Desktops of July Created 17 years ago2007-07-07 10:22:10 UTC by Strider Strider

Created 17 years ago2007-07-07 10:22:10 UTC by Strider Strider

Posted 17 years ago2007-07-16 20:42:58 UTC Post #229214
User posted image
Penguinboy PenguinboyHaha, I died again!
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-16 20:44:27 UTC Post #229215
hahaha I win! I sec.. Ill get a picture
Unbreakable UnbreakableWindows 7.9 Rating!
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-16 20:51:18 UTC Post #229217
No shit, Dave. It couldn't be that there's a different locked resolution for every size of widescreen display out there, could it? Besides, he never said sites should be designed with that size in mind. with a resolution like that, it doesn't even matter what the website was designed for, because it'll undoubtedly accommodate it.

The problem is when people use too small a resolution, not too large of one.
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-16 20:54:51 UTC Post #229218
Maybe you're just using too large of a resolution. 1024x768 is fine.
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-16 20:59:20 UTC Post #229219
Did you even read what I said? It's not possible to use too large of a resolution.

I'm running on a widescreen too, and its native resolution is 1440x900. I love it.
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-16 21:00:54 UTC Post #229220
That's too big.
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-16 21:05:17 UTC Post #229222
I'm currently on 1280x960 and soon getting a 20" 1680x1050. I suppose that's just ludicrous.
Strider StriderTuned to a dead channel.
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-16 21:06:33 UTC Post #229224
It's 19 inches you fucking idiot. Everything displays the same as my 17 inch CRT did on 1024x768, only there's more space to work with. You can't seriously suggest that people with 16:10 aspect ratios should use resolutions designed for 4:3 screens.
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-16 21:07:46 UTC Post #229225
Beware 56k users

User posted image

User posted image

User posted image


PC-300gigabytes, back up with 1gig of ram.
:glad:
Tis my baby
Unbreakable UnbreakableWindows 7.9 Rating!
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-16 21:44:04 UTC Post #229227
You should really get another gigabyte if you're using Vista.
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-16 21:51:05 UTC Post #229228
Vistas giving me no trouble at all.. everything runs smoothly and fast :D
Unbreakable UnbreakableWindows 7.9 Rating!
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-16 21:54:52 UTC Post #229229
I don't know, I've heard that Source games + Vista is much better with 2GB and that the superfetching stuff is less of a hassle if you have 2GB :
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-16 22:15:20 UTC Post #229231
Oh my god Unbreakable, that's awesome. I want your computer now. :D

Seems like you'd need to be closer to the screen to do much real work (mapping), though.
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-16 22:19:17 UTC Post #229232
Yeah, I couldn't sit there and use that thing without a desk. Neat, though.
Strider StriderTuned to a dead channel.
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-16 22:23:57 UTC Post #229233
It'd practically be like trying to map on a laptop, except less comfortable. :zonked:
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-16 23:13:36 UTC Post #229234
I think unbreakable spent so much on his monitor that he didn't have enough cash to get some decent furniture. >_>
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-16 23:26:09 UTC Post #229236
Unbreakable, that's pretty badass but really... why not use a desk for the mouse and keyboard?
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-17 00:28:53 UTC Post #229244
I wanted more room.
I had a computer desk.. then decided to mount it on the wall.
My bed is pretty much where the viewpoint of the camera is. Where two nice speakers are, which are hooked up to my satelite, and computer... So I lay down on my bed and map.. its actually very comfortable... :)
Unbreakable UnbreakableWindows 7.9 Rating!
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-17 07:52:07 UTC Post #229276
I got the same desktop I had last month, and the month before that, and the month before that etc. I switch once every half year or so. :P
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-17 10:42:54 UTC Post #229301
ZL, what OS are you using in your pic and where did you get that bitchin' Diablo II icon?
Windows XP using Aqua Dock (freeware application). The icon's from DeviantArt (they have a hole category for dock icons). Aqua dock works great, but it gets a tad annoying at times.
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-17 10:45:51 UTC Post #229302
/me downloads Aqua Dock
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-17 11:18:59 UTC Post #229311
/me swoops down to claim credit for introducing ZL to Aquadock.

Prepare to be stunned.

User posted image


:D I'm rather proud of my desktop at the mo'.

As for Aquadock, it's brilliant if you're willing to spend the time finding the sexy icons and configuring it to your needs. Doesn't work too well with fullscreen apps at times, apparently.
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-17 11:52:39 UTC Post #229317
Get a Mac, you pansies. Stop raping XP!

I've used Aqua Dock before. Found it to be memory intensive and, ultimately, nowhere near as good as the dock on OS X.
AJ AJGlorious Overlord
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-17 12:38:27 UTC Post #229328
Never risen above 4MB for me, and I have it packed with icons. Why bother with Mac OS-X when it's shit?
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-17 13:46:29 UTC Post #229342
When you think about it, XP is a lot more flexible than OS X. It may only be because of its wide use and popularity which has led to people hacking it around and customising it, but that's still a big one-up on any Apple OS.

