Hi All,
I hope this is an appropriate location for this posting. (I mistakenly
posted this on Office - and I don't know how to delete it.)

I am using the base handwriting recognition software that came with Windows
XP Pro on a vanilla laptop. Is there improved handwriting recognition
software available for this operating system?

I am running Windows XP Pro Version 2002 Service Pack 1 on a vanilla IBM
ThinkPad T30 (not any kind of pen tablet).

In 2003 I was told that something better for Excel, perhaps from the Tablet
PC world, would be available in mid-2004. I'm looking for better control in
Excel, but I'm also looking for better handwriting recognition for everyday
words, and especially for certain unusual character sequences such as 10 GbE,
VLAN, and eSTI-M.

I have Excel 2002.

I use a Wacom Intuos2 graphics tablet.

Thank you,
Tom Doster

Tablet PCs are unrelated to the Office "handwriting" structure, Tom, using
digital recognizers behind the Tablet screen to sample the user's Ink
strokes at roughly three to four times that which you're currently doing
with the analog connection.

On a Tablet PC, especially with XP SP2 and the Tablet PC Edition 2005
installed, the Office 2003 versions are much improved, and generally don't
rely on the office version of "handwriting" for Ink input/conversion to
text. As for the specific character input, that would be a matter of your
own handwriting and perhaps using an additional dictionary or even the
PowerToys Dictionary for Tablet PC.

Tablet PC MVP Fritz Switzer has several SPIDs on his web site:
www.abletfactory.com which may be of assistance to you, too.
--
Chris H.
Microsoft Windows MVP/Tablet PC
Tablet Creations - http://nicecreations.us/
Associate Expert
Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone


"Tom Doster" <TomDoster@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:399253FD-D4C5-41B1-ADE9-5C54CCF5AC99@microsoft.com...
> Hi All,
> I hope this is an appropriate location for this posting. (I mistakenly
> posted this on Office - and I don't know how to delete it.)
>
> I am using the base handwriting recognition software that came with
> Windows
> XP Pro on a vanilla laptop. Is there improved handwriting recognition
> software available for this operating system?
>
> I am running Windows XP Pro Version 2002 Service Pack 1 on a vanilla IBM
> ThinkPad T30 (not any kind of pen tablet).
>
> In 2003 I was told that something better for Excel, perhaps from the
> Tablet
> PC world, would be available in mid-2004. I'm looking for better control
> in
> Excel, but I'm also looking for better handwriting recognition for
> everyday
> words, and especially for certain unusual character sequences such as 10
> GbE,
> VLAN, and eSTI-M.
>
> I have Excel 2002.
>
> I use a Wacom Intuos2 graphics tablet.
>
> Thank you,
> Tom Doster

Chris H. wrote:
> Tablet PCs are unrelated to the Office "handwriting" structure, Tom, using
> digital recognizers behind the Tablet screen to sample the user's Ink
> strokes at roughly three to four times that which you're currently doing
> with the analog connection.

Well, maybe 3..4 times are compared to a typical mouse (if that is what
you mean by "analog"). All external Wacom tablets sample at >100Hz,
which is the same as those used inside the tabletpc (130Hz) => Tom won't
be off better even when bying a tabletpc, at least in this regard.

For improved handwriting recognition on the current laptop setup, seems
like you'll have to install a third party handwriting recognition tool.
PenOffice could be one, though I don't know how it compares with office
2003 recoginition.

cheers,
- Jan

Please don't confuse Office "recognition" with the Tablet PC recognizers,
Jan. They're two different animals entirely. The Office function can be
done on a desktop or laptop, going after mouse or writing pad input, which
is no where near as precise nor as encompassing as the Tablet PC
handwriting-to-text conversion.
--
Chris H.
Microsoft Windows MVP/Tablet PC
Tablet Creations - http://nicecreations.us/
Associate Expert
Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone


"Jan Wagner" <no_spam@thanks.net> wrote in message
news:utFrBOpFFHA.2568@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Chris H. wrote:
>> Tablet PCs are unrelated to the Office "handwriting" structure, Tom,
>> using digital recognizers behind the Tablet screen to sample the user's
>> Ink strokes at roughly three to four times that which you're currently
>> doing with the analog connection.
>
> Well, maybe 3..4 times are compared to a typical mouse (if that is what
> you mean by "analog"). All external Wacom tablets sample at >100Hz, which
> is the same as those used inside the tabletpc (130Hz) => Tom won't be off
> better even when bying a tabletpc, at least in this regard.
>
> For improved handwriting recognition on the current laptop setup, seems
> like you'll have to install a third party handwriting recognition tool.
> PenOffice could be one, though I don't know how it compares with office
> 2003 recoginition.
>
> cheers,
> - Jan

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 07:06:19 -0800, "Chris H." <winxpnews********.com>
wrote:

>Please don't confuse Office "recognition" with the Tablet PC recognizers,
>Jan. They're two different animals entirely. The Office function can be
>done on a desktop or laptop, going after mouse or writing pad input, which
>is no where near as precise nor as encompassing as the Tablet PC
>handwriting-to-text conversion.

