so what does your data suggest is the cause for improved performance (real world use like all the people experience) when using gray scale? What is the benefit to LMI to remove / support such a feature. I would agree all the different options LMI had were probably too much, but the BW experience for IT support of systems with slow bandwidth was far more effecient and helpful.
Has no one from LMI not experienced the demonstrative difference? Would it be that problematic to reintroduce it and support it?
"I have a hard time believing the data showed your customers didn't use the lower color options enough to keep them." This is not what I said. Our team compared the amount of data being transmitted using the different options and found that grayscale was not more efficient, that is why it was removed.
@GlennD I am telling you as a user of many years that grayscale is patently faster. By far.
I am a programmer myself, and I can imagine 100 ways how your team's data led them to a factually wrong conclusion. But this is ridiculous.
Do you really think that all those posters here suffer from delusions? It is always possible. But those data can misled for all kinds of reasons.
do not be MIcrosoft please. with the habit of nonchalantly trampling on client wishes and being unanimously hated by expert users with a veagnance. Not that I am suggeting the comparison seriously. I am not. It just bourhgt the Microsoft hate & habits to mind. Change everything you can, to harass and inconvenient users as much as possible. Maybe to break their independence. THeir souls or something... sorry for sidetracking haha
1) it is remotely possible that setting up the netwrok settings for very slow, will give the same effect.
But even if this is true (didnt check), it is yet another example of an evil-Microsoftish type hell setting.
You got thousands of long time users. always using grayscale on slow connections.
Most will not notice this option. and will just suffer.
"lets impose a setting on you which you will never use, but my arse will be covered"
Even if true, what is the stupid value of changing the solution to what some clueless programmer thinks is more elegant???
so I have been suffering for two years now. why? for what end?
2) I am in great doubt it works. I think the "Data calculation" was wrong.
it is manifestly slower with the new program. what the hell