Thanks Knez.

And grrrr.... IIO. I almost never think about laptops.

How about 400? Still too big under the “old” theme? (Currently away from my machines to test this.)

The concern here is basically about those who attach much larger images (those that require scrolling around to see parts of the total, never ever seeing the entire image at one time). AND while those HUGE images are almost never embedded, now there’s the possible option to consider of either embedding them at 300-400 pixel widths (and possibly prompting the huge originals downloaded to view them at a reduced size on those machines).

OR the additional work of downloading and downsizing the “base” originals to 600, 900, 1200 or even 1400 pixel widths... and then reposting them and embedding those reduced files at the smaller 3-400 defined pixel width size.

Making them “clickable” for those capable of viewing them at a larger (yet still reduced) size.

Any other fine suggestions on how to handle 4000 x 3000 pixel image file sizes without troubling the laptop jockeys too much?

AND also, now... are larger images best viewed under ye olde olden theme?

(at 30Hz refresh rate--you can't win 'em all)

i cant refind the old post, but there was that supersized CRT which allowed some mammoth resolution when runing at incredible 13,1 Hz. (probably useful for nothing but displaying stills in a store window?)

would be interested in your monitor model.

Because it was in the “social posts” section that was renamed to “off topic”, good sir .
I will move it to somewhere better.

See the above post...
Reference the following:

https://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=835.0
https://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=6143.0

...pertaining to image sizes and embedded images within posts.

---

Since the recent transition / upgrade, it seems that the Insert Image button under Modify (message) no longer auto inserts the (bracketed) img /img as it did previously for manually embedding image sizes.

Now instead of using that button and manually inserting and defining viewing width in that manner... NOW manually inserting size parameters text strings works to define onscreen viewing of larger files (at a smaller size) for older browsers without using that Insert Image button.

Here’s an example using a 900 pixel width file embedded with two different display widths, defined in two different strings. (See: https://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=5364.msg54976#msg54976)



Again, refer to: https://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=5364.msg54976#msg54976

---

It was previously recommended that embedded images be limited to or defined as 300 pixels (keeping in mind limitations of older browsers / smaller screens). For the last few years I’ve been using 600 pixel width embeds instead as base. So the question here is... for those of you using older browsers, is 600 pixels too much?

Who cares? Well, for those that wish to embed larger, much higher detailed images... and for those with larger screens and newer browsers... an original 1200 pixel width image displays very well on a 20” monitor and is much easier to view smaller details via a “click” on that smaller defined, 300 or 600 pixel width embedded image.

So, 300 pixels or 600 pixels for “clickable” embedded images - from originals up to 900 or 1200 pixels wide?

---

*And why are these guidelines now under the Off Topic heading?

P.S. Original image used here and on reference page, courtesy of @gert79.
 

In the macrumors post that I linked in a previous reply (top of this page) is an attachment.

Try the get-new-world-rom.command script first.

So, if I understand it correctly, I have to install DirectHW.kext first by using KextUtil.sh, right?
And then I have to put flashrom binary into what? /usr/bin/ ?