Which background uses the least RAM?

metalmackey · 18 Nov 2006 at 16:55

Hi,

I have 16.7m colour jpeg as my background. If I convert it to a 256 colour bitmap will it use lees ram?

Thanks

TheVoice · 18 Nov 2006 at 16:57

What's the filesize? I can't really see it making any difference on a decent PC though.

binaryknight · 18 Nov 2006 at 16:57

id guess so less colour information = less space needed, but why?

even older pcs should have little problems displaying that

AJUK · 18 Nov 2006 at 16:58

I always turn off my desktop on my Winblows box, just chose 'none'.

Alan! · 18 Nov 2006 at 17:03

1111111

BurningHorizons · 18 Nov 2006 at 17:07

I've always found .bmp format to have better wallpaper performace than .jpg

binaryknight · 18 Nov 2006 at 17:10

BurningHorizons said:
I've always found .bmp format to have better wallpaper performace than .jpg

understandable seeing as .jpg needs to be decompressed and needs more cpu usage to scale etc

metalmackey · 18 Nov 2006 at 17:18

I just did a test with a 1680x1050 jpeg and then I rebooted with no background and the commit charge is exactly the same 207mb.

Caged · 18 Nov 2006 at 17:48

binaryknight said:
understandable seeing as .jpg needs to be decompressed and needs more cpu usage to scale etc

Windows converts JPEG files into a BMP when you select them as your wallpaper.

binaryknight · 18 Nov 2006 at 17:49

metalmackey said:
I just did a test with a 1680x1050 jpeg and then I rebooted with no background and the commit charge is exactly the same 207mb.

commit charge include video card memory? not sure where the jpg. bmp would be stored but im guessing that thats the most likely place

modo77 · 18 Nov 2006 at 23:12

Really don't think it'll make a but of difference with todays Pc's