The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Well, Need I say more?
Clean: [URL]http://djh-world.com/images/cleanjune.png[/URL]
Busy: [URL]http://djh-world.com/images/busyjune.png[/URL]
Clean: [URL]http://djh-world.com/images/cleanjune.png[/URL]
Busy: [URL]http://djh-world.com/images/busyjune.png[/URL]
Page:
Its 1024 X 768 if that's any good
Tyla wrote:
> I had to scale mine down from 1280 to 1024. (TFT)
Couldn't be bothered to scale mine down.
> I had to scale mine down from 1280 to 1024. (TFT)
Couldn't be bothered to scale mine down.
Anonymous wrote:
> Its 1024 X 768 if that's any good
According to SR 800 x 600 is still good. As far as I'm concerned though 1024 x 768 is bare minimum.
> Its 1024 X 768 if that's any good
According to SR 800 x 600 is still good. As far as I'm concerned though 1024 x 768 is bare minimum.
Damarus wrote:
> I can tell which people have a smaller monitor as virtually every one
> of your backgrounds fit easily on my screen.
>
> I don't know, people and their crappy resolutions :P
Mine was scaled down for speed. You think I'm really gonna run 640x480?!
> I can tell which people have a smaller monitor as virtually every one
> of your backgrounds fit easily on my screen.
>
> I don't know, people and their crappy resolutions :P
Mine was scaled down for speed. You think I'm really gonna run 640x480?!
Damarus wrote:
> I can tell which people have a smaller monitor as virtually every one
> of your backgrounds fit easily on my screen.
>
> I don't know, people and their crappy resolutions :P
*****
Mine's 1440x900.
> I can tell which people have a smaller monitor as virtually every one
> of your backgrounds fit easily on my screen.
>
> I don't know, people and their crappy resolutions :P
*****
Mine's 1440x900.
[URL]http://phil.users.digital-crocus.com/desktop.jpg[/URL]
Last shot I have, rarely bother with transparency any more..
Last shot I have, rarely bother with transparency any more..
fiナ[oV] wrote:
> [URL]http://phil.users.digital-crocus.com/desktop.jpg[/URL]
>
> Last shot I have, rarely bother with transparency any more..
That taken with a camera? Why not use Print Screen?
> [URL]http://phil.users.digital-crocus.com/desktop.jpg[/URL]
>
> Last shot I have, rarely bother with transparency any more..
That taken with a camera? Why not use Print Screen?
Erm..nope, that's a print screen, just resized and compressed, I figured people probably don't need the detail to read what channel I'm on on mIRC.
1600x1200, by the way.
1600x1200, by the way.
fiナ[oV] wrote:
> Erm..nope, that's a print screen, just resized and compressed, I
> figured people probably don't need the detail to read what channel
> I'm on on mIRC.
>
> 1600x1200, by the way.
Whys it got a mouse pointer on it then? Print screen doesn't record the pointer...
> Erm..nope, that's a print screen, just resized and compressed, I
> figured people probably don't need the detail to read what channel
> I'm on on mIRC.
>
> 1600x1200, by the way.
Whys it got a mouse pointer on it then? Print screen doesn't record the pointer...
So it doesn't, how odd. Well the screenshot was taken a while ago, but I'll have a stab at two possible reasons -
1) It's got a theme applied to Windows via numerous Stardock apps, so that could be causing something odd to happen to the mouse pointer as it's skinned.
2) I used something other than standard printscreen to save the image, maybe it didnt get the transparencies properly
Either way, I can guarentee it wasn't taken with a camera, only got access to anything but a webcam very recently..
1) It's got a theme applied to Windows via numerous Stardock apps, so that could be causing something odd to happen to the mouse pointer as it's skinned.
2) I used something other than standard printscreen to save the image, maybe it didnt get the transparencies properly
Either way, I can guarentee it wasn't taken with a camera, only got access to anything but a webcam very recently..
Page: