I dont use pngs on my themes,can i take out libpng13.
nevermind,cant be done went ahead took it out and ended with no shell. had to DOS-System.ini to get back to explorer and undo my stupidity.
why don't you use PNGs in your themes?
Well im probably wrong I dont download themes anymore (I just like making my own)thought that being on win98se my pc would convert the pngs to bmps to display them anyway.just thought I'll save my pc the trouble.
I just use LoadModule,Dont get me wrong I think NetLoadModule,OTS2,and the Installers are great for most people but for me I just like doing the module downloads manualy,gives me a chance to read the readme files and try different module version and see wich runs better on my system.
Its just the way I enjoy Litestep.
I do reduce the color depht of my bmps to 16 colors when I can.
Am I wrong about thinking of pngs that way.
Thanks for the reply.
I guess you're wrong... but I might be wrong, too :)
I believe the images are eventually stored in memory as raw data anyway, so it doesn't make any difference how you load them.
And PNG, as a format, is just simply better than BMP. There should be no reason to avoid them.
afaik libpng is not loaded via LoadModule/GetProcAddress, so litestep won't start without it. (same deal for zlib)
PNGs might take less time to load off of the disk, or more time to decode. Hard to tell without some kind of benchmark and it'd be specific to your CPU/HD/MB.
Reducing the color depth will also decrease disk space and load time, but Windows has to convert it back to your display's color depth to draw it. Very similar tradeoff to what you get with PNG, hard to tell without benchmarking it.
Thanks,for the information.
The way I see it is if they're small, just stick with bmp, because not everyone has a program that can edit pngs, but if they are big enough to make a difference, go with png to save room.
but with freely available apps like The Gimp nobody should be without a PNG editor.
and failing that, irfanview does batch conversions.