3 ms·

> I don't think desktop wallpaper counts as any of that. The memory usage is trivial, it needs no CPU or disk space, and it has no UI after it's been set. A bi

by Krssst 5y ago

> I don't think desktop wallpaper counts as any of that. The memory usage is trivial, it needs no CPU or disk space, and it has no UI after it's been set. A bitmap of 1024x768x24 is around 2MB uncompressed in memory, which could be a lot at the time. (I remember having 24MB on my machine, maybe a bit outdated for W98?) However, I guess that when a pattern is used as wallpaper, memory usage is indeed trivial (only store the pattern, blit repeatedly)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lproven 5y ago
OK, yes, that's entirely fair, although I have to say that in 1998, 1024×768 was quite big and asking for it in true colour as well would be… optimistic. I think it got swapped out as soon as it could be, though. I remember moving windows aside on low-end machines and hearing the hard disk chug as it loaded the previously-obscured bits of the desktop image back in, scaled them and redrew them. (I don't remember when Windows gained the ability to scale the wallpaper. IIRC, it was in the Windows 95 PowerToys – the base OS couldn't do it. I think it also only understood `.BMP` files originally. JPG and other compressed formats only came later – probably in 98, come to think. I had a few such machines that could do 1024×768×24, but they were pro-grade kit, and as such, I ran NT 4 on them, not GameOS®™. About 1997 or so I was rather proud of my Pentium II 450 MHz in a Baby-AT case (not ATX) which had 2 Matrox cards, allowing me to run a dual-head desktop at 2048×768. I think I then went from 2×14" screens to 2×15" which allowed me to run twice 1152×864: 2304×864. So… much… desktop!