You've made the claim several times that handwriting recognition in
Office and on the Tablet PC are "different animals entirely," but you
haven't offered any persuasive explanation of what makes them
different. The "mouse or writing pad input" explanation is
tautological, and in a technical sense it is irrelevant, since it only
concerns how the software is used, not how the software is designed or
how it works.

Looking at the question from a different perspective, it is hard to
imagine why Microsoft would develop and maintain two "different...
entirely" pieces of very complex and sophisticated software to perform
the same function on two platforms.

If you are to clarify things rather than confuse them further, you're
going to have to provide a more substantial explanation of how and why
these two handwriting recognition products differ.

My email address is llm040903 at earthlink dot net.

Chris H. wrote:
> Please don't confuse Office "recognition" with the Tablet PC recognizers,
> Jan. They're two different animals entirely.

Well, I hope I didn't! :) Above you're talking about different
performance of the recognition software.

But, originally, you sort of implied that the "digital recognizers
behind the tablet screen" (e.g the hardware) would be superior to an
external Wacom tablet, and I inteded to clarify that the external tablet
performs just equally well or in some regards even better then the one
behind the screen. Maybe I didn't state it so clearly. :-)

How well the handwriting recognition software (be it XP OS extentions,
Office, PenOffice, PenReader, other on-line or off-line recognition) or
the "recognizer" modules themself perform, is a different issue. For
example XP Tablet PC Edition's handwriting recognition works just fine
on a desktop PC + Wacom tablet too, despite different hardware.

> The Office function can be
> done on a desktop or laptop, going after mouse or writing pad input, which
> is no where near as precise nor as encompassing as the Tablet PC
> handwriting-to-text conversion.

That's the reason I suggested to Tom to use a different third party
solution for better handwriting recognition when Office just can't
cope... :-))

Of course, as Tom has plain XP Pro and wants better handwriting
recoginition, in spirit of this newsgroup the ideal thing would be to
consider buying a Tablet PC 8-) (or, install XP Pro Tablet PC Edition,
albeit because you can't buy that from the shops anywhere (whatever
reasons were behind _that_ MS decison), there you go...)

cheers,
- Jan

Jonathan Sachs wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 07:06:19 -0800, "Chris H." <winxpnews********.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Please don't confuse Office "recognition" with the Tablet PC recognizers,
>>Jan. They're two different animals entirely. The Office function can be
>>done on a desktop or laptop, going after mouse or writing pad input, which
>>is no where near as precise nor as encompassing as the Tablet PC
>>handwriting-to-text conversion.
>
> You've made the claim several times that handwriting recognition in
> Office and on the Tablet PC are "different animals entirely," but you
> haven't offered any persuasive explanation of what makes them
> different. The "mouse or writing pad input" explanation is
> tautological, and in a technical sense it is irrelevant, since it only
> concerns how the software is used, not how the software is designed or
> how it works.

Only a guess, but could be close to the truth:
Office 2k3 engine == off-line (image based) recognition only, Office 2k3
For TPC Update adds TPC dictionary and maybe use of some TPC-specific
..net classes.
XP TPC engine == off-line image based, augmented with the more
error-prone on-line (.NET ink path classes...) recognition to speed up
the process, which OTOH requires a re-write of the recognition engine to
combine on-line and off-line.

Anyway, it's likely that only MS devel's or marketing dept will know the
real answer...

- Jan

I'm not going to get into an argument over which is what here, Jonathan.
Whether those explanations become "persuasive" or not is in the reader's
interpretation and understanding. Sometimes we just need to keep repeating
the information, stating it in different words or structure for people to
understand.

And, I cannot specifically tell you the difference between the two engine
programs because Microsoft protects each engine's lexicon as "proprietary
intellectual property." In other words, they've created it and they're
going to keep it to themselves.

