View Full Version : Have a look at me desktop.

08-21-2002, 09:00 AM
Cruel picture don't you think? LOL

:laugh: :laugh:

Mr. C
08-21-2002, 09:07 AM
So do a lot of folks in Sweden use English language Windows and programs:?:

08-21-2002, 09:14 AM
Na i can't say that. I just prefer English programs...
Easier to understand... lol


Mr. C
08-21-2002, 09:19 AM
LOL for me it is:D
Might've taken me a second to recognize WinAmp if it had been in Swedish.

08-21-2002, 09:26 AM
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

08-21-2002, 11:21 AM
What's cruel about it? As long as you are not waking up next to it ...

08-21-2002, 04:55 PM
True, better of at a safe distance... :eek:

08-21-2002, 09:22 PM
What's the hit on your graphics card to have that sucker there?

08-22-2002, 05:38 AM
What do you mean by hit? Me english could be better mate...


08-22-2002, 06:04 AM
The graphics card has to render the image & has to perform work to do it. It can slow other things down. Same thing happens with 100 icons on your desktop.

08-22-2002, 06:50 AM
I see, the picture is 1600x1200 24 bit colour.
I have'nt noticed any performance drops since
i've got the background. But good to know, thx...


08-22-2002, 07:13 AM
You could easily offsetit by adding another 256 MB 1066 ram

08-22-2002, 01:25 PM
Are you serious Dr. peter??? 256 MB of ram to offset a 4MB wallpaper?

100 icons and 4 meg backround files haven't been an issue since 2 meg vid cards, and even back then the difference was only somewhat noticable.

Btw, 'render' is not the right term to use when discussing a simple wallpaper. 'display' is more correct. The word Render is used to describe the work done to process something that does not yet exist in its final form. Like a movie (Toy Story) or a 3D game.

08-22-2002, 05:15 PM
Thank you all for your help, but i think that my computer could use another 256 mb of rdram cause of my win xp-pro.
It would increase overall performance don't you think?


08-22-2002, 08:14 PM
Yes it would as 512MB is the sweet spot. :devil:

:beer: :beer: :beer:

08-23-2002, 02:58 AM
Wiggo is correct again.