1.0.0"
type="win32"/>
.... < another 30 lines of guff >

If I open the amcap.exe win32 application with 7ZIP, it contains this
stuff, and the pattern is quite different. Even though the bash shell "file"
application thinks they have the same PE header, one is immediately load-able
(the win32 application), the calc.App on the other, is not.

.rsrc
.text <=== 61,440 bytes of executable x86 code
.rdata
.data1
.text1
.data

I use the term Metro.app to try to distinguish materials
that do not load immediately, and their source is the Microsoft Store.
The Microsoft Store is responsible for updating them when needed.
Although it's unclear whether calc.app has ever been updated.
msedge.app has had the update process worn a groove in the ground,
it's been updated so many times. But I don't know what update
path is used for it -- it has its own updater as far as I know.
And it has littered your C: drive with carcasses (waste of space).

Paul

On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 17:34:48 -0400, "Newyana2"
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

><gfretwell@aol.com> wrote
>
>| Having no luck changing the default font size in the GUI (personalize)
>
> I'm not sure about Win7, but it should be here:
>
>HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Desktop\WindowMetrics
>
> DPI is an anbstract concept, since there's no objective
>inch on a monitor, but in general 96 is normal and 120 is
>large fonts. But that's not font size. Rather, it just
>makes everything 25% bigger, for people with difficulty
>seeing. But it can also cause problems with software not
>designed to accommodate trhe change.
>

OK that makes a lot of sense to me now. I think when I get brave I
will make that 60 a 78 (120)

On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 13:58:01 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>So even included - I guess the hateful word "apps" is relevant here -

I have been in the computer business since 1965. I have seen lots of
names for software widgets.
These days they all seem to be "apps" if it is a program that runs
under your OS.
For the young that means something you load on your phone.
I remember when they were loaded from
cards.
Same thing.
It's a piece of software.
My situation is wondering how to change the default font size other
pieces of software are picking up from the basic OS. Customization
lets you change virtually everything that is coming from windows but
there is a default font size that gets picked up by the message
generator in windows and message boxes in games, among other stuff.
Agent is also supposed to be using that windows message box setup for
the spell checker if the guys on the agent group are right.

In message <4mcv9ipgassfb0p3n55scsvvq9n582i0i3@4ax.com> at Sat, 1 Jul
2023 01:14:40, gfretwell@aol.com writes
>On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 13:58:01 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>So even included - I guess the hateful word "apps" is relevant here -
>
>I have been in the computer business since 1965. I have seen lots of
>names for software widgets.

Indeed.

>These days they all seem to be "apps" if it is a program that runs
>under your OS.
>For the young that means something you load on your phone.

(I might not object to the term so much if it was acknowledged that it's
an abbreviation.)

>I remember when they were loaded from
> cards.

Me too - sending off a coding form, and getting back a stack of cards
and printout. Happy days (in some ways).

>Same thing.
>It's a piece of software.
>My situation is wondering how to change the default font size other
>pieces of software are picking up from the basic OS. Customization
>lets you change virtually everything that is coming from windows but
>there is a default font size that gets picked up by the message
>generator in windows and message boxes in games, among other stuff.
>Agent is also supposed to be using that windows message box setup for
>the spell checker if the guys on the agent group are right.

Mention of message boxes reminds me of an idea I had some years ago, but
nobody would use it, so I kept quiet about it: have a two-bit counter
somewhere, accessible to _all_ software and which is incremented
whenever accessed, which determined which _quadrant_ of the screen
message boxes pop up in: older software would ignore it and continue to
pop them up in the centre. The idea occurred to me when I got a series
of error/message boxes - each of which obscured the previous one so I
couldn't see what it said, since they always pop up in the middle of the
screen. I freely make the idea usable by all; I very much doubt anyone
will, though.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I'd rather trust the guys in the lab coats who aren't demanding that I get up
early on Sundays to apologize for being human.
-- Captain Splendid (quoted by "The Real Bev" in mozilla.general, 2014-11-16)

