Owner End Process with the task manager only "Ends Process" during that sesssion. Upon rebooting all your processes are back ... even "End Process" ed ones. Microsoft Word does not belong in my Task Bar. It uses 55% of CPU upon start up. No wonder we were gettin' hot. How do I get it out of my Task Bar? and How did it get in there? Owner 'End Process' es are fairly benign and most gamers turn them of except the task bar itself and IE while playing, its even on the directions of most PC games...for enhancesd performance... etc. The entire word program is running!!...55% of a 3.2GHz CPU (certainly isn't the fastest) at startup is going to word without me turning it on, that is ridiculous! marf

I thought I had upgraded to IE7 at one point. Yahoo wants me to upgrade to IE8, but after reading about it here, I was reluctant to do so. I did go to windows updates last week to see if there were any I needed to do, but after scanning it said there were none. How do I get IE 7?

This is the extra coding that wordpad has added so that the page comes out like you have made it. Is this file saved as a "doc" file? If so then that is the reason for all the extra coding. It is better to learn html coding with notepad since it will not add any coding on its own. If it was notepad that you used in making the webpage perhaps you tried opening the page in wordpad to see it. this lets wordpad add its own coding so that it can read the page. When you saved the file did you save it as a txt file and added the .htm or .html after the file name? you must do this in order for IE to show the file as a html webpage. I learned html using notepad before there were editors to do html coding. I have tried many editors and i still think Microsoft Front Page is the best for people who just want to have their own webpage. You can find FP on ebay for around $50 for FP2000. I would choose this since it makes it easy to make webpages and you can concentrate on the graphics and content of your pages rather than the html coding. While it is still good to know html coding, it is not necessary to understand it all. JamesS

I don't know who you are asking. Something dark usually has to be there to begin with for it to be realistic. One thing you can do is use the lasso tool and select the subject, save the selection to the alpha channel (select>save to alpha channel, give it a name, it will now stay with your .psp file but will be lost on any other saved file format) so you don't lose it, save your work as .psp (lossless format and more powerful and flexible for a project) with a new name intermittently so you don't lose it (one name is enough just keep saving over your work file), then feather the selection a couple of pixels, invert the selection and turn down the brightness of the background or paint it all black. Later I learned to paint masks on a layer to make selecting more precise. It takes time to learn all this, but it is worth the effort. Basically all you do is paint black over everything you want to keep bright, zoom up so you can see the edges better, when you are done painting use the magic wand to make a selection, invert the selection, usually better to feather the selection a couple pixels, and do it that way. It also works well for the color accent effect. You don't have to do layers to do it. Never work with your original, keep it always in a different file. If you have two renamed versions (window>duplicate image) on your desktop, you can select the painted mask in one image, save it to the alpha channel (look in the menu as described above), then click on the top of the image you want to apply the changes to, load the selection back from the alpha channel, and go from there. Both photos have to be the same size for that to work right. There are usually several different ways to achieve the same thing. Unless you use the posterboard, velvet or some black background, which is what pros do in studio setups, if the background isn't naturally somewhat dark to begin with, I'd leave it be. There's nothing wrong with a macro that is well done, sharp and bright subject with a nice blurred, lighter background. Maybe these aren't what you are after; they just happened, and aren't totally dark. The third one is the one I talked about in my first response to you. These are not the last word in great photographs, I only have a few that tended naturally to go that way with a little extra tweaking, no masks or fancy stuff in post processing. It was a lot of work just finding these and getting them ready to post. I wouldn't bother with all that other work to make it dark unless it was really special. I checked my exif on these examples, for the two flower shots I had the exposure compensation turned down to -1, for the mother and son shot it was +.33, different cameras, different lighting conditions. I don't know what that white string thing is in the third one, I had to resize the version I sent to have a print made from, will have to check the print to see if that is present; if so, it should have been cloned out.