The Tablet PCs with the built-in handwriting recognition technology samples
at 130 times (or more) per second. An analog writing pad or mouse normally
samples at 40 times per second. The input device is absolutely essential to
the successful results for the user, and there is a great deal of difference
between digital and analog input because of the completeness of analyzing
each stroke created on-screen with the Tablet PC digital system.

The Tablet PC pen input, with that sampling rate, means a lot of data is
captured about the user's motion of the pen resulting in better quality of
Ink - for either right- or left-handed input.

As I've said before, I know there are hundreds of thousands of samples of
handwriting which Tablet PCs use to make informed and accurate judgments of
the input. And it has been improved with the Tablet PC Edition 2005. I
know also that the "handwriting" in Office applications was in place, and
programmed (software) to take writing pad or mouse (analog) input before
Tablet PCs were even on the market. As far as I know, that handwriting has
never differentiated between right- and left-handed input.

Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, English, Japanese, and Korean
language versions of Microsoft Office include "handwriting." Tablet PCs
(with the 2005 Recognizer Pack) also add U.S. or U.K. English, French,
German, Italian and Spanish to the above, and are also available for
download in those specific operating system languages.

Digital Ink on a Tablet PC is maintained as just that - Ink. It is
searchable, unlike the ink objects created in Office using the build-in
handwriting. Please don't get me wrong, the Office functionality is fine
for what it does. I believe the digital Tablet PC system happens to be much
more advanced and much better, just like digital music is better to listen
to than analog.

As for why two different handwriting engines were developed, I don't have
any background information on that except to say "handwriting" in Office
works without being on a Tablet PC. Office's version is based on analog
input as previously described, whereas the Tablet engine is digital. And
they come from two different project entities at Microsoft.

One also can wonder why we have Outlook and Outlook Express, or Internet
Explorer and Windows Explorer, or MSN Messenger and Windows Messenger. 8-)

BTW - I agree with those who are fans of PenOffice (especially version 2.6)
from www.phatware.com. It is a very good application, and offers a lot of
flexibility - even in Office. It also uses its own CalliGrapher recognition
system, so if you're using Office XP or newer with PenOffice on a Tablet PC,
you've got three different engines running. 8-)
--
Chris H.
Microsoft Windows MVP/Tablet PC
Tablet Creations - http://nicecreations.us/
Associate Expert
Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone

"Jonathan Sachs" <llm040903@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7mre11t18kv8t66a7at38a7ceoovsd2368@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 07:06:19 -0800, "Chris H." <winxpnews********.com>
> wrote:
>
> You've made the claim several times that handwriting recognition in
> Office and on the Tablet PC are "different animals entirely," but you
> haven't offered any persuasive explanation of what makes them
> different. The "mouse or writing pad input" explanation is
> tautological, and in a technical sense it is irrelevant, since it only
> concerns how the software is used, not how the software is designed or
> how it works.
>
> Looking at the question from a different perspective, it is hard to
> imagine why Microsoft would develop and maintain two "different...
> entirely" pieces of very complex and sophisticated software to perform
> the same function on two platforms.
>
> If you are to clarify things rather than confuse them further, you're
> going to have to provide a more substantial explanation of how and why
> these two handwriting recognition products differ.
>
> My email address is llm040903 at earthlink dot net.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:43:40 -0800, "Chris H." <winxpnews********.com>
wrote:

>I'm not going to get into an argument over which is what here, Jonathan.
>Whether those explanations become "persuasive" or not is in the reader's
>interpretation and understanding....

I am not trying to argue; I'm trying to get at the truth. I gave
specific reasons why your statement was not credible. Rather than
address them, you just repeated it. That does nothing to move this
discussion forward. If what you have said is true, you are going to
explain it in a way that makes sense.

You repeated your earlier assertion that the Tablet PC reads input at
130 samples/second, while graphics pads read at about 40
samples/second. I and others have already pointed out that this is not
true: modern graphics pads have sampling rates that bracket the Tablet
PC rate. Check some of the manufacturers' and reviewers' web sites if
you don't believe me. Here are a few URLs:

http://www.wacom.com/faqs/knowledge_search.cfm?id=202
http://www.wacom.com/faqs/knowledge_search.cfm?id=312
http://www.neuroscript.net/help/testingdigitizer.html

You also mentioned again "the difference between digital and analog
input," but you have never explained what that means (or even which
type of device is supposed to be which). ALL graphics pad input is
analog at the hardware level, and digital at the level where
handwriting recognition software operates on it. The only possible
difference is where and how the conversion is done. Unless you explain
the difference and its significance, you have explained nothing.

