triger49 Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 No doubt, some of the Pro's around here have known about thissince Moby Dick was a minnow. But it caught me be surprise. As a rule of thumb, if I find a wallpaper I like and the originalsize is bigger than my desktop, fire up Irfanview, resize it and saveas a .bmp file in my Windows directory. Today, I find this gorgeous landscape with the download as a .bmpfile. 1280 x 1024. Dump in Windows directory, look at desktop propertieswhich is set to "stretch". The whole picture is viewable. Set it to "center"and the edges of the picture go off screeen in 1024 x 768. Reset to "Stretch"and the whole picture again is viewable. Almost a contradiction in terms. How I could be running the same OS for over 10 years and nevernoticed is remarkable....Jake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rloew Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 No doubt, some of the Pro's around here have known about thissince Moby Dick was a minnow. But it caught me be surprise. As a rule of thumb, if I find a wallpaper I like and the originalsize is bigger than my desktop, fire up Irfanview, resize it and saveas a .bmp file in my Windows directory. Today, I find this gorgeous landscape with the download as a .bmpfile. 1280 x 1024. Dump in Windows directory, look at desktop propertieswhich is set to "stretch". The whole picture is viewable. Set it to "center"and the edges of the picture go off screeen in 1024 x 768. Reset to "Stretch"and the whole picture again is viewable. Almost a contradiction in terms. How I could be running the same OS for over 10 years and nevernoticed is remarkable....JakeActually "Stretch" is an inaccurate term. It was sort of OK when most pictures were smaller than the Screen Size and needed to be "Stretched" to fill the screen. A more accurate term would have been "Fit To Screen".You probably didn't notice because you were adjusting the size of your images before using them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredledingue Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Yeah, in the old time doing a picture larger than 640/480 was considered a big waste of HDD space and extremely long to process while editing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triger49 Posted February 4, 2010 Author Share Posted February 4, 2010 Yeah, in the old time doing a picture larger than 640/480 was considered a big waste of HDD space and extremely long to process while editing. Yes, boy do I remember that . A 486/ 66mhz with 8 meg ram and Win95a.The 520 meg hard drive seemed huge till Office 95 and IE4.0 came along,then things started getting crowded real fast.Jake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken-mkII Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Yes, boy do I remember that . A 486/ 66mhz with 8 meg ram and Win95a.The 520 meg hard drive seemed huge till Office 95 and IE4.0 came along,then things started getting crowded real fast.JakeWell, it lead me to remember my old ages when I first instaled Win95a on my 386DX-33Mhz w/ 4M RAM & 340M HDD too.Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now