On Thursday 02 April 2009, Marco Martin wrote:
> On Thursday 02 April 2009, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > On Thursday 02 April 2009, Marco Martin wrote:
> > > > agreed. it's guaranteed to be usable by everyone, even weirdos
> > > > without png support ;) , and looks faster. so +1 for that.
> > >
> > >
On Thursday 02 April 2009, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Thursday 02 April 2009, Marco Martin wrote:
> > > agreed. it's guaranteed to be usable by everyone, even weirdos without
> > > png support ;) , and looks faster. so +1 for that.
> >
> > to be really portable is enough as is now that assumes argb
On Thursday 02 April 2009, Marco Martin wrote:
> > agreed. it's guaranteed to be usable by everyone, even weirdos without
> > png support ;) , and looks faster. so +1 for that.
>
> to be really portable is enough as is now that assumes argb32 images or an
> overcomplication like galago?
assuming 3
On Wednesday 01 April 2009, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 March 2009, Dario Freddi wrote:
> > Hi Marco,
> >
> > Just my 2 cents here.
> >
> > If the uncompressed raw data works and it's not an unmaintainable beast,
> > I'd go for it for the simple fact that having to
> > compress->transmit-
On Wednesday 01 April 2009 11:09:52 Marco Martin wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 April 2009, Rob Scheepmaker wrote:
> > On Tuesday 31 March 2009 23:04:45 Marco Martin wrote:
> > > these are some benchmark (probably not realy accurate) should give a
> > > really gross idea..
> > > i measured the time elase
On Wednesday 01 April 2009, Rob Scheepmaker wrote:
> On Tuesday 31 March 2009 23:04:45 Marco Martin wrote:
> > these are some benchmark (probably not realy accurate) should give a
> > really gross idea..
> > i measured the time elased to convert to pass 1000 icons 32x32 argb32
>
> I'm interested: c
On Tuesday 31 March 2009 23:04:45 Marco Martin wrote:
> these are some benchmark (probably not realy accurate) should give a really
> gross idea..
> i measured the time elased to convert to pass 1000 icons 32x32 argb32
I'm interested: could you also run this benchmark for 96x96 icons, which is
of
On Tuesday 31 March 2009, Dario Freddi wrote:
> Hi Marco,
>
> Just my 2 cents here.
>
> If the uncompressed raw data works and it's not an unmaintainable beast,
> I'd go for it for the simple fact that having to
> compress->transmit->decompress could be not so handy and sounds more like a
> hack. I
Hi Marco,
Just my 2 cents here.
If the uncompressed raw data works and it's not an unmaintainable beast, I'd
go for it for the simple fact that having to compress->transmit->decompress
could be not so handy and sounds more like a hack. If I got you right:
decompress means back to raw data? If