On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 00:47:38 -0400
gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 17:34:48 -0400, "Newyana2"
> <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
> ><gfretwell@aol.com> wrote
> >
> >| Having no luck changing the default font size in the GUI
> >(personalize)
> >
> > I'm not sure about Win7, but it should be here:
> >
> >HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Control Panel\Desktop\WindowMetrics
> >
> > DPI is an anbstract concept, since there's no objective
> >inch on a monitor, but in general 96 is normal and 120 is
> >large fonts. But that's not font size. Rather, it just
> >makes everything 25% bigger, for people with difficulty
> >seeing. But it can also cause problems with software not
> >designed to accommodate trhe change.
> >
>
> OK that makes a lot of sense to me now. I think when I get brave I
> will make that 60 a 78 (120)

With MX Linux you can increase the default font size without blowing up
the whole screen. The change is made under settings/appearance/font
size.

In message <20230701064651.0b74c798@mx> at Sat, 1 Jul 2023 06:46:51,
Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> writes
>On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 00:47:38 -0400
>gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 17:34:48 -0400, "Newyana2"
>> <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
[]
>> > DPI is an anbstract concept, since there's no objective
>> >inch on a monitor, but in general 96 is normal and 120 is
>> >large fonts. But that's not font size. Rather, it just
>> >makes everything 25% bigger, for people with difficulty
>> >seeing. But it can also cause problems with software not
>> >designed to accommodate trhe change.
>> >
>>
>> OK that makes a lot of sense to me now. I think when I get brave I
>> will make that 60 a 78 (120)
>
>With MX Linux you can increase the default font size without blowing up
>the whole screen. The change is made under settings/appearance/font
>size.
>
Newyana, gfretwell, and others' point is that the same applies in
Windows - but not all software pays attention to those settings, instead
either getting its settings (including font size) from somewhere else,
or completely going its own way. Sometimes it does pick up the font size
setting, but doesn't adjust its box sizes and/or line spacing
accordingly, so you get chopped and/or overflowing text.

Presumably, the same applies in Linux: some app.s (there, you've got me
using the term; at least I put the dot in!) don't pick up the standard
settings, but draw their own interfaces? (Or only part pick them up, so
make a mess?)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

1. If it's green, it's biology
2. If it smells, it's chemistry
3. If it doesn't work, it's physics.

On Sat, 1 Jul 2023 17:03:57 +0100
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> In message <20230701064651.0b74c798@mx> at Sat, 1 Jul 2023 06:46:51,
> Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> writes
> >On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 00:47:38 -0400
> >gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 17:34:48 -0400, "Newyana2"
> >> <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> []
> >> > DPI is an anbstract concept, since there's no objective
> >> >inch on a monitor, but in general 96 is normal and 120 is
> >> >large fonts. But that's not font size. Rather, it just
> >> >makes everything 25% bigger, for people with difficulty
> >> >seeing. But it can also cause problems with software not
> >> >designed to accommodate trhe change.
> >> >
> >>
> >> OK that makes a lot of sense to me now. I think when I get brave I
> >> will make that 60 a 78 (120)
> >
> >With MX Linux you can increase the default font size without blowing
> >up the whole screen. The change is made under
> >settings/appearance/font size.
> >
> Newyana, gfretwell, and others' point is that the same applies in
> Windows - but not all software pays attention to those settings,
> instead either getting its settings (including font size) from
> somewhere else, or completely going its own way. Sometimes it does
> pick up the font size setting, but doesn't adjust its box sizes
> and/or line spacing accordingly, so you get chopped and/or
> overflowing text.
>
> Presumably, the same applies in Linux: some app.s (there, you've got
> me using the term; at least I put the dot in!) don't pick up the
> standard settings, but draw their own interfaces? (Or only part pick
> them up, so make a mess?)

Firefox has its own fonts setting, and so does Claws Mail.

I mean the fonts that only apply to the MX Linux operating system, not
programs that have been installed.

