It's that time again....post your desktop !!!

1678911

Comments

  • Reply 201 of 230
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    but what about those of us with smaller (1024X768) reslutions? the page's formattting gets fucked up majorly and it is immpossible to read any message w/o a hard return in it <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> its not just bandwith thats a pain in the ass....
  • Reply 202 of 230
    tigerwoods99tigerwoods99 Posts: 2,633member
    That's what I did. I put the url in there from where I am hosting the picture. It is in jpeg format already. It's 1600x1200. I'm on slow 56k btw, and I have no problem with people posting their full screen shots. it is NOT a TIFF that I posted, it's a JPG.
  • Reply 203 of 230
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,262member
    Give your head a shake dude, shrink that badboy down.



    [ 06-23-2002: Message edited by: murbot ]</p>
  • Reply 204 of 230
    I am tired of this.





    The next person that does not thumbnail or link their image (meaning, if it's over 640x480) gets the THREAD LOCKED, every subsequent 'Post Your Desktop' thread LOCKED, and you will be banned for a week.



    Don't **** with me on this one. I am one very unhappy camper. I made calm rules about this thread in the hopes that you would follow them.



    Apparently not.
  • Reply 205 of 230
    salmonstksalmonstk Posts: 565member
    Thats a funny threat. Well I have redone my web page and would be interested to see what you guys think. I have a bunch of desktops and a whole new gallary of lewd ones. They are not really lewd. Plus lots of Apple themed ones.
  • Reply 206 of 230
    [quote]Originally posted by Jonathan:

    <strong>I am tired of this.





    The next person that does not thumbnail or link their image (meaning, if it's over 640x480) gets the THREAD LOCKED, every subsequent 'Post Your Desktop' thread LOCKED, and you will be banned for a week.



    Don't **** with me on this one. I am one very unhappy camper. I made calm rules about this thread in the hopes that you would follow them.



    Apparently not.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    So you have to resort to lame threats? EriMac was a much better admin. I can't recall once where he acted in such a way.



    <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/atomic_riot/.Pictures/foxdesk.jpg"; target="_blank">MX ro0lz you!</a>
  • Reply 207 of 230
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,262member
    Come on, I'm sure we're not ALL 12 year olds with attention problems.







    Is it really that hard to thumbnail your pic, or just post a link? Sheesh. You get half a dozen people posting these massive pics, and the 56k'ers are sitting for 10 minutes waiting for a page to load.



    Nicely asking people to do follow basic posting guidlines obviously isn't working with some members...
  • Reply 208 of 230
    [quote]Originally posted by murbot:

    <strong>



    Nicely asking people to do follow basic posting guidlines obviously isn't working with some members...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Why punish the rest of us?
  • Reply 209 of 230
    <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/stormyjohn/art/stormyjohn.JPG"; target="_blank">Screen shot</a>



    [ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: PooPooDoctor ]</p>
  • Reply 210 of 230
    scott f.scott f. Posts: 276member
    [quote]Originally posted by PooPooDoctor:

    <strong> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    You have to tell me what "Theme" that is and where I can get it... I LOVE it...!!! Please let me know.



    - Scott



    EDIT: Duh! I just realized that is OS 9.x using Kaliedoscope... not OSX. Ignore me... I are not smart today.



    [ 06-24-2002: Message edited by: Scott F. ]</p>
  • Reply 211 of 230
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    Just FYI.



    Our dearly Murbot has a very cool Snow White desktop pic <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> :cool: <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 212 of 230
    tooltool Posts: 242member
    <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/johnky/.Pictures/June8th.jpg"; target="_blank"> [quote]Originally posted by Jonathan:

    <strong>I am tired of this.





    The next person that does not thumbnail or link their image (meaning, if it's over 640x480) gets the THREAD LOCKED, every subsequent 'Post Your Desktop' thread LOCKED, and you will be banned for a week.



