| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 100124 | 2009-05-27 02:56:00 | Windows desktop image sizes | Tony (4941) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 777246 | 2009-05-27 02:56:00 | Can anyone tell me whether the file size of an image used as a desktop backround has any effect on performance? | Tony (4941) | ||
| 777247 | 2009-05-27 03:23:00 | Yes it does | Rob99 (151) | ||
| 777248 | 2009-05-27 03:47:00 | Yes it doesI thought it would - is it obvious, or fairly subtle? I'm creating some training material for Seniornet - and all these people like to have pictures of grandkids on their dektop, so it would be good to be able to give them a bit of a steer. | Tony (4941) | ||
| 777249 | 2009-05-27 03:48:00 | Yes it doesI thought it would - is it obvious, or fairly subtle? I'm creating some training material for Seniornet - and all these people like to have pictures of grandkids on their desktop, so it would be good to be able to give them a bit of a steer. | Tony (4941) | ||
| 777250 | 2009-05-27 03:59:00 | IIRC iconss thumbnails are loaded in a cache, so it should affect the performance I guess | Blam (54) | ||
| 777251 | 2009-05-27 04:20:00 | IIRC iconss thumbnails are loaded in a cache, so it should affect the performance I guessBut it is not icons I am talking about, it is the background. | Tony (4941) | ||
| 777252 | 2009-05-27 04:41:00 | If you want to use a certain picture, depending on the OS, safe it as a JPEG. The quality is usually good, you may get better if its saved as a BMP, but the difference is not that noticeable, yet the size will be - A LOT has to do with the quality of the original Picture to start with. |
wainuitech (129) | ||
| 777253 | 2009-05-27 05:07:00 | Perhaps the wrong question was asked. Maybe it should be is there a difference in performance when using a 3.5 megabyte JPG as opposed to a 256 Kilobyte JPG for a desktop background? I could be wrong though. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 777254 | 2009-05-27 06:03:00 | Perhaps the wrong question was asked. Maybe it should be is there a difference in performance when using a 3.5 megabyte JPG as opposed to a 256 Kilobyte JPG for a desktop background?I thought that was the question I was asking. I've realized though, that "performance" could be misinterpreted. I meant "will it slow down the machine", not "will the file size make a difference to the quality of the image" - which is what I think a couple of posters may have thought. |
Tony (4941) | ||
| 777255 | 2009-05-27 06:36:00 | But it is not icons I am talking about, it is the background. Ok, it'll affect performance, but you shouldn't notice it. Unless you have a REALLY slow machine. Having a clear background behind icon text and aero etc does use a bit of memory however. Have a look at dwm.exe(If you're using vista) in task manager |
Blam (54) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||