This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Paint Shop Pro support > June 2006 > ? Two Different Memory Sizes Listed for a File
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
? Two Different Memory Sizes Listed for a File
|
|
|
| When you look at the properties of a file in Windows XP Explorer, it
lists two sizes: Size, and Size on disk. The Size on disk is larger by
a fraction. What's the explanation of this?
In Corel Paint Shop Pro X, when I look at image information, there's
two sizes there too. I see On disk, and In RAM. The In RAM amount is
ten times larger than the On disk amount for one jpeg. What's the
explanation of this?
--
(||) Nehmo (||)
http://freesusan.com/
| |
| paulmd@efn.org 2006-06-27, 8:41 pm |
|
Nehmo wrote:
> When you look at the properties of a file in Windows XP Explorer, it
> lists two sizes: Size, and Size on disk. The Size on disk is larger by
> a fraction. What's the explanation of this?
>
> In Corel Paint Shop Pro X, when I look at image information, there's
> two sizes there too. I see On disk, and In RAM. The In RAM amount is
> ten times larger than the On disk amount for one jpeg. What's the
> explanation of this?
> --
> (||) Nehmo (||)
> http://freesusan.com/
Jpgs must be decompressed to be loaded in to ram.
| |
| Ken Blake, MVP 2006-06-27, 8:41 pm |
| Nehmo wrote:
> When you look at the properties of a file in Windows XP Explorer, it
> lists two sizes: Size, and Size on disk. The Size on disk is larger by
> a fraction. What's the explanation of this?
Space is allocated on disk drives in units called clusters. The size of the
cluster varies with the file system, and sometimes with the size of the
partition.
If you're using NTFS, your cluster size is probably 4K. That means that
every file between 1 byte and 4096 bytes (size) uses one cluster, 4096 bytes
(size on disk). Every file between 4097 bytes and 8192 bytes uses two
clusters, 8192 bytes, and so on.
The difference between the size and the size on disk is called "cluster
overhang" or "slack," and that's what accounts for the difference in the two
numbers you see.
--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
| |
|
| "Nehmo" <nehmo54@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1151196939.176994.16900
@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> When you look at the properties of a file in Windows XP Explorer,
it
> lists two sizes: Size, and Size on disk. The Size on disk is
larger by
> a fraction. What's the explanation of this?
>
> In Corel Paint Shop Pro X, when I look at image information,
there's
> two sizes there too. I see On disk, and In RAM. The In RAM amount
is
> ten times larger than the On disk amount for one jpeg. What's the
> explanation of this?
> --
> (||) Nehmo (||)
Please don't crosspost. If you must post to more than one group,
than do so in separate posts. Otherwise, you might find yourself
not getting responses from many who could assist with your
question.
Any compressed image (like jpg, for example) has a file size on
disk that reflects its compressed size. When it is opened in an
image editor it is opened as an uncompressed bitmat. That's why it
occupies much more space in ram.
As to the fractional size difference in Windows Explorer, I believe
it's a rounding error.
Regards,
JoeB
| |
| Fred Hiltz 2006-06-27, 8:41 pm |
| paulmd@efn.org wrote:
> Nehmo wrote:
>
> Jpgs must be decompressed to be loaded in to ram.
Re your first Q: the difference is the unused space in the last disk
block occupied by the file, the "slack fill."
--
Fred Hiltz, fhiltz at yahoo dot com
| |
|
| Nehmo wrote:
> When you look at the properties of a file in Windows XP Explorer, it
> lists two sizes: Size, and Size on disk. The Size on disk is larger by
> a fraction. What's the explanation of this?
>
> In Corel Paint Shop Pro X, when I look at image information, there's
> two sizes there too. I see On disk, and In RAM. The In RAM amount is
> ten times larger than the On disk amount for one jpeg. What's the
> explanation of this?
On a hard disk each file is stored in a number of clusters. Almost
always the last cluster is not completely filled, and the empty space
cannot be used by another file. The size on disk is the total size of
all the clusters used to store the file.
For instance, on my computer the F: drive is an 80GB drive that is
formatted in FAT32. The cluster size is 32KB. One particular file there
has a size of 103KB and a size on disk of 128KB, which is the total size
of the four 32KB clusters that the file occupies.
