Taking a screenshot and saving in JPG frequently exceeds the 100k limit imposed
for uploads. To circumvent the issue, I'm forced to tweek the quality and or
to reduce the size, which impacts readability.

I suggest that 100k is too small and should be increase to ~150k

speaking of screenshots: is there a way to shoot the whole screen, not just the running program? otherwise you don't see the taskbar.

Print Screen by itself captures the whole screen, whereas alt+printscr only captures the active window.

OK, thx SNGX.

Regards

As a wise man named LNCPapa once said, "NO Mercy for the bandwidth impaired!"

sorry, this is so vague I can't infer your meaning -- I guess you mean NO.

IMO, the 50k additional is trivial, storage is cheap and the time savings to
directly upload the screenshot saves time.

He didn't mean "NO".

While I don't really have any thoughts on attachment size, I do wonder why, with all the free image hosting, you don't just link the picture.

Pretty much everyone that posts on this site has a google account, and you get free webpage there. If I'm not at work (where I have a web account) I upload to my googlepages account and use that. pages.google.com

maybe

unreasonable expectation and would be an undocumented requirement.

think USABILITY.

Not "maybe". Papa's comment used to be in his signature, maybe it still is. He put that there because he liked to post huge resolution screen shots of his high res desktops. The "no mercy for the bandwidth impared" meant that he wasn't showing any mercy to those of us still on dialup.

You sort of have a point with usability. But I rarely click on attachments because I don't want them bringing up yet another window/tab. SO much better if the image appears in the thread.

AHHH, an off-topic comment!
how does one do that?
I was under the impression that the attachment was the sole means of adding
a screenshot to a posting. If a member is on a dialup link, I would think that
attachments were the means to get good browsing w/o downloading the graphics?

Enough already -- It's a suggestion, not a topic for debate -- it will stand or fall on it's own merit

I think a 150kb limit is reasonable.

The only real negative impacts are 1.) Server bandwidth, 2.) Server storage space, 3.) Dial-up users (Attachments are really harmless in this case, though).

The first two obviously depend on Julio. I don't suspect the impact would be substantial enough to even reconsider, but none of us are in Julio's shoes at the moment.

The third is a sad thing, but dial up users are a dying breed and it is time to move on and embrace high-speed. If the size limit imposed is only on file attachments (as I suspect), then no harm is really done here.
You can use Vb IMG tags to add screenshots, but you have to host it elsewhere.

They can also be posted in the gallery and then linked to the forums. But that is almost harder than just having googlepages or imageshack or wherever.
If that was the case, how do you explain the picture in my first post in this thread?