    Don't **** with me on this one. I am one very unhappy camper. I made calm rules about this thread in the hopes that you would follow them.



    Apparently not.</strong><hr></blockquote></a>





    hehe...see if that works! Cool! It does...my link is on this page



    BTW, cool out Jonathon...that's a lame-ass threat. Way too overboard.



    Ooops..I put the correct picture up. Now it's of my desktop.



    [ 06-24-2002: Message edited by: TOOL ]</p>
  • Reply 213 of 230
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,262member
    [quote]Originally posted by Leonis:

    <strong>Just FYI.



    Our dearly Murbot has a very cool Snow White desktop pic <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> :cool: <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Hmm, I thought is was Sleeping Beauty!



    or I guess Sleeping Booty...



  • Reply 214 of 230
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Here's mine:



    <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/luca_rescigno/.Public/lucadesktop.jpg"; target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/luca_rescigno/.Public/lucadesktop.jpg</a>;



    It's about 780k, 1024x768.



    I found those fun icons at iconfactory.com, but I don't know how you guys got them to be really big like that! Also, where can I get some good Kaleidoscope schemes? I've looked all over the place but even at ResExcellence, most of them are really blocky and look stupid. I have AquaX III, and that's nice, but nothing else seems to compare.



    As you may be able to tell, I have a FireWire PC card for my iPod, and an external SCSI hard drive to sync with it.



    Edit: I changed my picture a bit (now I have my apps in my A-dock) and I reduced the quality to 95%, so now it's only about 370k instead of 780k without any significant visual degradation.



    [ 06-25-2002: Message edited by: Luca Rescigno ]</p>
  • Reply 215 of 230
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Here's an alternate desktop of mine - It comes closer to emulating OS X but you can still tell.



    <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/luca_rescigno/.Public/pureaqua.jpg"; target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/luca_rescigno/.Public/pureaqua.jpg</a>;
  • Reply 216 of 230
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    OS 9 ?! My GOD! :eek:
  • Reply 217 of 230
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,262member
    Man, do NOT mention OS9 to Leonis - you'll give the poor guy a heart attack!



  • Reply 218 of 230
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    Leonis, the reason I use OS 9 is that my computer is about the least capable computer that can actually run it. Let's see... 233 MHz G3, only a 2 GB internal drive (and 4.26 GB external that I use to sync with my iPod), 160 MB of RAM, and 4 MB of VRAM. So I could run it, theoretically, if I booted from my slow and very noisy external drive, and if I didn't want to do anything beyond word processing and web browsing... but it's not worth it currently. So I just use some little applications to emulate the OS X GUI (which I really like).



    I'll switch to OS X as soon as I get a more capable computer.
  • Reply 219 of 230
    lucaluca Posts: 3,833member
    I won't be buying any new hardware for my current computer. It's not worth it, considering I'll be replacing it in 2-3 months with a new iMac or iBook (haven't decided yet whether I need the portability or not). Sure, I could get a 10 GB internal HD and a 64 MB SODIMM for the bottom slot (I believe 64 bottom + 128 top is the max for my computer, currently I have 32 bottom + 128 top), but it wouldn't really increase the resale value that much.



    However, tomorrow I think I'll try moving all my applications and documents to my second HD, and I'll install OS X on my main HD. I'll put OS 9 on my second drive so I can boot from it if need be. X is, as you pointed out, a superior OS, and the way it handles RAM allocation and multitasking is so much better than OS 9.
  • Reply 220 of 230
    [/QUOTE]My point is, that even on a 233, OSX will still run 100x better than OS9. Might be a tad slow, but not likely slow enough to make a difference. [QUOTE]



    A "tad" slow?! <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />



    OS X is a hog compared to OS 9 man. OS X vs OS 9 on my 500 MHz iBook speed wise is like night and day. Opening windows, renaming file, you name it, OS 9 beats the pants off of OS X. Maybe I'm just an impatient man.
Sign In or Register to comment.