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote

| Presumably, the same applies in Linux:

Who cares. Do you realize what we've learned here?
There's at least one thing that can be done on Linux
without incantations in a console window. Where do
I sign up?!

On Sat, 1 Jul 2023 17:03:57 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>In message <20230701064651.0b74c798@mx> at Sat, 1 Jul 2023 06:46:51,
>Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> writes
>>On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 00:47:38 -0400
>>gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 17:34:48 -0400, "Newyana2"
>>> <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>[]
>>> > DPI is an anbstract concept, since there's no objective
>>> >inch on a monitor, but in general 96 is normal and 120 is
>>> >large fonts. But that's not font size. Rather, it just
>>> >makes everything 25% bigger, for people with difficulty
>>> >seeing. But it can also cause problems with software not
>>> >designed to accommodate trhe change.
>>> >
>>>
>>> OK that makes a lot of sense to me now. I think when I get brave I
>>> will make that 60 a 78 (120)
>>
>>With MX Linux you can increase the default font size without blowing up
>>the whole screen. The change is made under settings/appearance/font
>>size.
>>
>Newyana, gfretwell, and others' point is that the same applies in
>Windows - but not all software pays attention to those settings, instead
>either getting its settings (including font size) from somewhere else,
>or completely going its own way. Sometimes it does pick up the font size
>setting, but doesn't adjust its box sizes and/or line spacing
>accordingly, so you get chopped and/or overflowing text.
>
It has been in interesting journey, simply trying to make the Agent
spell check font bigger. The default in Windows for the message box
appears to never change, no matter what I do in Personalize. I did
change the color to something completely different so I can see it is
"window" the bottom of the personalize pulldown but it still had no
effect in the Agent spell checker so they may be wrong about that one.
I won't really be sure until I can get the windows message box to
change. I haven't changed that registry setting yet. I just wanted to
have some free time because that might blow up all the fonts and the
ones I have set would be too big.

On Sat, 1 Jul 2023 13:04:27 -0400
"Newyana2" <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote
>
> | Presumably, the same applies in Linux:
>
> Who cares. Do you realize what we've learned here?
> There's at least one thing that can be done on Linux
> without incantations in a console window. Where do
> I sign up?!
>
>

Don't pay any attention to that crap about incantations. You never
have to open a console window with MX Linux or Linux Mint, unless you
want to.

"Johnny" <johnny@invalid.net> wrote

| Don't pay any attention to that crap about incantations. You never
| have to open a console window with MX Linux or Linux Mint, unless you
| want to.
|

That's not something I've heard. It's something I've
experienced. I'm free to use Linux like a Grandma, but once
I want any control I need console windows. Every few
years I try it again. My initial test is whether I can set it
up without console incantations and whether I can get
a simple firewall that blocks outgoing. To this day it fails
miserably on both counts. As far as I know, Linux doesn't
even have firewalls except wrappers around iptables.

Last time when I installed Fedora it wiped out my boot
loader. The experts told me it's supposed to do that because
"hardly anyone understands partitions". Then I tried setting
up WINE. Again, custom control is hidden or removed. They
also didn't even have a 32/64 version. It's 32 or 64. But
that's not how Windows works.

So Linux went from
a system for hardcore geeks to a system for grannies,
but nothing in between. As with Android, it's not discoverable.
One needs far more expertise now to get past the kiddie
controls. But someday... who knows... After 30 years, GIMP
and WINE are almost working, so there's hope. :)

On 7/1/2023 5:27 PM, Newyana2 wrote:
> "Johnny" <johnny@invalid.net> wrote
>
> | Don't pay any attention to that crap about incantations. You never
> | have to open a console window with MX Linux or Linux Mint, unless you
> | want to.
> |

> After 30 years, GIMP and WINE are almost working, so there's hope. :)

You sound almost appreciative :-)

Now Johnny knows advertising works.

On Win, I use GIMP 2.6.8 . Ancient. Why ? Because it
does not insist on "Export" and has Save and Save As options.
I use the old version, so I can avoid a "mother may I" behavior
in the interface.

