CRT monitors are beginning to be a drug on the market (whatever that means). Have you tried your local Freecycle or Freegle group, can be a good way of shifting stuff that nobody wants to buy, but will happily come and collect.
Geoff

Quite right - but my $1.99 LED torch from MicroCenter solves that one.
Won't help me read CDs though.
Geoff

Just a slightly different take on this:
When my colleagues and I developed a "world-beating" - and very specialized - piece of software, we wrote the Manual as an HTML file. The logic was that the file could be printed off (but as A4 size) and the user could pull up the help-file from within the program, use the index to get the page number, and then had the printed page to refer to (and could close the help-screen down and go back to the main program).
The main feature of a PDF file is that it is harder to change (hack) if it is available online, this feature disappears if distribution is on CD with the product.
I like a printed manual. The only good things about an electronic manual is that they could help keep the cost down to the user, and can be easier to update. Either way, one needs a good index.
There is a school of thought that the best way to design a product is to start writing the manual - one of those truisms that you can beat students over the head with, of course, but with a lot of truth in it.
Geoff

Well, I finally got the answer to several of my questions in one hit.
I tried Iceblinker's suggestion:
and some strange things happened.
- Yes, the resampled pictures displayed the same on screen - presumably the pixel size overrode any other setting.
- Using a target shot created for the purpose, on resampling to 1 ppi, the on-screen image reduced to almost a single pixel, and printed out as a 1 inch square. On screen, I enlarged it X1600 and the image was only 5mm square.
I went to do this taking an old image shot on a visit to Newport RI (and not with a Pentax (slaps own wrist) and the image reduced (on screen) to about 60mm square. In doing this I noticed that my old Photoshop 6 had changed from having "resampling ON" to "OFF". I mean that the check-box was greyed out (just in case someone wants to tell me that there is no ON/OFF switch). Now I had not changed any of the default settings by intent so I looked and could not find any way to do this using the menus.
It seems clear (to me)that may earlier comments were made when PS6 had re-sampling ON and PSE4 on my Mac had a default setting of "resampling OFF". That took me back to a shot of the Ironbridge (in the village of the same name) that had always showed some aliasing on the bridge structure - and which now when resized to a nominal 10x8 gives really sharp diagonals. I tried this in another photo-editing program and found that the default was "resample ON" - turned this OFF and resized to 10x8 and got a good image at 300 ppi (shot with a K100D, hence 6 mp sensor) and a print that was close to the PS6 one.
Obviously, this is something I have to watch in future.
Geoff

Now I am getting really confused.
If the PPI number does not affect the resampling, then why do all the programs provide a dialog box to alter the PPI value? And, from that, what is the point of resampling if the chosen PPI value makes no difference?

I find Dan's explanation:
quite logical, and it seems to bear out what I have found actually happens.

Geoff

Just to add a little more to what has been a very interesting thread ...
Photoshop 6 - the PPI can only be changed between:
72-PPI (defined as Postscript)
72.27 PPI (defined as Traditional)
unless one leaves it until after the image has been loaded.
So our 3872x2592 image (K200D) is roughly 53x36 inches.
I want a 10x8 print so I re-size the image - this leads to all sorts of aliasing problems - and my printer will do a lot better than 72PPI.
So, I resample first, and then resize - my 10x8 is still at 380PPI, and the print quality is much better.
That's Photoshop 6, Serif Photoplus X2 has a default of 96 pix/in, and this can be adjusted. This is of course close to Dan's setting and Serif started to make a name with DTP software, so one can see why they might have chosen it.
PSE4 on the Mac starts at 72 but if the 3872x2592 image is resized to 10x8 the resolution changes to 380PPI - without me having to do anything. And, better yet, the printout is of a very high quality, with the aliasing almost minimal.
If only I had time to do all the experiments
Geoff

Critical-i wrote
Not a very helpful comment, was it?
You quoted a substantial chunk from my post, and this included several statements. You failed to indicate which of those statements you believed to be untrue. For the benefit of the other readers, could you please do this?
If it will help you, the three programs I referred to (but did not then name) were Photoshop 6, Corel Paint Shop Pro X, and Serif Photoplus X2.
I have just repeated the exercise with a different file and repeat: resizing the image does not change the pixel-per-inch value.
If there is a setting that I can change, that will prevent this from happening, do say so - I am sure that this would be helpful to others.

George Lazarette wrote
I mainly used Photoshop (oldish version) for cropping and adjustments to brightness and contrast. However, having tried a number of image editing programs (both free and paid-for) I note that all the ones for PC are the same in one respect: Re-size the image, and it stays at 72 pix-per-inch. So you first have to re-sample and then scale down. An oldish version of Photoshop elements for the Mac did it in one step without resampling - the long dimension of a 10mp image (3800-odd pixels) becomes 10" at 380 mp at very acceptable print quality.
When going digital, there is a temptation to take too many shots, throw the bad ones away, and edit some of the rest. PSE4 on the Mac is making me think about the whole composition (i.e. no cropping).
As a matter of possible interest, I printed an image that had been re-sized (in PSE4/Mac from a PC having opened it in three different image editors - none were as good as from the Mac, and it was quite easy to see that there were differences in quality between them.
So, just what is the difference between film, processing, enlarging (with printing and dodging) shuffling the paper grades, playing with test strips, etc, and doing the same thing on a computer? Creative activity based on an image formed by a lens = photography in my book.
Geoff

And I would like to know the answer to the 2nd question as well.
I changed monitor, and now have to lighten all my shots in PS to get an acceptable print. Have fiddled with the monitor settings, but it's not right yet.
Just writing this down gave me two more ideas to try, so that's a good thing anyway.
Geoff

Let us put a value on the list - £0 or $0 -
Am I being cynical? No, I don't think so.
The list gave a single position for Psychologist with Low, Mid-level, and High salaries - and figures in dollars.
Now the American Psychological Association have 32 different divisions, which means that they recognize 32 different types of Psychologist.
AND
Mid-level is not a recognized statistical term (Mean, Median and Mode are).
I guess that this list would fill up a page in a tabloid, and end up lining the bottom of a bird-cage (and be more use there).
Just because I have taken work-related photos (and hence been paid for so doing) does not make me any sort of professional photographer (and we have had a debate on the value of that term).
If I asked you "Would you like to take photographs for a living" I bet most folk reading this would reply "Yes" followed by "How much?", followed by "Where?", followed by "What's the deal?", and the wrong answer to any question would immediately kill the interest.
Any job has it's bad side - see Don's comment above about "Bridezilla".
So, now tell me, what is the list really worth?