> > Windows does have a 'stretch to fit' option for wallpapers,
> > and uses bilinear resampling to do so, so a 1024x768 image
> > can look decent even at 1920 x 1440.
A 1024 image strecthed to 1152 doesn't look good at all on my win2k..

> Not my version of Windows.. Maybe XP? But my motto is: Never trust
> non-specialized software, such as Windows, to do things such as graphics.
Wasn't stretching introduced in Win98? It's in win2k too, (the
stretch-option has disapperead at my computer at work.. strange..)  I like
using a smaller image (works best with an abstract image) and stretch it,
because then you don't have to use 5mb of memory for a wallpaper you rarely
look at :-)

-Peter

Post a reply to this message