Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 1 
 on: Today at 07:48:27 PM 
Started by aBc - Last post by aBc
“The amount of horizontal scroll needed to see the whole image is very much display size dependent.”

Yes. Agree.

However, as you seem to have easier access to the 1920 and the 1280 wide pixel displays, perhaps providing a screenshot of a 540 pixel width image, shown under the actual Mac OS 9 Lives 2.0 default theme constraints - might help to better illustrate the point - at both of those specific screen resolutions. You’re not saying that a 540 x 540 pixel wide image won’t completely display on your laptop (without scrolling) under the Mac OS 9 Lives 2.0 default theme? (That’s a question.)

Here’s that 540 x 540 image you can use:



As for the Blu Theme… you might try the larger http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6875.0;attach=12820;image image, also with both screens and post those two “Blu” representative screenshots also. Or maybe even the 1079 pixel wide image? And I know, it gets really rather confusing switching back and forth between Blu theme and the Mac OS 9 Lives 2.0 theme. But, this can help to possibly establish



I know this one won't fully display and requires scrolling under Mac OS 9 Lives 2.0 theme. But... under Blu?


AND also yes... to these points made:

As to the 9 people using old theme vs. 9571 using new one and getting more traffic, I think those numbers are misleading, because:
1. Everyone that haven't visited this site for some time is using new theme.
2. Many don't even know that it's possible to change back to old theme.

Those numbers rather (partially) represent active users vs. registered users.


Possible exception being that perhaps more “strictly OS 9 based” users and their machines may now visit. ;)

 2 
 on: Today at 06:45:15 PM 
Started by aBc - Last post by ssp3
The amount of horizontal scroll needed to see the whole image is very much display size dependent..

See the two examples below of the same page with 1920 pixels wide image attached to post as it is seen on 1280 (laptop) vs 1920 (external) pixel wide displays. That's using old theme.

IMO, it's better to agree on "average" display size first and then go with maximum picture size recommendation.
(Image size in kilobytes is another matter, of course).

As to the 9 people using old theme vs. 9571 using new one and getting more traffic, I think those numbers are misleading, because:
1. Everyone that haven't visited this site for some time is using new theme.
2. Many don't even know that it's possible to change back to old theme.

Those numbers rather (partially) represent active users vs. registered users.  ;)

 3 
 on: Today at 06:04:51 PM 
Started by Protools5LEGuy - Last post by ssp3
If you mean "those guys", then no, I haven't seen anything for QT by them. But numbers have been in every serial# collection since forever, OS9 including.

 4 
 on: Today at 02:02:50 PM 
Started by aBc - Last post by aBc
Currently… within the confines of the new Mac OS 9 Lives 2.0 default theme - images posted of 540 pixels wide (or less) can be viewed without scrolling. Any larger? Go scroll.

For instance, this recently posted original image from DieHard measures 980 pixels in width. *Downsized here to fit within the Mac OS 9 Lives 2.0 limit of 540 pixels AND alongside (in comparison) to what can actually be viewed before scrolling of the image under the new 2.0 default theme (if left at the original 980 pixels).



Now some may never see a need for any image larger that 540 pixels (7.5 inches wide). Yet there are instances where occasionally, larger images with greater detail are preferred… here’s one example:



A large original (downsized on the left to fit the 2.0 format) juxtaposed with “where the scrolling begins” for that same downsized image (on the right) under the Mac OS 9 Lives 2.0 theme default.

And here’s a portion cropped 540 x 540 pixel segment of the original image (under the Mac OS 9 Lives 2.0 default limitations) - to illustrate the extent of detail lost from such size reductions / viewing restrictions.



Where’s R358 or R707?

Again, some may maintain that it is rare that any image ever need to exceed that 540 pixel width limitation - or that some “limited” scrolling might be just fine. However, there are  instances where larger images are extremely useful. And for those instances… you can easily change your Theme back to “Blu” to view them.

Like this one:
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6875.0;attach=12820;image

Copy / paste (or click on) the above URL address into your browser’s window to hopefully view the entire original image. Then depending upon your machine (and browser of course) you might be able to see much more of the intricate details of the G4 Mac mini mobo. (And also realize that R707 is not in the above cropped 540 pixel segment.) And then afterwards… IF you change your default theme to Blu… from Mac OS 9 Lives 2.0.