This can become very wasteful of disk space if you have a large cluster
size and many small files. For instance, I have a folder that contains
522 small data files that are all around 2KB (or a little less). In the
properties for that folder, the size is listed as 960KB. But the size on
disk is 16.3MB (17,104,896 bytes). This because each 2KB file occupies a
single 32KB cluster and 522 times 32KB (32,768 bytes) gives 17,104,896
bytes.
This is one of the advantages of the NTFS file system. It usually uses a
4KB cluster size, which means that folder with 522 small files only
takes up 2.03MB (522 x 4K) when it is stored on an NTFS formatted drive.
The other solution is to store the folder as a single zip file... then
with compression, and only one partly filled cluster for the single
file, it takes up only 633KB or 640KB on disk.
--
Tim
| |
| Damian 2006-06-27, 8:41 pm |
| JoeB wrote:
> "Nehmo" <nehmo54@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1151196939.176994.16900
> @b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> Please don't crosspost. If you must post to more than one group,
> than do so in separate posts. Otherwise, you might find yourself
> not getting responses from many who could assist with your
> question.
>
<follow-ups restored>
OP, Thank you for cross-posting instead of making separate posts. When you
make separate posts, you can't see all the responses in a single thread.
Oh yeah, ignore XXXXwits who tell you to not cross-post and then trim the
newsgroups in their follow-ups.
| |
| All Things Mopar 2006-06-27, 8:41 pm |
| Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Damian laid
this on an unsuspecting readership ...
> JoeB wrote:
>
> <follow-ups restored>
>
> OP, Thank you for cross-posting instead of making separate
> posts. When you make separate posts, you can't see all the
> responses in a single thread.
>
> Oh yeah, ignore XXXXwits who tell you to not cross-post and
> then trim the newsgroups in their follow-ups.
>
JoeB, you listening? he he he
--
ATM, aka Jerry
"Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm!" - Ralph
Waldo Emerson
| |
| Rod Speed 2006-06-27, 8:41 pm |
| JoeB <myemail@yahoo.com> wrote
> Nehmo <nehmo54@hotmail.com> wrote
[color=darkred]
> Please don't crosspost.
Get stuffed. No please, that's an order.
> If you must post to more than one group, than do so in separate posts.
Get stuffed. It makes a lot more sense to crosspost because those
reading more than one of the newsgroups see it marked as read
in the other newsgroups after they have read it in the first one.
> Otherwise, you might find yourself not getting responses
> from many who could assist with your question.
Only a few fools. He clearly got plenty of perfectly adequate responses.
> Any compressed image (like jpg, for example) has a file size on
> disk that reflects its compressed size. When it is opened in an
> image editor it is opened as an uncompressed bitmat. That's why it
> occupies much more space in ram.
> As to the fractional size difference in Windows
> Explorer, I believe it's a rounding error.
You're wrong, its due to the used space in the last cluster.
| |
| Kadaitcha Man 2006-06-27, 8:41 pm |
| "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote in message
news:4g6fntF1lt38fU1@individual.net...
> JoeB <myemail@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>
>
> G<THUMP>
XXXX off and die, Wodleypoo.
| |
| Curt Christianson 2006-06-27, 8:41 pm |
| Hi Nehmo,
The answer to your query is what Ken Blake MS-MVP, among many others have
stated--I wondered that myself for a while.
I'm apologizing for "malcontents" (had a "better" word in mind) like Rod
Speed. Even though you may have breached the "rules" of Usenet etiquette, I
don't find being insulting to be of any help either.
Just FYI Nehmo, the following article is worth the quick read, to understand
why some nitpickers are/were so P.O.ed.:
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
Hope this helps,
--
Curt BD-MVBT
http://dundats.mvps.org/
http://dundats.proboards27.com/index.cgi
http://www.aumha.org/
"Nehmo" <nehmo54@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151196939.176994.16900@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> When you look at the properties of a file in Windows XP Explorer, it
> lists two sizes: Size, and Size on disk. The Size on disk is larger by
> a fraction. What's the explanation of this?
>
> In Corel Paint Shop Pro X, when I look at image information, there's
> two sizes there too. I see On disk, and In RAM. The In RAM amount is
> ten times larger than the On disk amount for one jpeg. What's the
> explanation of this?
