Psych test!

An abstract photograph (because it was dark, the sensitivity of teh camera all the way up, and teh exposure longish under strreet lighting giving a stroboscopic effect) of a horse+rider in the show races in Orgosolo on Sardinia.

Thomas

Wallpaper images, probably the most useless thing you can dedicate five or six megabytes of memory to do. A plain color or even a pattern are reasonably efficient, but wallpaper images must occupy memory all the time, it can't even be swapped as it all must be available continuously just to "repair" the desktop image whenever you move a window.

Now tell me how wrong I am about that.

I guess you're really enjoying the hell out of that steel wool, huh?

On 19/03/2006 the venerable Jasen Betts etched in runes:

My understanding is that most graphics engines have a separate plane for the wallpaper image so that once it's loaded there's no more to do. Wallpaper shouldn't use any of the CPU resources.

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 12:59:13 -0700, Jim Thompson Gave us:

You should both get together so you can jack each other off.

wallpaper image so

CPU resources.

Wow, more memory and dataflow per second than existed in the entire world in 1950, all so my wife can have a picture of a cat on her screen.

John

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:38:53 +0100, Zak Gave us:

Won't they be angry with you upon Tralfamador? :-]

It's amazing what fantasies get revealed...

John

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:03:41 GMT, "Anthony Fremont" Gave us:

You're a goddamned retard. A 150kB jpeg does NOT take up "five or six megabytes" (Mega, dipshit... with a capital M) of memory to place as a background image on one's desktop.

You are going to have to wait until your next life to be more retarded than you are today.

Got a cite for that lame claim, little boy? Didn't think so.

You're a f****ng idiot.

You are stupid. You cannot even spell the word Megabyte, much less grasp how many are in use in a Windows environment (which you also cannot spell) for the desktop background.

Don't know anything about any steel wool, retard boy. If I had some nice, course cut stuff, I'd be sure to ram it up your ass as a hibernation butt plug though.. right before I put you into hibernation.

On 19 Mar 2006 23:03:05 GMT, "John B" Gave us:

wallpaper image so

CPU resources.

Somebody needs to tell Anthony FreeTurd that.

On Sun, 19 Mar 2006 15:29:30 -0800, John Larkin Gave us:

It's amazing that you think those two retards laughing at each others' jokes means that they were fantasizing.

On 19/03/2006 the venerable John Larkin etched in runes:

wallpaper image so

the CPU resources.

That's probably true. The first computer I used back in the early 60's was an Elliot 805 with a whole 16K bytes of magnetic core storage. It was a real pain when you dropped the punched cards on the floor and had to sort them out, although changing one line of assembler was as easy as putting a new card in the stack.

doesn't

does

five

JPEG is an acronym and should be capitalized. When will you learn that you don't bring a knife to a gun fight?

I figured you'd say that. Do you really think that windows decompresses the JPEG image over and over every time you move something on the desktop. If so, that's pretty naive. Windows decompresses it, stretches it to desktop size (provided that is your setting) and then converts it to the same color depth that you are running as a bitmap, ONCE. Therefore if you have your desktop set to 1280*1024*32bit that would take at least 5,242,880 bytes of RAM to hold the wallpaper. Put that in your bong and smoke it.

How about this instead? You go to (on XP of course) \\Documents and Settings\\RoyLPITA\\Local Settings\\Application Data\\Microsoft\\. Find the file named Wallpaper1.bmp and come back and tell us all how big the file is.

continuously

That's really a convincing argument.

Can't you multiply three numbers and come up with the answer yourself?

I figured you'd start showing that anal fixation of yours. You see, you can't hide your ugliness by changing nyms. You just can't help yourself.

for the wallpaper image so

any of the CPU resources.

He didn't say it wouldn't use any RAM. Please try reading it next time. At any rate, I think John might be confusing wallpaper with a "texture" in graphics processing.

the wallpaper image so

the CPU resources.

Elliot 805 with a

the punched cards on

as easy as putting

Punched cards were a wonderful improvement over paper tape. You could write the names of subroutines in the top edge of each stack and *see* the structure of your program. And copy stacks of cards for "design reuse." We hacked the PDP-11 assembler (and Focal, too) to read cards, and even punch cards.

After you got a program working, it was prudent to take a marker and a ruler and draw a big diagonal line across the entire program deck, so if you dropped it you'd have a start on getting them back in order.

John

Oh, I wasn't referring to *their* fantasies.

John

dropped the punched cards on

assembler was as easy as putting

Didn't anyone put sequence numbers in columns 73 thru 80?

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:16:36 GMT, "Anthony Fremont" Gave us:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:16:36 GMT, "Anthony Fremont" Gave us:

Hahaha.. compared to you and your supposed "gun", asswipe, I am Jason with a machete!

The ACRONYM JPEG is about the group that made the IMAGE FILE FORMAT jpeg, and jpg... Those are NOT acronyms, dipshit, they are file extensions, and are NOT capitalized. Hahaha... SPANK!

You didn't figure a goddamned thing. It is beyond your 20 IQ capacity to figure. You make s*it up, and troll people on Usenet.

You're an idiot. Windows converts the image, even if I use a huge hi res TIFF file which is three times larger than my desktop display's array size, you f****ng retard.

You are beyond naive, dipshit.

You're a goddamned idiot.

You're an idiot. Even if it is a BLANK screen, windows STILL displays that same array, you f****ng retard.

It doesn't matter, dumbass. The same action occurs whether there is an image in place or not, and you need to get that through your overtly thick skull. I've got you beat on this one, asswipe, again. Face it.

Do you know the saying "parts is parts"? Well, chump, an array is an array is an array, and it doesn't matter whether there is an image there or not, the same amount of bytes move with each refreshed frame of screen data.

Do you think the array is only there when an image is pasted on the screen? If so, you are an idiot, but we already knew that fact.

Apparently it is you that cannot. Say it again, dumbass... "ARRAY".

Now, tell yourself that it is there whether the screen is all one color or is filled with an image, and you MIGHT start to catch on, dipshit. A frame is a frame is a frame, and nothing your retarded ass makes up is going to change that fact. EACH frame is rendered, regardless of its content, dipshit.

You're an idiot. You were jacking off at the mouth about some lame remark some other retard made about m*********ng with steel wool, and you want to reverse your stupidity back onto me for telling you I'd shove it up your ass? Too late, dumbfuck... I already have shoved it up your ass. You are just too goddamned stupid to know it.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 00:26:01 GMT, "Anthony Fremont" Gave us:

There you go, claiming to be able to think again.