css - background-repeat - Page 2

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Re: css - background-repeat

William Tasso wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Think of it this way -- say you have a 4x4 graphic.

If you create a 16x16 graphic which repeats your 4x4 graphic 16 times. As
your new, larger image is very repetative, it will compress very well, so
it's likely to be only a handful of bytes bigger than the original 4x4

Either image is likely to be smaller than a TCP packet, so as far as
bandwidth is concerned, you might as well send the larger image.

The larger image is going to put less strain on the rendering engine, so
send it.

And yes, on slower computers it does make a difference. Back in the good
old days, when I visited a site in Netscape 3 with a 1x1 background, it
would tie up my 486 for several extra seconds drawing the background.

Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me  ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Re: css - background-repeat

Fleeing from the madness of the  jungle
and said:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

ok - but this isn't a linear scale - at some point the image file becomes  
larger than a packet.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

There will be a cut-off where repeating becomes more friendly than a  
single image.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Are you convinced that the difference is noticable because of the 486  
processor rather than the N3 engine?  In any event, both are now history.

Thanks everyone.  Mucho thoughtful answers.
William Tasso


Re: css - background-repeat

Toby Inkster wrote

Quoted text here. Click to load it

A picture of his Land Rover?

Charles Sweeney

Site Timeline