So… Recommended Image Sizes?

For Mac OS 9 Lives 2.0 theme? Up to 540 pixels (7.5 inches) wide - before the need for any scrolling.

And for the “Blu” theme? Well I haven’t determined exact size restriction limits yet… but the original Mac mini image above is 1296 pixels wide and I can view it entirely under Blu, sans scrolling.

And once more… you can choose to restrict (or define) the display width of your images as explained previously:
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=6143.msg54995#msg54995
simply by pre-defining width parameters like:




Now… just for fun, below.
(Can’t view it all without scrolling?)
Better GO Blu. 😁








I understand… not everyone visits the Forum with newer, more capable machines… better suited to negotiate the current requirements necessary for “modern” web browsing. And “we” may actually garner more “traffic” to the site and gain new members to this community with the Mac OS 9 Lives 2.0 theme. That’s good. ;D

But there is an option. And for those of us that do not connect our OS 9 based machines to the internet and instead, use them primarily as standalone workstations for a variety of specific productive tasks. (While using the newer “supporting” machines and browsers to upload / download files and view websites, etc.) It’s a pragmatic workaround. And that’s a good thing too. “We” still currently have a choice. It’s Blu. ;)

Over the last eight years I have posted innumerable, large images that can be simply a nightmare to scroll through and view with the Mac OS 9 Lives 2.0 theme and that is why it’s absolutely wonderful that “we” still have the option of using the Original forum theme (now termed “Blu”).

From here forward, I will now attempt to size most new images of mine, at or under the 540 pixel width size. Not all will be 540 pixels, some may be much larger. But so it goes, ehh? I shall try.

And for those of you that can handle the Original theme “Blu” (and larger images)… come on over and join the “Blu Crew.” ;)

P.S. Would someone kindly merge this post with the previous thread:  http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=6143.0 where it actually belongs. Thank you.
 

 5 
 on: Today at 10:28:56 AM 
Started by n8tehadventurer - Last post by n8tehadventurer
Normally I would agree that it is setting the refresh too high, except I get a completely different message than when it's out of sync.  If the refresh is set to high (on this monitor it tops out at 100Hz) then it says out of range.  However the message I am getting is 'no signal present'  The monitor shows that the connection is active, and recognizes there should be something, but it just doesn't find it or doesn't recognize the signal.  I got 3 more DVI to HDMI adapters and tried them.  The same result.  I tried it on every other monitor in the house now, same result.  I am scratching my head.  What's really weird is the Mirror Door G4 DP 800 which the previous owner swapped out the video card for a Radeon card works perfectly fine, and not the Mac Mini which is using a Radeon as well.  I'm just stymied.  For the time being I will continue to use the DVI to VGA adapter and be happy that I get a picture.  Honestly comparing between the DVI-HDMI on the G4 tower and the DVI-VGA on the Mac Mini I can't really see much of a difference.  Just some minor differences in the sharpness of the edges of icons, and that could be down to a number of things and not the video cables.

 6 
 on: Today at 09:23:08 AM 
Started by Protools5LEGuy - Last post by aBc
“Cereal” box?  ::)

PM sent to @darthnVader.

 7 
 on: Today at 08:48:55 AM 
Started by ssp3 - Last post by fergycool
This is also very interesting.
Are you saying that your 1920x1200 Dell display, when set to 1920x1080, istead of stretching 1080 pixels to 1200, adds 120 pixels at the bottom and as a result of this displays all icons etc. correctly?

Dell U2412M (1920x1200), for example, stretches everything and is unusable.
I'd not thought about it before, but everything certainly looks fine and not stretched. You can see in the screenshot in my previous post.

 8 
 on: Today at 07:18:32 AM 
Started by Protools5LEGuy - Last post by ssp3
Serial Box  ;)

 9 
 on: Today at 06:19:39 AM 
Started by Protools5LEGuy - Last post by darthnVader
Any one have the key for Quicktime 5 Pro?

Anyone?

 10 
 on: Today at 04:13:33 AM 
Started by ssp3 - Last post by ssp3
This is also very interesting.
Are you saying that your 1920x1200 Dell display, when set to 1920x1080, istead of stretching 1080 pixels to 1200, adds 120 pixels at the bottom and as a result of this displays all icons etc. correctly?

Dell U2412M (1920x1200), for example, stretches everything and is unusable.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10