With its floating palettes, you would need a larger monitor to use
a newer GIMP version. I'm sure one of these days, Santa will be
depositing one of the new Dell 6K monitors (~$4000) for sure.
Then I can "Export" to my hearts content. Maybe the Photoshop clan
are forced to "Export" ? Perhaps that's why.

WINE is an interesting case study. It's always a shock when I wallow
around in there. First you make the mistake of downloading the wrong
thing (get confused about MONO and .NET), and eventually figure out
where the software is supposed to come from. Some of the gaming
configurations of WINE, take some of that pain out.

Being such a dope at WINE, one thing I can recommend strongly, is
a backup of your Linux OS partition, so if WINE goes down a side-road on
you, you can roll back and try again. That's a great help, as you
learn how to configure it.

You will get there eventually... I "guarantee" it :-) If Grandma
can do it, so can you (or so I'm reliably told).

And I could have sworn this was easier at one time, perhaps
back when WINE was 32 bit only. One difference today, is more
stuff works.

Paul

On Sat, 1 Jul 2023 17:27:04 -0400
"Newyana2" <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> "Johnny" <johnny@invalid.net> wrote
>
> | Don't pay any attention to that crap about incantations. You never
> | have to open a console window with MX Linux or Linux Mint, unless
> you | want to.
> |
>
> That's not something I've heard. It's something I've
> experienced. I'm free to use Linux like a Grandma, but once
> I want any control I need console windows. Every few
> years I try it again. My initial test is whether I can set it
> up without console incantations and whether I can get
> a simple firewall that blocks outgoing. To this day it fails
> miserably on both counts. As far as I know, Linux doesn't
> even have firewalls except wrappers around iptables.
>
> Last time when I installed Fedora it wiped out my boot
> loader. The experts told me it's supposed to do that because
> "hardly anyone understands partitions". Then I tried setting
> up WINE. Again, custom control is hidden or removed. They
> also didn't even have a 32/64 version. It's 32 or 64. But
> that's not how Windows works.
>
> So Linux went from
> a system for hardcore geeks to a system for grannies,
> but nothing in between. As with Android, it's not discoverable.
> One needs far more expertise now to get past the kiddie
> controls. But someday... who knows... After 30 years, GIMP
> and WINE are almost working, so there's hope. :)
>
>

This guy has been working on and outgoing fire wall for Linux for
several years. He needs some help.

I tried it about a year ago, and it worked. I used it long enough to
know I didn't need it, and got rid of it.

https://douaneapp.com/

In message <u7qb6t$3248u$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 1 Jul 2023 19:00:43,
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> writes
[]
>You will get there eventually... I "guarantee" it :-) If Grandma
>can do it, so can you (or so I'm reliably told).
[]
To quote Tom Lehrer (he was talking about "New Math", but it applies to
everything from video recorder remotes to what we're talking about):

"It's so simple -
so very simple -
that only
a child
can do it!"
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"You play the market?" "No, the ukelele. And I sing too"
- Tony Curtis/Marilyn Monroe in SLIH

"Paul" <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote

|
| On Win, I use GIMP 2.6.8 . Ancient. Why ? Because it
| does not insist on "Export" and has Save and Save As options.
| I use the old version, so I can avoid a "mother may I" behavior
| in the interface.
| I can sympathize with your stubbornness. That
design is pure arrogance.

| With its floating palettes, you would need a larger monitor to use
| a newer GIMP version.

The last time I tried it they had sort of pulled it
together. As I recall the pallettes could be lined up.
But there was still no MDI option. It can't be so
hard. I guess they just have to be different from
Photoshop.

| And I could have sworn this was easier at one time, perhaps
| back when WINE was 32 bit only. One difference today, is more
| stuff works.
|

Years ago I got adept at WINE and installed the
Windows DLLs/fonts. Last time I tried it, the whole
thing was different. As I recall I had to get 32-bit Linux
so I could use 32-bit WINE, so that I could use my
software, which is mostly still 32-bit. More stuff works,
yes, but nothing is guaranteed.

