which is faster: active desktop or bmp?

[dpopiz]

I'm just trying to squeeze the most performance possible out of my system so I'm wondering if it puts less burden on the system to display a small jpg with active desktop or a large bmp normally.

Thanks.

 

[Elledan]

The fastest is to have a black backgroundcolor (no picture).

If you do want a nice desktop, you'll better use a bitmap file since active desktop requires more resources and is highly unstable on many Win9x systems.

 

[Axman]

No wallpaper is the best

 

[Psychoholic]

<< If you do want a nice desktop, you'll better use a bitmap file since active desktop requires more resources and is highly unstable on many Win9x systems. >>


Bingo.

 

[spyordie007]

yuck, active desktop, it's a little better on win2k, but not by much.

I personally have active desktop running because i have dual display and active desktop supports that much better (bitmaps dont show up right). however I'm really a fan of a smal bitmap tiled, or no backgroud at all

 

[ProviaFan]

A BMP prescaled in an image program to the screen resolution you use will be better and faster than Active Desktop.