Re: JPEG support for backgrounds

Rob Foehl (
Fri, 21 Aug 1998 11:37:57 -0400 (EDT)

On Fri, 21 Aug 1998 wrote:

> >Performance-wise, I mean.  Is it working?  Is it noticably faster?
> My guess is that it should be slightly slower then XPM(don't forget that
> JPEG is compressed),
> but of course much faster then using external apps.

Something else to consider: A few people I know have converted large
jpeg's into XPMs, ending up with an XPM of roughly 2-12 megs in size. If
anyone has a right to complain about horribly slow background updates, its
them. :)  I doubt that jpeg backgrounds would be horribly slow on decent