Much of the problem, in my view, is once again arrogance.
They persist in viewing Windows users as simpleminded
people who need to be led by the hand. Instead of
collaborating -- mirroring the DLLs and providing clear docs
so that Windows programmers could adapt to WINE -- they
deliberately broke compatibility. So a function from user32 might
be in their shell32 library and vice versa, leaving no way for
Windows programmers to be clear about which API functions
are supported and which are not.

I suppose that's probably why Linux is still such a mess. Lots
of geeks want to say their 2 cents and leave their mark, instead
of cooperating. And most of them only care about WINE so they
can play MS video games.

"Johnny" <johnny@invalid.net> wrote

| This guy has been working on and outgoing fire wall for Linux for
| several years. He needs some help.
|

For years. Typical Linux.

| I tried it about a year ago, and it worked. I used it long enough to
| know I didn't need it, and got rid of it.
|

I find that most Linux people feel as you do. They don't
believe Linux can have malware or spyware, so they don't
want control. I don't mind that on my Raspberry Pi, which
I only use for streaming movies. With that it's fine to let
it update itself. But I wouldn't want a system that I actually
work on to be an opaque sieve like that.

| https://douaneapp.com/
|

There isn't even a webpage there. It's just a URL going to
a javascript software program. Strange that someone who
appreciates the value of a firewall would think it's OK to
ask visitors to his webpage to let him run software on their
computer, sight unseen. There's no HTML at all! I just get
a blank page that says, "This app requires javascript." App!

On Sat, 1 Jul 2023 17:03:57 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>Presumably, the same applies in Linux: some app.s (there, you've got me
>using the term; at least I put the dot in!) don't pick up the standard
>settings, but draw their own interfaces? (Or only part pick them up, so
>make a mess?)

OK, now you have to explain the significance of the dot in app.s :-)

I think I've seen you use a dot before, when an apostrophe would have
been the better choice, but this looks like a new thing.

On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 14:19:00 -0400, gfretwell@aol.com wrote:

>On Sat, 1 Jul 2023 17:03:57 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <20230701064651.0b74c798@mx> at Sat, 1 Jul 2023 06:46:51,
>>Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> writes
>>>On Sat, 01 Jul 2023 00:47:38 -0400
>>>gfretwell@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 17:34:48 -0400, "Newyana2"
>>>> <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>[]
>>>> > DPI is an anbstract concept, since there's no objective
>>>> >inch on a monitor, but in general 96 is normal and 120 is
>>>> >large fonts. But that's not font size. Rather, it just
>>>> >makes everything 25% bigger, for people with difficulty
>>>> >seeing. But it can also cause problems with software not
>>>> >designed to accommodate trhe change.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> OK that makes a lot of sense to me now. I think when I get brave I
>>>> will make that 60 a 78 (120)
>>>
>>>With MX Linux you can increase the default font size without blowing up
>>>the whole screen. The change is made under settings/appearance/font
>>>size.
>>>
>>Newyana, gfretwell, and others' point is that the same applies in
>>Windows - but not all software pays attention to those settings, instead
>>either getting its settings (including font size) from somewhere else,
>>or completely going its own way. Sometimes it does pick up the font size
>>setting, but doesn't adjust its box sizes and/or line spacing
>>accordingly, so you get chopped and/or overflowing text.
>>
>It has been in interesting journey, simply trying to make the Agent
>spell check font bigger. The default in Windows for the message box
>appears to never change, no matter what I do in Personalize. I did
>change the color to something completely different so I can see it is
>"window" the bottom of the personalize pulldown but it still had no
>effect in the Agent spell checker so they may be wrong about that one.
>I won't really be sure until I can get the windows message box to
>change. I haven't changed that registry setting yet. I just wanted to
>have some free time because that might blow up all the fonts and the
>ones I have set would be too big.

OK I changed that value from 60 to 80 and I didn't make anything
change. Maybe that is an Aero thing. I haven't tried that yet