> --
> (||) Nehmo (||)
> http://freesusan.com/
>
| |
| Kadaitcha Man 2006-06-27, 8:42 pm |
| "Curt Christianson" <curtchristnsn@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23mFwcHBmGHA.4716@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hi Nehmo,
>
> The answer to your query is what Ken Blake MS-MVP, among many others have
> stated--I wondered that myself for a while.
>
> I'm apologizing for "malcontents" (had a "better" word in mind) like Rod
> Speed.
Wodleypoo is not a malcontent; he's a XXXXing pussy who runs away from
anyone who fights back
Isn't that right, Wodelypoo?
| |
| Rod Speed 2006-06-27, 8:42 pm |
| Curt Christianson <curtchristnsn@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote
> I'm apologizing for "malcontents" (had a "better" word in mind) like Rod Speed.
You dont get to apologise for anyone at all, XXXXwit.
> Even though you may have breached the "rules" of Usenet etiquette,
No such animal. Usenet is as close to pure
anarchy as you or I will ever see, child.
> I don't find being insulting to be of any help either.
You have always been, and always will be, completely and
utterly irrelevant. What you may or may not 'find' in spades.
| |
| Dave Symes 2006-06-27, 8:42 pm |
| Aside from the folks who posted useful info for the questioner about
cluster sizes, and the expansion of compressed files once loaded, we seem
to have a sudden infestation of Rons.
GD
--
| |
| Kadaitcha Man 2006-06-27, 8:42 pm |
| "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote in message
news:4g6nbpF1l3078U1@individual.net...
> Curt Christianson <curtchristnsn@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote
>
>
> You dont get to apologise for anyone at all, XXXXwit.
>
>
> No such animal. Usenet is as close to pure
> anarchy as you or I will ever see, child.
>
>
> You have always been, and always will be, completely and
> utterly irrelevant. What you may or may not 'find' in spades.
Come out and fight, pussyboy. You won't, will you? Ya XXXXing chicken.
| |
| Rod Speed 2006-06-27, 8:42 pm |
| Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@XXXXXXXXXX>, the professional varnisher and
lacquerer of dead beetles and other small insects, objurgated:
> XXXXING OLD BAG BALL-CUTTER NIGGER Curt Christianson
> <curtchristnsn@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote HERPES CUNNY-CATCHER CUNT
> SCRAPER DOGGY BREASTS CUM
> XXXXING WHORE You dont get to apologise XXXXING TARBABY BUM BLACK RING
> SCRUBBER for anyone at all, XXXXwit. XXXXING CONCUBINE DOUCHE BAG LET
> THE NIGGER GIRL DO IT CUM TWAT DYKE HOMO
> XXXXING SNATCH-PEDDLER No such animal. Usenet is XXXXING MERRY-LEGS
> XXXXFACE as close to pure anarchy XXXXING BRA BUDDIES as you or I will
> XXXXING COMMON TART ARSE-BENDER ever see, child. CRAP CUNT-STIRRER
> SCROTUM GANGBANG ASSWIPE CLIT PISS
> XXXXING GO XXXX YOURSELF COCKSUCKER XXXXBUTT CONCUBINE TART You have
> always been, and XXXXING SLEAZE-SLUT always will be, completely and
> XXXXING SCHLONG TITS utterly irrelevant. What you may XXXXING HOOKER
> PISS TUBE or may not 'find' in XXXXING COP A FEEL DICK CHEESE spades.
> BALL BAG BOLLOCKS WEE CUNT RIFLE STAB ANUS GANGBANG RAPE HOOKER
| |
| Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE 2006-06-27, 8:42 pm |
| "JoeB" <myemail@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97ECCDD0979A4JoeB@24.70.95.211...
> "Nehmo" <nehmo54@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1151196939.176994.16900
> @b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> it
> larger by
> there's
> is
>
> Please don't crosspost. If you must post to more than one group,
> than do so in separate posts. Otherwise, you might find yourself
> not getting responses from many who could assist with your
> question.
>
> Any compressed image (like jpg, for example) has a file size on
> disk that reflects its compressed size. When it is opened in an
> image editor it is opened as an uncompressed bitmat. That's why it
> occupies much more space in ram.
