David Stacey tiscali.co.uk> writes:
>On 19/09/15 13:10, Ken Brown wrote:
>> In the context of the manual entry, it's not obvious that the
>> program author(s) intended zoom factors of 'page' and 'width' to be
>> subject to incrementing/decrementing.
>>
>> I get the same impression from looking at
On 19/09/15 13:10, Ken Brown wrote:
On 9/19/2015 1:24 AM, Csaba Raduly wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
On 9/17/2015 1:08 AM, Paul wrote:
After I press "z" to fit the page to the window, or "w" to fit the
page
width within the window, I'm finding that "-" & "+" is
On 9/19/2015 1:24 AM, Csaba Raduly wrote:
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
On 9/17/2015 1:08 AM, Paul wrote:
After I press "z" to fit the page to the window, or "w" to fit the page
width within the window, I'm finding that "-" & "+" is unresponsive. I
can
get it responding
On 9/17/2015 1:08 AM, Paul wrote:
After I press "z" to fit the page to the window, or "w" to fit the page
width within the window, I'm finding that "-" & "+" is unresponsive. I can
get it responding again by first pression "0" to zoom to 125%, but I really
hope that this is not necessary. Is
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 9/17/2015 1:08 AM, Paul wrote:
>>
>> After I press "z" to fit the page to the window, or "w" to fit the page
>> width within the window, I'm finding that "-" & "+" is unresponsive. I
>> can
>> get it responding again by first pression "0"
After I press "z" to fit the page to the window, or "w" to fit the page
width within the window, I'm finding that "-" & "+" is unresponsive. I can
get it responding again by first pression "0" to zoom to 125%, but I really
hope that this is not necessary. Is anyone else experiencing this? I