>Digital Ink on a Tablet PC is maintained as just that - Ink. It is
>searchable, unlike the ink objects created in Office using the build-in
>handwriting....

That also is not true. Microsoft supported searchable "ink" in Office
as far back as Word 2002. See the Word 2002 help file's topic "About
handwriting recognition," which says:

"Your natural handwriting is converted to typed characters and
inserted inline... In Microsoft Word and Microsoft Outlook, you can
also choose the option to leave text in handwritten form....

"In Word and Outlook you can... search and replace writing inserted in
handwritten form."

Your points about the size of the handwriting sample database and
post-introduction improvements make sense. Frankly, though, I cannot
put faith in them without some evidence. Your reluctance to offer
support for statements that do not make sense, and your repetition of
other statements in the face of proof that they are untrue, greatly
impair your credibility.

Since your handle says you are an MVP, I hope you have something
valuable to offer here. So far, though, it is not happening.

My email address is llm040903 at earthlink dot net.

Jonathan Sachs <llm040903@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:43:40 -0800, "Chris H." <winxpnews********.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I'm not going to get into an argument over which is what here, Jonathan.
> >Whether those explanations become "persuasive" or not is in the reader's
> >interpretation and understanding....
>
> I am not trying to argue; I'm trying to get at the truth. I gave
> specific reasons why your statement was not credible. Rather than
> address them, you just repeated it. That does nothing to move this
> discussion forward. If what you have said is true, you are going to
> explain it in a way that makes sense.
>
> You repeated your earlier assertion that the Tablet PC reads input at
> 130 samples/second, while graphics pads read at about 40
> samples/second. I and others have already pointed out that this is not
> true: modern graphics pads have sampling rates that bracket the Tablet
> PC rate. Check some of the manufacturers' and reviewers' web sites if
> you don't believe me.

Indeed - most tablets sample at a much higher rate than a mouse - 4 or 5
times. The TabletPCs sample at the same rate as the Wacom tablets, as
that is in effect what they normally are. However, the PC, using the
tablet as a replacement mouse only stores points 30-40 times a second,
regardless of how many samples come in.

Also, where the main inputs differ is in the resolution, not the data
rate. Under Office, the ink that is stored is stored as whole pixels, so
the smallest change that can be registered is a 1x1 pixels.
The TabletPC stores digital ink at a much higher resolution, so that for
a line to be one pixel thick on screen, it has to be about 60 units
thick in tablet coordinates.
This means that the ink coordinates offer a much better sample for
handwriting.

As to how office copes with ink in general, I cannot say though.

--
Woody

www.alienrat.com

You're certainly welcome to your opinions, Jonathan.

I believe several weeks ago, when you were also asking questions and seeking
explanations beyond what was posted, I listed some URLs with additional
information for edification, including:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/mobility/t.../tab101c03.asp

I am also comparing regular writing pads or mouse setups, not the more
expensive, specialized digital HID-compliant pads, with the Tablet PC
digitizer.

I hope you'll find the additional URLs I am posting below will give you the
information you're seeking:

First, information on sources for developing software for Tablet PCs:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/mobility/t...bdevfaq_topic5
Second, conceptual and reference information on how Tablet PC software can
be developed:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ncesopener.asp
Third, what it takes to capture digital ink on Tablet PCs:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...ncesopener.asp
--
Chris H.
Microsoft Windows MVP/Tablet PC
Tablet Creations - http://nicecreations.us/
Associate Expert
Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone


