Re: Microsoft makes a lot of money, Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?

On 25/09/2024 20:23, MitchAlsup1 wrote:

On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 9:38:36 +0000, David Brown wrote:
 

>
If you are talking about drawings, rather than photographs, then png
would be a better choice than jpg.  (Assuming, of course, that Word
supports png...)

 My drawing tool does not support *.png
 Why is *.png any better than compressed/compressible *.jpg and my
drawings look perfect at 200 dpi resolution--probably because I do
any zoom in or out before converting to*.jpg. An example: I have a
large pipeline drawing showing every single feature of a particular
implementation. By zooming in, each stage in the pipeline has the
width of a page, but because all the figures originate from the
large drawing (and the colors match across the whole document)
it is much easier to grasp the details.

png is better for drawings because it has lossless compression that works well for pictures consisting of sharp lines and areas of solid colour.  jpg's compression is lossy and reduces noise, which is good for photos - but it sees lines and sharp boundaries between colour areas as noise.  So drawings get blurred boundaries, fake shadows and ghosting.
What kind of drawing tool does not support png exports?  The format has been standard for bitmap drawings for over 25 years.

 In any event, I have been doing it that way since 2000 (maybe before)
and see no particular reason to change. When the size of the disk on
the PC was 80 MB, you may have an argument, when the size of the disk
on the PC is 4TB and a 6 YO machine still has ½ of its free space let;
size doesn't matter, and when it does *.doc -> *.pdf does the job.
 

The main argument is for the quality of the picture, not the size of the file.

Note: *.doc not *.docx
 My software is from 2 decades ago:: draw 1999, office 2003.