>
> As to the fractional size difference in Windows Explorer, I believe
> it's a rounding error.
>
> Regards,
>
> JoeB
1. Crossposting is way preferable to multiposting.
2. Don't edit the newsgroup list without saying so.
3. You don't have any idea what causes the difference. See Ken's post.
--
Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE/WM
Reply in newsgroup
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve
neither liberty or security"
| |
| Kadaitcha Man 2006-06-27, 8:42 pm |
| Frank Saunders, MS-MVP OE <franksaunders@mvps.org>, the person in charge
of public toilets in parks at night, jawed:
> 2. Don't edit the newsgroup list without saying so.
XXXX you and XXXX the camel you rode in on.
--
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005 and April 2006
ObHint: Just because you argue with a notorious XXXXwit netk0oK, it
does not necessarily follow that you are not also a XXXXwit netk0oK.
| |
| Arno Wagner 2006-06-27, 8:42 pm |
| In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage paulmd@efn.org <paulmd@efn.org> wrote:
> Nehmo wrote:
[color=darkred]
> Jpgs must be decompressed to be loaded in to ram.
That is complete nonsense. The on-disk size is larger, because
in the filesystem used you have aminimal allocation unit, like
16kB. File size on disk is rounded up to multiples of the allocation
unit size. Very modern filesystems like RaiserFS 4, for example
can use the space that is free in the last allocation
unit to in fact kae only the space needed, but since this
degrades performance, it is only used if you have a very large
number of small files.
Arno
| |
| All Things Mopar 2006-06-27, 8:42 pm |
| Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Arno Wagner
laid this on an unsuspecting readership ...
[color=darkred]
>
> That is complete nonsense. The on-disk size is larger, because
> in the filesystem used you have aminimal allocation unit, like
> 16kB. File size on disk is rounded up to multiples of the
> allocation unit size. Very modern filesystems like RaiserFS 4,
> for example can use the space that is free in the last
> allocation unit to in fact kae only the space needed, but
> since this degrades performance, it is only used if you have a
> very large number of small files.
>
Why is it nonsense to say a JPEG must be decompressed to load
into RAM, or more correctly, into the unformatted bitmap of any
graphics app? At a minimum, one needs 3 X number of pixels for
bytes in memory, plus any non-graphics info such as EXIF, so I
see no inconsistency between a highly compressed JPEG's on-disk
KB and the claimed 10X in-memory size.
What IS nonsense is claiming that block size causes the file size
to balloon up. It is true that in very large partition sized HDs,
block size can become an issue, but only for very small files.
For a moderate or large file size in KB, block size overhead is
neglible.
--
ATM, aka Jerry
"Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm!" - Ralph
Waldo Emerson
| |
| Kadaitcha Man 2006-06-27, 8:42 pm |
| All Things Mopar <340-hp-hemi@spamcast.net>, the person who engages in
the carriage of slop for the pigs, droned:
> Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Arno Wagner
> laid this on an unsuspecting readership ...
>
>
> Why is it nonsense to say a JPEG must be decompressed to load
> into RAM, or more correctly<SLAP>
Because, shit for XXXXing brains, the file does not need to be decompressed
to be loaded into RAM. That, you pisswitted cuntflap, is not the same as
decompressing the file in RAM. Learn to XXXXing read or XXXX right off and
die, you less than useless cunt.
--
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005 and April 2006
ObHint: Just because you argue with a notorious XXXXwit netk0oK, it
does not necessarily follow that you are not also a XXXXwit netk0oK.
| |
| J. Clarke 2006-06-27, 8:42 pm |
| Arno Wagner wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage paulmd@efn.org <paulmd@efn.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> That is complete nonsense. The on-disk size is larger, because
> in the filesystem used you have aminimal allocation unit, like
> 16kB. File size on disk is rounded up to multiples of the allocation
> unit size. Very modern filesystems like RaiserFS 4, for example
> can use the space that is free in the last allocation
> unit to in fact kae only the space needed, but since this
> degrades performance, it is only used if you have a very large
> number of small files.
This is all well and good but it does not explain the observed behavior.