"Jonathan Sachs" <llm040903@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:rnif11hu5fupsi7qult2o43bsocvrj0kiu@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:43:40 -0800, "Chris H." <winxpnews********.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I'm not going to get into an argument over which is what here, Jonathan.
>>Whether those explanations become "persuasive" or not is in the reader's
>>interpretation and understanding....
>
> I am not trying to argue; I'm trying to get at the truth. I gave
> specific reasons why your statement was not credible. Rather than
> address them, you just repeated it. That does nothing to move this
> discussion forward. If what you have said is true, you are going to
> explain it in a way that makes sense.
>
> You repeated your earlier assertion that the Tablet PC reads input at
> 130 samples/second, while graphics pads read at about 40
> samples/second. I and others have already pointed out that this is not
> true: modern graphics pads have sampling rates that bracket the Tablet
> PC rate. Check some of the manufacturers' and reviewers' web sites if
> you don't believe me. Here are a few URLs:
>
> http://www.wacom.com/faqs/knowledge_search.cfm?id=202
> http://www.wacom.com/faqs/knowledge_search.cfm?id=312
> http://www.neuroscript.net/help/testingdigitizer.html
>
> You also mentioned again "the difference between digital and analog
> input," but you have never explained what that means (or even which
> type of device is supposed to be which). ALL graphics pad input is
> analog at the hardware level, and digital at the level where
> handwriting recognition software operates on it. The only possible
> difference is where and how the conversion is done. Unless you explain
> the difference and its significance, you have explained nothing.
>
>>Digital Ink on a Tablet PC is maintained as just that - Ink. It is
>>searchable, unlike the ink objects created in Office using the build-in
>>handwriting....
>
> That also is not true. Microsoft supported searchable "ink" in Office
> as far back as Word 2002. See the Word 2002 help file's topic "About
> handwriting recognition," which says:
>
> "Your natural handwriting is converted to typed characters and
> inserted inline... In Microsoft Word and Microsoft Outlook, you can
> also choose the option to leave text in handwritten form....
>
> "In Word and Outlook you can... search and replace writing inserted in
> handwritten form."
>
> Your points about the size of the handwriting sample database and
> post-introduction improvements make sense. Frankly, though, I cannot
> put faith in them without some evidence. Your reluctance to offer
> support for statements that do not make sense, and your repetition of
> other statements in the face of proof that they are untrue, greatly
> impair your credibility.
>
> Since your handle says you are an MVP, I hope you have something
> valuable to offer here. So far, though, it is not happening.
>
> My email address is llm040903 at earthlink dot net.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 02:29:30 +0000, usenet@alienrat.co.uk (Woody)
wrote:

>...However, the PC, using the
>tablet as a replacement mouse only stores points 30-40 times a second,
>regardless of how many samples come in.

I am skeptical about this, because graphics pads have their own
drivers -- they have to, since they report position rather than
movement, so that a mouse driver could not make any sense of their
output. They provide information about pen pressure, tilt, etc. as
well as movement and button action. Clearly they are not limited to
the "form factor" of a mouse driver. I see no reason why they should
be limited to a mouse driver's sample rate.

Go to the Neuroscript web site that I mentioned in my previous
message, and you'll find that their test results (bracketing the
Tablet PC sampling rate) were obtained from a program that works
through each device'sdevice driver. It appears that these drivers do
in fact yield higher sample rates than a mouse driver.

If you have found evidence that this is not true, or is not the whole
story, please refer me to it.

>Also, where the main inputs differ is in the resolution, not the data
>rate. Under Office, the ink that is stored is stored as whole pixels, so
>the smallest change that can be registered is a 1x1 pixels.
>The TabletPC stores digital ink at a much higher resolution, so that for
>a line to be one pixel thick on screen, it has to be about 60 units
>thick in tablet coordinates.
>This means that the ink coordinates offer a much better sample for
>handwriting.

It's not clear to me just what you mean by "1x1 pixels." Are you
referring to pixels in the display device's coordinates, or the
graphics pad's coordinates?

If you mean the display device's coordinates, that would be most
astonishing, since Windows (and probably every other modern GUI) uses
device-independent coordinates for all of its internal operations in
both applications and in the OS itself. The implementers of the
handwriting recognition software would have to go out of their way to
impose such a limitation on it, and I can't imagine why they would do
so.

If you mean the graphics pad's coordinates, I doubt that this is a
problem. Wacom's Intuos3 has a resolution of 5080 lines/inch. The less
expensive Graphire3 has 2032 lines/inch. I'm skeptical that
handwriting recognition software could benefit from more resolution
than that. Consider that a typical ballpoint pen makes a mark about
0.01" wide -- over 20 times the resolution of the Graphire3.

Again, if you have found evidence that this is not true or is not the
whole story, please provide the references.

My email address is llm040903 at earthlink dot net.

Jonathan Sachs <llm040903@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 02:29:30 +0000, usenet@alienrat.co.uk (Woody)
> wrote:
>
> >...However, the PC, using the
> >tablet as a replacement mouse only stores points 30-40 times a second,
> >regardless of how many samples come in.
>
> I am skeptical about this, because graphics pads have their own
> drivers -- they have to, since they report position rather than
> movement,

They can do either.

