http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/rss/comments© 2006 - 2008 Stardock Corporation. All rights reserved.Check us out for all your skiining needs. www.skinartistry.comen-us2008-07-04T00:00:342008-07-04T00:00:34http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rss/rss.htmlStardock Rss Generator v1.0, Andrew Powellinfo@stardock.comapowell@stardock.comNight Trainhttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838 Time is almost up. ]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34Night Trainhttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838

No, but I'll be sure to submit my opinion.

and many others as well. ]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34Tarkushttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838

Any of you nit pickers intend to submit an entry?

No, but I'll be sure to submit my opinion.

]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34danilloOchttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838 I think that 800 x 600 and 1280x 960 could be out O_o]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34Night Trainhttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838 Any of you nit pickers intend to submit an entry? ]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34Tarkushttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838 horiz0n, I know what you mean. When I was looking at LCDs, all the best affordable ones are 1280x1024. I would have actually went smaller for 1024x768 before I would have bought a 1280x1024 monitor. I hate that resolution.

Fortunately, I was blessed with a sweet deal for a brand new Planar 20" 1600x1200 LCD, and I couldn't be happier.

Okay, maybe I'd be happier with a 16:9 monitor.


]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34horiz0nhttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838 It's surprising how many LCD flat panels ARE designed to work with 1280x1024. In which case, using 1600x1200 or 800x600 etc etc yadda blah would be the distorting resolutions. 1280x1024 is pretty close to looking square, and with square'ish monitors 1280x1024 is like the only resolution you will hardly sit fit right. A lot of Mac's I've looked at had some really strange resolutions, but aspect wise, I like 4:3 ok but love 16:9.]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34Tarkushttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838 Strange but true that you learn something new here every day?

]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34Bustin A Bogiehttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838 Strange...but true!!!! ]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34_TAPPER_http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838 Well..i learn somthing new every day 'round here. Thanks tarkus ]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34Tarkushttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838 Werewolf, on a normal 4:3 screen, the resolution is evenly divisible by 640x480 (and 320x240 before it). 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x960 and 1600x1200 all maintain the same aspect ratio, with no adjustments. However, to fit 1280x1024 on that same screen, you have to elongate the pixels.

Or to put it another way, go into any image program and tell it to resize an image while keeping the same aspect ratio. You'll see if you try to resize any of the other common screen sizes, it won't fit into 1280x1024. You have to change the aspect ratio to make it fit.

So unless you have a monitor specifically built for 1280x1024, it's probably elongating the pixels to make it fit. It would be difficult for it to change the actual dimensions of your monitor.

That's why I held out for 1600x1200.

]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34werewolfhttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838 Tarkus, could you explain that please? How do you calculate/implement what you are referring to?]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34Tarkushttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838 You guys need to get a real resolution with square pixels.

]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34Night Trainhttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838 Ok, then we will add 1280 x 1024 to the list. More work for you guys. ]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34Yrgalhttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838

1280x 960

80-90% of the people I know and work with, including myself, use 1280x1024 and I think more than 50% of the more recent wallpepers here at WC are in that size. ]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34werewolfhttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838 ditto]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34Snidely Whiplashhttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838 thread title says "wallpaper" while in the post, "windowblinds" is mentioned. you may want to ask a mod/admin to edit the post

i take it nobody other than myself uses 1280 X 1024 ]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/76838Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34Night Trainhttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/67725 You should listen to Pic. He reallly knows his stuff. ]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/67725http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/67725Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34pictoratushttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/67725 Great article, OS! ]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/67725http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/67725Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34Night Trainhttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231 Pardon the spamming guys, we just want to raise the level of quality all around the community. Feel free to delete if it erks anyone. Just trying to help anyone that needs it. Not trying to step on WC's toes at all. Alot of WB skins gave bnenefited from the workshop, which in turn raises the level of quality here at WC. Old and new skinners are welcome. Even experienced skinners should run skins through to work out bugs. ]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34Essencayhttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34Night Trainhttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231 whaaaaaaaaa ]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34I.R. Brainiachttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34Hallucihttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231


]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34I.R. Brainiachttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231 ]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34CerebroJDhttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231Cover your bases by making quick launch and systray margins the same.

I do....works better that way. I was thinking it may be graphic size minus text size = content margin thingers. Or something like that, but it didnt work out quite right. ]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34I.R. Brainiachttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231

Cover your bases by making quick launch and systray margins the same.
[Message Edited]]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34I.R. Brainiachttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34Night Trainhttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231]]>http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34CerebroJDhttp://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231http://skinartistry.joeuser.com/article/39231Thu, 03 Jul 2008 20:00:34 -04002008-07-04T00:00:34