PDA

View Full Version : Windows desktop image sizes



Tony
27-05-2009, 02:56 PM
Can anyone tell me whether the file size of an image used as a desktop backround has any effect on performance?

Rob99
27-05-2009, 03:23 PM
Yes it does

Tony
27-05-2009, 03:47 PM
Yes it doesI thought it would - is it obvious, or fairly subtle? I'm creating some training material for Seniornet - and all these people like to have pictures of grandkids on their dektop, so it would be good to be able to give them a bit of a steer.

Tony
27-05-2009, 03:48 PM
Yes it doesI thought it would - is it obvious, or fairly subtle? I'm creating some training material for Seniornet - and all these people like to have pictures of grandkids on their desktop, so it would be good to be able to give them a bit of a steer.

Blam
27-05-2009, 03:59 PM
IIRC iconss thumbnails are loaded in a cache, so it should affect the performance I guess

Tony
27-05-2009, 04:20 PM
IIRC iconss thumbnails are loaded in a cache, so it should affect the performance I guessBut it is not icons I am talking about, it is the background.

wainuitech
27-05-2009, 04:41 PM
If you want to use a certain picture, depending on the OS, safe it as a JPEG.

The quality is usually good, you may get better if its saved as a BMP, but the difference is not that noticeable, yet the size will be - A LOT has to do with the quality of the original Picture to start with.

Sweep
27-05-2009, 05:07 PM
Perhaps the wrong question was asked.

Maybe it should be is there a difference in performance when using a 3.5 megabyte JPG as opposed to a 256 Kilobyte JPG for a desktop background?

I could be wrong though.

Tony
27-05-2009, 06:03 PM
Perhaps the wrong question was asked.

Maybe it should be is there a difference in performance when using a 3.5 megabyte JPG as opposed to a 256 Kilobyte JPG for a desktop background?I thought that was the question I was asking. I've realized though, that "performance" could be misinterpreted. I meant "will it slow down the machine", not "will the file size make a difference to the quality of the image" - which is what I think a couple of posters may have thought.

Blam
27-05-2009, 06:36 PM
But it is not icons I am talking about, it is the background.

Ok, it'll affect performance, but you shouldn't notice it. Unless you have a REALLY slow machine.

Having a clear background behind icon text and aero etc does use a bit of memory however.

Have a look at dwm.exe(If you're using vista) in task manager

Rob99
27-05-2009, 06:46 PM
Having an image on the desktop will take more CPU power each time it redraws compaired to a solid background. Also all this information is in memory.

Tony
27-05-2009, 09:56 PM
Having an image on the desktop will take more CPU power each time it redraws compaired to a solid background. Also all this information is in memory.Right, I can see that. Does the file size of the image make a difference, or does windows "reformat" it to fit the desktop and make it an appropriate size? So for instance if I have a 200k and a 5mb version of the same image, will they both end up using the same amount of memory and cpu once Windows starts using them as wallpaper?

Rob99
27-05-2009, 10:29 PM
Yes the file size makes a difference.

The image showing on the desktop is drawn from:
C:\Documents and Settings\name\Local Settings\Application Data\Microsoft\Wallpaper1.bmp

Every time you change the background this Wallpaper1.bmp is updated.

The more optmised the better if you must have a background image.

Rob99
27-05-2009, 10:31 PM
Thought I should mention this info is for Windows XP

I would guess Vista will be similar.