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
| |
|
| Nehmo wrote:
> When you look at the properties of a file in Windows XP Explorer, it
> lists two sizes: Size, and Size on disk. The Size on disk is larger by
> a fraction. What's the explanation of this?
Answered already.
>
> In Corel Paint Shop Pro X, when I look at image information, there's
> two sizes there too. I see On disk, and In RAM. The In RAM amount is
> ten times larger than the On disk amount for one jpeg. What's the
> explanation of this?
When a JPEG is loaded into Paint Shop Pro it is uncompressed into device
independent bitmap. A JPEG's size can vary widely depending on the
detail in the image and the amount of compression that was used when it
was created, but the aim is to greatly reduce file size. When the image
is loaded into PSP to be available for editing, every pixel needs to
represented by three bytes of memory... one each for red, green and
blue.
From my camera, the images are 3008 x 2000 pixels, and file size of a
high quality JPEG is usually around 2.5MB. When this is uncompressed
into the array of pixels that an image editor needs, there are 6,016,000
pixels each needing 3 bytes to represent it... a total of 18,048,000
bytes (17.2MB).
--
Tim
| |
| All Things Mopar 2006-06-27, 8:42 pm |
| Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Kadaitcha
Man laid this on an unsuspecting readership ...
> All Things Mopar <340-hp-hemi@spamcast.net>, the person who
> engages in the carriage of slop for the pigs, droned:
>
>
> Because, shit for XXXXing brains, the file does not need to be
> decompressed to be loaded into RAM. That, you pisswitted
> cuntflap, is not the same as decompressing the file in RAM.
> Learn to XXXXing read or XXXX right off and die, you less than
> useless cunt.
>
oh, great XXXXstick, "load" into RAM and "decompress" into RAM is
the same XXXXing thing, imbecile. the bytes making up the pixels
in a JPEG cannot be viewed as a bitmap, XXXXwad, they must be
UNCOMPRESSED from lossy blocks back into 3 bytes/pixel. why don't
XXXXheaded cunts like you learn to read, and learn something
about XXXXing computer graphics? why don't you XXXX off instead
of bringing your XXXXed up perverted XXXXing shit over here, look
at a XXXXing JPEG and look at a XXXXing BMP, then, XXXXXXX,
repeat your accusation. I hear you perverts have your own web
site, well XXXX Off and go masturbate yourself there.
--
ATM, aka Jerry
"Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm!" - Ralph
Waldo Emerson
| |
| Damian 2006-06-27, 8:42 pm |
| Curt Christianson wrote:
>
> Even though you may have breached the "rules" of Usenet
> etiquette,
>
Huh? He didn't top-post, you did.
| |
| Kadaitcha Man 2006-06-27, 8:42 pm |
| All Things Mopar <340-hp-hemi@spamcast.net>, the flyblown welder,
yakked:
> Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Kadaitcha
> Man laid this on an unsuspecting readership ...
>
> oh, great XXXXstick, "load" into RAM and "decompress" into RAM is
> the same XXXXing thing<THWACK>
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA!
LMFARO at you.
Step 1: Load file into RAM.
Step 2: Decompress.
I challenge you to prove that to be wrong, you XXXX-knuckled foole.
--
alt.usenet.kooks - Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker:
September 2005 and April 2006
ObHint: Just because you argue with a notorious XXXXwit netk0oK, it
does not necessarily follow that you are not also a XXXXwit netk0oK.
| |
|
| On 24 Jun 2006 17:55:39 -0700, "Nehmo" <nehmo54@hotmail.com>
wrote:<1151196939.176994.16900@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
(snip troll)
>What's the
>explanation of this?
>--
Looks like another pimp job from you and the little woman..
Suggest: sell computer, get job, etc, etc.
> (||) Nehmo (||)
>http://freesusan.con/
| |
| Arno Wagner 2006-06-27, 8:42 pm |
| In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage All Things Mopar <340-hp-hemi@spamcast.net> wrote:
> Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Arno Wagner
> laid this on an unsuspecting readership ...
[color=darkred]
> Why is it nonsense to say a JPEG must be decompressed to load
> into RAM, or more correctly, into the unformatted bitmap of any
> graphics app?
