|
Author
|
|
crouse
Ultimate Member
Registered: June 2002
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,879
|
|
September, 20, 2003 12:16am
|
Rating: 10
|
|
I thought I had rated this once already ???
Anyway....... great idea! I like it.
|
|
|
|
CubKid
Senior Member
Registered: December 2001
Location: Ohio
Posts: 982
|
|
September, 20, 2003 2:25am
|
Rating: 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
warto
Member
Registered: October 2001
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Posts: 54
|
|
September, 20, 2003 6:20am
|
Rating: 10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JayMan
Ultimate Member
Registered: October 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,705
|
|
September, 20, 2003 10:02am
|
Rating: 8
|
|
nice idea...
But for anyone who wants to use this... make sure ya are running ya desktop @ 1600x1200 or bigger with it set as centred, NOT streched...
Kinda defeats the purpose as soon as any streching is on it!
Edit: Oh, for anyone wondering why i only gave it an 8... As mensioned above, needs to be used on 1600x1200 desktops, so people who can't run that high a res can't use it in its current form... Would be more universal if the different sizes were centred in the picture... That way if your running 1024x768, ya just set the wallpaper to centred (NOT stretched) and it'll work fine...
JayMan
|
|
|
|
|
OuTpaTienT
nuisance since 1968
Registered: October 2001
Location: ɐqɟs
Posts: 10,457
|
|
September, 20, 2003 10:16am
|
|
|
Well, if anyone asked, I'd be happy to make versions for smaller desktops.
As far as stretching the wallpaper, that's pretty much connom knowledge isn't it? But yeah, you're right, other people not having common sense deserves to reflect poorly on my rating. Excuse me while I go change the rating I gave your car to a 1. 
|
|
|
|
|
Detritus
:slack: strong
Registered: January 2002
Location: MI
Posts: 17,380
|
|
September, 20, 2003 11:40am
|
Rating: 10
|
|
"Well, if anyone asked, I'd be happy to make versions for smaller desktops.
As far as stretching the wallpaper, that's pretty much connom knowledge isn't it? But yeah, you're right, other people not having common sense deserves to reflect poorly on my rating. Excuse me while I go change the rating I gave your car to a 1. "
LOL
|
|
|
|
shawshank62
Ultimate Member
Registered: October 2002
Location: southampton, pa
Posts: 4,791
|
|
September, 20, 2003 12:22pm
|
Rating: 10
|
|
could you make one for 1024x768?
|
|
|
|
|
tony_j15
that aint a lightsaber
Registered: March 2003
Location: CJ,MO:REBEL Base
Posts: 7,056
|
|
September, 20, 2003 12:23pm
|
Rating: 9
|
|
Thanks for puttin this up again OuT!
|
|
|
|
|
Siliconjunkie
Did you try Google yet?
Registered: February 2003
Location: Buckhannon, WV
Posts: 3,468
|
|
September, 20, 2003 8:36pm
|
|
|
Quote:
|
But yeah, you're right, other people not having common sense deserves to reflect poorly on my rating.
|
Well I think his comment does directly reflect your work. It would be more useful if it wasn't tied to one resolution. So, whether you like it or not, at least he's honest.
And, how childish of you to run off and change your rating for him being honest.
|
|
|
|
|
JayMan
Ultimate Member
Registered: October 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,705
|
|
September, 20, 2003 8:45pm
|
|
|
lol, all i was saying is if the resolutions had of been scaled down in the centre of the image instead of the corners, the image would have then been a universal image (up to 1600x1200 res obviously), hence anybody could have used this exact image without needing to make up a new image for each resolution.
lol ya can change ya rating of my car if ya want
JayMan
|
|
|
|
|
OuTpaTienT
nuisance since 1968
Registered: October 2001
Location: ɐqɟs
Posts: 10,457
|
|
September, 20, 2003 8:59pm
|
|
|
You know I woundn't do that Jay.
And SJ, if that's your best jab, it's pretty pathetic.
|
|
|
|
|
darrelld
Ultimate Member
Registered: October 2001
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,205
|
|
September, 20, 2003 11:11pm
|
|
|
Where is 1152x864?
|
|
|
|
|
embj
Ultimate Member
Registered: December 2002
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 1,385
|
|
September, 20, 2003 11:22pm
|
Rating: 8
|
|
Same question darrelld asked. I run mine at that because my monitor doesn't support 1600x1200.
|
|
|
|
|
joker_927
Ultimate Member
Registered: May 2002
Location: California, USA
Posts: 2,385
|
|
September, 21, 2003 1:40am
|
|
|
i don't get it's usefullness.
|
|
|
|
|
FreakyOCR
Canuck
Registered: October 2001
Location: Langley, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,603
|
|
September, 21, 2003 2:48am
|
|
|
"And SJ, if that's your best jab, it's pretty pathetic."
There's out, always embroiled in controversy... (ducks)
lol
That's one reason I left Web Design. Too Many people running Netscape 3 and 640x480. Just when you get some code worked out you find it doesn't work in Netscape 3 and you have to re-write it to be more browser compatible. Argh.
|
|
|
|
|
hardware
prices 
