Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

tobefirst ⚽️

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jan 24, 2005
4,612
2,335
St. Louis, MO
Forgive me if there has been a thread on this before; I looked through the Picture Gallery forum, but couldn't find it and, really, I didn't know what to look for. What I want to know is this:

In the Desktop Gallery threads, what is up with using those tools that make it look like your desktop is in a tiny, but very wide iMac, or contained in three polaroids, or some other strange frame?

I'm hoping to understand the point. Usually, I just skip those ones, as I don't want to be bothered with clicking on anything. Since it doesn't show the whole desktop, I never get to see what you're trying to show.

Isn't it just way easier to just link to (or attach) the actual desktop picture?
 

gauchogolfer

macrumors 603
Jan 28, 2005
5,551
5
American Riviera
Because this is the coolest:


Seriously, it takes up less space than posting a gigantic 1600x1200 picture like some folks do, but is more visible than a thumbnail. Now that Snapshooter is so well known, everyone is doing it (even me!). What once was cool is now getting old, but I'm still hangin' on. :)
 

tobefirst ⚽️

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jan 24, 2005
4,612
2,335
St. Louis, MO
xper said:
Why is it so hard to click on the thumbnails? You get to see the whole desktop then.
Because in the rest of the posts, the desktops are already there. It's like the poster with the silly frames is asking me to go out of my way to see his (or her) desktop picture. That really doesn't make much sense (to me).

If you're posting in the desktops thread, you obviously want to show off your desktop picture...why make it harder than it needs to be?

gauchogolfer said:
Seriously, it takes up less space than posting a gigantic 1600x1200 picture like some folks do...
Okay...now this reason makes a tiny bit of sense. A tiny bit. :)
 

Mitthrawnuruodo

Moderator emeritus
Mar 10, 2004
14,674
1,493
Bergen, Norway
No, I'm with tobefirst on this one. I very rarely bother to click on one of those flickr/devianart/imageshack/etc. thumbnails only showing a part of the screen with some fancy frame.

If those posting those cannot be bothered attaching your desktop image (in an optimized version under the weight limit) why the frell should I be bothered to click on it, and wait for bloody ages on those sloooooooow free image sites, to see the desktop. Life's too short.
 

xper

macrumors 6502
Dec 15, 2005
430
3
Sweden - Halmstad
tobefirst Yeah but you said that you'll be ok if we linked to the desktop instead, i really dont get why it is harder for you to click on an imagelink instead of a textlink.
 

tobefirst ⚽️

macrumors 601
Original poster
Jan 24, 2005
4,612
2,335
St. Louis, MO
xper said:
tobefirst Yeah but you said that you'll be ok if we linked to the desktop instead, i really dont get why it is harder for you to click on an imagelink instead of a textlink.
Sorry...my fault...I meant using the
 

Mitthrawnuruodo

Moderator emeritus
Mar 10, 2004
14,674
1,493
Bergen, Norway
gauchogolfer said:
Seriously, it takes up less space than posting a gigantic 1600x1200 picture like some folks do, but is more visible than a thumbnail.
No, because when you attach an image to the post you only get a thumnail about 250 px wide, showing up in the thread, but of the whole image, so it's much easier to see if this is interesting or not, when you click it you know it's under 244 kb and on a fast server and will load accordingly... the frame is totally uninteresting compared to the actual desktop image... :rolleyes:

Posting 1600x1200 images inline should be an instantly bannable offence, IMO.
 

xper

macrumors 6502
Dec 15, 2005
430
3
Sweden - Halmstad
tobefirst said:
Sorry...my fault...I meant using the tag...not an outside link. Those are skipped even more often. (:[/QUOTE]
Ok now i get it ;) Yeah sure i can agree to some extent, it's not fun when you see that little picture and just a little bit of the desktop and then get dissapointed when viewing it in fullscale:(
 

srf4real

macrumors 68040
Jul 25, 2006
3,001
26
paradise beach FL
How do you get the actual picture size to show up in this comment window, like 900 X 700 or whatever? It's cool when the pic is big enough to see right here in the post without having to click on a link to enlarge.
 

iTwitch

macrumors 6502a
Mar 30, 2006
619
0
East of the Mississippi
srf4r
hit reply, enter your text then scoll down to "Manage Attachments". Click "Browse" and find the pic then click "upload" and after it's done "close window". Then ""Sumbit Reply". Oh, your pics need to be 244k or less.
 

gauchogolfer

macrumors 603
Jan 28, 2005
5,551
5
American Riviera
iTwitch said:
srf4r
hit reply, enter your text then scoll down to "Manage Attachments". Click "Browse" and find the pic then click "upload" and after it's done "close window". Then ""Sumbit Reply". Oh, your pics need to be 244k or less.

Actually, to get attached images to display directly in a reply, you need to have the picture hosted on a site like imageshack, then put the url for the image inside
tags in the reply. This will avoid the need for thumbnails.
 

srf4real

macrumors 68040
Jul 25, 2006
3,001
26
paradise beach FL
Thanks. I was wanting to post the large images sometimes - when the picture is worth it... don't upload my pix to a host, though. I'll stick with the "clickit if ya wanna see it" way!
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.