> The high contrast is not clicked on. This is a brand new computer.

Signature
Ed Bennett - MVP Microsoft Publisher
What does your having to count how many times this has been posted have to do
with this? The statement you just sent me about the mass production is the
first time I have seen it. I went back to your other reponses and they are
very short responses. Nowhere was anything even close to this on my response
list. I was told this was a good forum from people who could give you the
answer yoou need.
unfortunately, you and mary sauer both seem to be very short today. I am
shocked and saddened you woould act like this. you are here to help and
puttting responses in CAPS, and using a sarcastic attitude defies
description. Believe it or not, some people don't know as much as you both
do. I neglected to put the face that i was in Publisher on the first e-mails,
which I apologize for. But your and Mary's rsponses have gone striaght south
since then.
> > The high contrast is not clicked on. This is a brand new computer.
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> the machine will sit on a shelf before you buy it, is quite likely), you
> would not have the latest drivers on your brand new machine.
Mary Sauer - 27 Feb 2006 20:19 GMT
Hello,
I am sorry we sounded short. Your first post was so ambiguous it was difficult
to understand what you are trying to do. The video driver is something you
should think about, especially if you play games and do other high graphic
things. You are seeing shadowing on your screen because of a video problem, this
is why I thought maybe you had high contrast enabled.
I have a brand new computer also and believe or not I have had to upgrade the
audio driver and the video driver.
We are here to help, we just need more details.

Signature
Mary Sauer MSFT MVP
http://office.microsoft.com/
http://msauer.mvps.org/
news://msnews.microsoft.com
> What does your having to count how many times this has been posted have to do
> with this? The statement you just sent me about the mass production is the
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>> the machine will sit on a shelf before you buy it, is quite likely), you
>> would not have the latest drivers on your brand new machine.
Mike Koewler - 27 Feb 2006 21:23 GMT
I have learned not to argue about the need to upgrade a video driver
regardless how new your computer is. Going back about eight years, this
has been the standard response (to give you an idea, I saw the same
messages and replies from someone who was using Publisher 98 - but it
was posted in 2002). I have no idea why Pub is like it is and it does
seem odd that a program tested and released three years ago would need a
driver released within the last year, but it is how the program works.
If nothing else, see if your driver is the latest. If it it, then that
eliminates one possible cause.
Mike
> What does your having to count how many times this has been posted have to do
> with this? The statement you just sent me about the mass production is the
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>>the machine will sit on a shelf before you buy it, is quite likely), you
>>would not have the latest drivers on your brand new machine.
Ed Bennett - 27 Feb 2006 23:27 GMT
Mike Koewler <wordwiz@fuse.net> was very recently heard to utter:
> it does seem odd that a program tested and released three years ago
> would need a driver released within the last year
Mainly because cards have been released since Publisher was released, the
initial drivers are not mature and don't support the calls that Publisher
makes, etc. The older cards are the most likely to work with Publisher, as
far as I can tell (within reason).

Signature
Ed Bennett - MVP Microsoft Publisher
Ed Bennett - 27 Feb 2006 23:33 GMT
> What does your having to count how many times this has been posted
> have to do with this?
Absolutely nothing.
> I was told this was
> a good forum from people who could give you the answer yoou need.
In that case, why did you choose to ignore our advice and claim that you
knew better?
> unfortunately, you and mary sauer both seem to be very short today.
We're human. We're not paid to be here. We do other things with the rest
of our lives. We have good days and bad days. We're not machines.
> I
> am shocked and saddened you woould act like this. you are here to
> help and puttting responses in CAPS, and using a sarcastic attitude
> defies description.
Actually, you just described it pretty well, and as such it doesn't defy
description. Although I wouldn't describe my response as sarcastic. Just
blunt, perhaps a little condescending (sp?).
> Believe it or not, some people don't know as much
> as you both do.
In that case, why did you not actually believe me and look for a new video
driver rather than claim that you knew best?
Anyway, I'm sure you have more expertise than me in many areas. We just
have different specialisations.
> I neglected to put the face that i was in Publisher
> on the first e-mails, which I apologize for. But your and Mary's
> rsponses have gone striaght south since then.
Yes, of course they have. If you don't want my help, please feel free to
say, and I will STFU. Until then, I will continue asking questions in a
manner I see fit, hopefully whilst getting answers from you that will help
me to answer your problem. If you don't like the service you get for free
here, you could always pay for MS tech support.

Signature
Ed Bennett
Margolotta - 28 Feb 2006 01:28 GMT
> What does your having to count how many times this has been posted have to do
> with this?
Everything, actually. You posted it was a brand new machine, ergo you assumed
it had the latest drivers. Ed has been banging on about this *for years*.
The statement you just sent me about the mass production is the
> first time I have seen it. I went back to your other reponses
What - every reply Ed has ever posted, ever? In that case you would have seen
that he's posted ad infinitum et ad nauseam on the topic.
and they are
> very short responses. Nowhere was anything even close to this on my response
> list.
But you just said you'd searched all Ed's responses. So you lied about that,
then?
I was told this was a good forum from people who could give you the
> answer yoou need.
It isn't a forum, it's a Usenet newsgroup. Learn the difference. And it is,
it's just we don't like whiners.
> unfortunately, you and mary sauer both seem to be very short today.
Maybe that's because dealing with you is like having a tooth pulled - sans
anaesthetic.
I am shocked and saddened you would act like this. you are here to help and
> puttting responses in CAPS, and using a sarcastic attitude defies
> description.
Maybe you should ask yourself why Ed felt the need to do that? Something to
do with you, perhaps...? Maybe he was more than a little irritated with you.
I think it's your attitude that "defies description".
Believe it or not, some people don't know as much as you both
> do.
Not a difficult feat in your case.
I neglected to put the face that i was in Publisher on the first e-mails
What emails? This is Usenet, not email. Learn the difference.
,
> which I apologize for. But your and Mary's rsponses have gone striaght south
> since then.
Whine, whine, whine, moan, moan, moan, yadda, yadda, yadda. If you don't like
it, then take it somewhere else. I think Mary and Ed were becoming just a
little frustrated with your attitude.