User posted image


Subtle proof that Ant lies about the memory usage! ;D

I need to get a new monitor. A new everything really. Wouldn't mind an Apple laptop either :/
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-17 13:51:48 UTC Post #229344
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-17 13:55:05 UTC Post #229345
Dave has the lowest score so far:

-1 for IE in desktop
-1 for default theme
-1 for background
-1 for Outlook express
-1 for Windows Live Messanger
-1 for a budget managing software shortcut

Total: -6
Luke LukeLuke
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-17 14:00:07 UTC Post #229346
User posted image


fourthgen, how much RAM do you have? If I had 692MB of shit going on, my hard drive would explode from swapping.
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-18 14:02:17 UTC Post #229472
I've got 1.5GB, nothing really amazing tbh.

My computer would suck a lot less if I didn't have an Athlon XP 2600+ :(

OH-SHIT! I nearly got through a post without flaming Dave! Maybe I should call him a retard for the sake of it?
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-18 15:52:10 UTC Post #229484
EDIT:

Pic from Vegas in background. Was taken by my brother while I was there.

User posted image
Luke LukeLuke
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-18 17:49:15 UTC Post #229498
4thgen: I've got a P4 2.66GHz, new crap like Windows Live Messenger, Source games, and iTunes seem to be begging for more speed lol.

EDIT: Everything runs friggin beautifully on my new laptop's T7300 (2GHz C2D). I'm going to give it a year or two until my CPU is outdated.
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-18 18:08:59 UTC Post #229500
Good camera, Luke.
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-18 18:20:45 UTC Post #229503
It's from a Nikon D50 using a 15 second shutter exposer.

Thanks :>
Luke LukeLuke
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-18 19:36:55 UTC Post #229506
Aquadock sucks, YZ dock sucks too.

Get a Mac :)
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-18 20:00:01 UTC Post #229514
objectdock is the best one ^_^

....but they all suck ololol
Penguinboy PenguinboyHaha, I died again!
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-18 21:11:18 UTC Post #229517
It's from a Nikon D50 using a 15 second shutter exposer.
Ooh, my mate has a Nikon D40x and i've just ordered a Canon EOS 400D. They're all great quality cameras.
Strider StriderTuned to a dead channel.
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-18 21:15:27 UTC Post #229518
Yah, very nice cameras. Just have to drop a pretty penny to get one. ;)
Luke LukeLuke
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-18 21:22:18 UTC Post #229519
Yeah, that you do. :P
Strider StriderTuned to a dead channel.
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-18 21:59:36 UTC Post #229520
So what kind of things can this expensive 1337 camera do?
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-19 00:35:47 UTC Post #229534
Take such crisp pictures it'll make your head explode.
Luke LukeLuke
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-19 00:51:58 UTC Post #229536
Did you go inside Caesars Palace? It's pretty nice.
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-19 01:06:52 UTC Post #229540
So what kind of things can this expensive 1337 camera do?
Take such crisp pictures it'll make your head explode.
It's not just the quality of the images, it's the versatility of the camera too. Access to loads of filters and enhancements, and numerous settings that can make your photos something really special.
Strider StriderTuned to a dead channel.
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-19 01:10:48 UTC Post #229541
That's definitely for sure. My camera can take pictures at a fairly high resolution, but then they A.) take up more space than needed, and B.) Look terrible in Higher Resolutions than they do in Lower ones. And I have like.... 4-5 or so filters.

Luke on the other hand, Luke probably has a never ending list of filters, and could take a 1024x768 picture of an ant and have it cover the whole picture and STILL look AWESOMER than in real life.

...
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-19 05:24:07 UTC Post #229554
Normal, cheap-ass digital cameras pretty much can't take decent photos in dark settings. They always come out looking like shit. With control over exposure time and aperture you can suit the camera to your needs. Believe it or not, autofocus isn't always the best focus :P .

I'd love to have an SLR camera, but yes, they are quite costly.
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-19 08:49:10 UTC Post #229570
Autofocus is shit, it takes a moment and only like sunlit subjects.

There is one advantage to my average camera: it's the size of two decks of cards unlike your hulking Canon OMG-Z SLR N9200. Sure, it may not be crisp, but 2272x1704 and the minimal JPEG compression setting (Superfine) gives me pretty good photos.
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-19 16:43:34 UTC Post #229603
My brother also has a film SLR camera. That thing is fucking amazing at taking really close pictures.

And no saw, I never got a chance to go in.

The best casino there, IMO, was probably The Belagio. It's really nice.
Luke LukeLuke
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-19 16:49:33 UTC Post #229604
Two decks of cards? That's not exactly portable these days.
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-19 16:51:28 UTC Post #229605
It fits in my pocket fine. If I had something as small as my iPod nano, my fingers would block the shutter every other shot :)
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-19 16:52:43 UTC Post #229606
Well I can't think of any half decent camera that's that small... talk about an exaggeration.
Posted 17 years ago2007-07-19 16:54:49 UTC Post #229608
My VX5300 cellphone takes muddy VGA shots lol
You must be logged in to post a response.