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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
[/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.
Comments
[ 06-23-2002: Message edited by: murbot ]</p>
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>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>
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...
<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?
[ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: PooPooDoctor ]</p>
<strong>
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>
Our dearly Murbot has a very cool Snow White desktop pic
<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>
<strong>Just FYI.
Our dearly Murbot has a very cool Snow White desktop pic
Hmm, I thought is was Sleeping Beauty!
or I guess Sleeping Booty...
<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>
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/luca_rescigno/.Public/pureaqua.jpg"; target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/luca_rescigno/.Public/pureaqua.jpg</a>;
I'll switch to OS X as soon as I get a more capable computer.
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.
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.