> >Also, where the main inputs differ is in the resolution, not the data
> >rate. Under Office, the ink that is stored is stored as whole pixels, so
> >the smallest change that can be registered is a 1x1 pixels.
> >The TabletPC stores digital ink at a much higher resolution, so that for
> >a line to be one pixel thick on screen, it has to be about 60 units
> >thick in tablet coordinates.
> >This means that the ink coordinates offer a much better sample for
> >handwriting.
>
> It's not clear to me just what you mean by "1x1 pixels." Are you
> referring to pixels in the display device's coordinates, or the
> graphics pad's coordinates?

The display devices coordinates, or they wouldn't be pixels :-)


> If you mean the display device's coordinates, that would be most
> astonishing, since Windows (and probably every other modern GUI) uses
> device-independent coordinates for all of its internal operations in
> both applications and in the OS itself.

No it doesn't - maybe for print operations or other devices, but it
addresses the screen directly pixel for pixel to create the required
speed. When it comes to other OSs, the Mac is device independant and as
a result is slower on the screen.

> The implementers of the
> handwriting recognition software would have to go out of their way to
> impose such a limitation on it, and I can't imagine why they would do
> so.

Because they are saving pixels, such as an image (where one pixel = 1
unit), whereas on the tablet it is saved as digital ink (one pixel =
57.x units).

> If you mean the graphics pad's coordinates, I doubt that this is a
> problem. Wacom's Intuos3 has a resolution of 5080 lines/inch. The less
> expensive Graphire3 has 2032 lines/inch.

There is no problem with the resolution of a wacom tablet - it is the
same hardware as the TabletPC, as I said earlier. It is purely software.

> I'm skeptical that
> handwriting recognition software could benefit from more resolution
> than that.

Indeed it couldn't if that was stored!

> Again, if you have found evidence that this is not true or is not the
> whole story, please provide the references.

To be honest, I don't really care about it that much as I have a tablet,
and have no use for inking in word. All sources available to me are also
available to you, so it would be pointless me looking for info which you
could find just as easily.



--
Woody

www.alienrat.com

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:27:32 +0000, usenet@alienrat.co.uk (Woody)
wrote:

>> If you mean the display device's coordinates, that would be most
>> astonishing, since Windows (and probably every other modern GUI) uses
>> device-independent coordinates for all of its internal operations in
>> both applications and in the OS itself.
>
>No it doesn't - maybe for print operations or other devices, but it
>addresses the screen directly pixel for pixel...

Not so. Windows applications represent postions in Graphics Device
Independent (GDI) coordinates, and convert to device coordinates only
for input and output operations. Here's an explanation of how it works
and why:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...n_gdiover2.asp

>To be honest, I don't really care... All sources available to me are also
>available to you, so it would be pointless me looking for info which you
>could find just as easily.

I am inviting you to substantiate statements you made which are
inconsistent with what I know about Microsoft Windows's GUI
architecture.

I have cited an authority (Microsoft) which confirms what I said. The
ball's in your court. If you want to drop it, OK; but it's not clear
to me why you made those statements in the first place if you're not
prepared to substantiate them.

My email address is llm040903 at earthlink dot net.

I believe Chris H. has tried to help you and has offered his advice.
You may or may not agree with it, but neither he nor any of us has to
convince you of anything. This is a site for helping people, not for
challenging people. If you don't like his advice, don't take it and
move on.

Jonathan Sachs wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:27:32 +0000, usenet@alienrat.co.uk (Woody)
> wrote:
>
>
>>>If you mean the display device's coordinates, that would be most
>>>astonishing, since Windows (and probably every other modern GUI) uses
>>>device-independent coordinates for all of its internal operations in
>>>both applications and in the OS itself.
>>
>>No it doesn't - maybe for print operations or other devices, but it
>>addresses the screen directly pixel for pixel...
>
>
> Not so. Windows applications represent postions in Graphics Device
> Independent (GDI) coordinates, and convert to device coordinates only
> for input and output operations. Here's an explanation of how it works
> and why:
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...n_gdiover2.asp
>
>
>>To be honest, I don't really care... All sources available to me are also
>>available to you, so it would be pointless me looking for info which you
>>could find just as easily.
>
>
> I am inviting you to substantiate statements you made which are
> inconsistent with what I know about Microsoft Windows's GUI
> architecture.
>
> I have cited an authority (Microsoft) which confirms what I said. The
> ball's in your court. If you want to drop it, OK; but it's not clear
> to me why you made those statements in the first place if you're not
> prepared to substantiate them.
>
> My email address is llm040903 at earthlink dot net.