Because it is untrue. A jpeg is loaded but-identical into RAM, just
as any other file. That you can decompress it afterwards has
relevance. That some software may automatically decomress it
is also irrelevant.
Arno
| |
|
| Nehmo wrote:
> When you look at the properties of a file in Windows XP Explorer, it
> lists two sizes: Size, and Size on disk. The Size on disk is larger by
> a fraction. What's the explanation of this?
>
> In Corel Paint Shop Pro X, when I look at image information, there's
> two sizes there too. I see On disk, and In RAM. The In RAM amount is
> ten times larger than the On disk
Just a memory hog, that's why it's slow, too.
Uni
amount for one jpeg. What's the
> explanation of this?
> --
> (||) Nehmo (||)
> http://freesusan.com/
>
| |
|
| Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage All Things Mopar
> <340-hp-hemi@spamcast.net> wrote:
>
>
[color=darkred]
> Because it is untrue.
Not necessarily.
> A jpeg is loaded but-identical into RAM, just as any other file.
Not necessarily with image manipulation software,
where he is seeing the size in ram reported. THOSE
usually do convert it into an uncompressed bit map.
> That you can decompress it afterwards has relevance. That
> some software may automatically decomress it is also irrelevant.
No it isnt when its that thats reporting the bigger size.
| |
|
| Uni wrote:
> Nehmo wrote:
>
>
> Uni is
> Just a memory hog, that's why he's slow, too.>
--
Cliff
| |
| All Things Mopar 2006-06-27, 8:42 pm |
| Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Arno Wagner
laid this on an unsuspecting readership ...
>
> Because it is untrue. A jpeg is loaded but-identical into RAM,
> just as any other file. That you can decompress it afterwards
> has relevance. That some software may automatically decomress
> it is also irrelevant.
>
total nonsense! the pixels have been compressed! get a decent hex
editor and look at a JPEG and also a simple Windoze BMP. All the
BMP has it it besides the triplet bytes for each pixel is a very
small header.
--
ATM, aka Jerry
"You're gonna get your mind right" - The Cap'n to Lucas Jackson
in "Cool Hand Luke"
"This is the way he wants it … well, he gets it" - The Cap'n to
Lucas Jackson in "Cool Hand Luke"
"What we got here is failure to communicate" - The Cap'n to Lucas
| |
| chrisv 2006-06-27, 8:42 pm |
| All Things Mopar wrote:
>Today, with great enthusiasm and quite emphatically, Kadaitcha
>Man laid this on an unsuspecting readership ...
Don't feed the troll.
| |
| chrisv 2006-06-27, 8:42 pm |
| chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid>, the piss-stained wastrel and throwaway
butchfemme who likes lethal XXX-role playing with manta rays, and whose
partner is a trollop with a nasty gouge, wrote in
<f1mv92pttnnobe436pfq232jakk2eo9110@4ax.com>:
> All Things Mopar wrote:
>
>
> Don't feed the troll.
*plonk*
| |
| Meat Plow 2006-06-27, 8:42 pm |
| On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 07:51:04 -0500, chrisv wrote:
> All Things Mopar wrote:
>
>
> Don't feed the troll.
Trolls need to eat too. You're a perfect example.
--
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2004
| |
| Garfield 2006-06-27, 8:42 pm |
| "345" <345@jjss.com.ru> wrote in message news:449f48ce$0$6673$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au
> Arno Wagner <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> Not necessarily.
Nonsense.
>
[color=darkred]
> Not necessarily
Oh bullshit, Roddy.
> with image manipulation software, where he is seeing the size in ram
> reported.
Decompression takes place in RAM so it has to arrive there
first, and obviously that is 'as is', in it's compressed form.
> THOSE usually do convert it into an uncompressed bit map.
After it's been loaded into RAM, not when.
>
>
> No it isnt when its that thats reporting the bigger size.
Which may well use a formula without decompressing it in reality.
| |
| Rod Speed 2006-06-27, 8:42 pm |
| Pathetic excuse for a troll flushed where it belongs.
| |
| Rebecca 2006-06-27, 8:42 pm |
| Rod Speed wrote:
> Pathetic excuse for a troll flushed where it belongs.
Agreed.
Everybody, killfile rod.speed.aaa@XXXXXXXXXX
*plonk*
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|