Hey

Thought we should have another desktop pictures thread since it was a while since the last one. Thumbnail images please :smile: .

Here is mine:

---

Aaron's Stuff

weee

^^^Low Res^^^


^^^Full Res^^^ (very big)

BTW, I have no idea what the correct BBcode is in order to add the little thumbnails with the res info underneath so sorry for the Javascript prompt :/

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202

French toast: Nice desktop, you have an IRC client but I never see you on the snarkpit IRC channel.

Fatstrings: Nice desktop as well, does the vista perform well on your computer?

Yak_Fighter: I like your wall paper. You have unreal ed. What version of unreal do you work with? I was given a 1000 paged book "Mastering Unreal Technology" and a disc with a crap load of unreal 2 tools recently. Its all about the unreal 2 engine.

Riven: Theres Riven showing off his three monitors. Actrully, I had problems viewing your pictures, I could only see one section with the full res shot and two sections with the low res shot, I wasn't able to view the last one at all.

---

Aaron's Stuff

My wallpaper is just a random shot from STALKER that I saw somewhere.

As for Unrealed, I've been trying the one that came with UT2k4, which is UE2.5 or something I think. I haven't been feeling very inspired with it though :/

Desktop image is a section of the crab nebula, I change it often, this one is kind of barfy-looking up close. I never use my icons, they're always hidden. I don't see my desktop often enough for them to be useful.
My task bar is three levels wide, and autohides. Beyond the 30 quicklaunch icons that are visible I have folders that contain every program I ever use and many which I don't. <3 quicklaunch

---

o

Riven, where it says "BBCode enabled" click on "BBCode" it lists everything there and how to use it (using thumbnails is listed there)

My desktop looks like ass, it's very cluttered at the moment.



I'm using my (new) TV as a secondary monitor, but it's really just for watching stuff.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Thanks for the description Baron. I would raise my start menu higher than 1 bar but my screen res is only 1280X800 which is (16:10), pretty much wide screen. So I need all the space for the applications I run that I can.

Not much to say about yours crono because I cant see anything, only a Nintendo wall paper.

I've noticed that people still have windows 2000, does it run faster than XP or something?

---

Aaron's Stuff

The desktop of my AMD computer:



And that of the Pentium III:

You can not only scroll up and down in this thread anymore, but sideways to. Sideways!

Nice desktops "Valbara" :wink:

---

Aaron's Stuff

holy s**t Vaal! awsome graphic you got there, i have exactly the same on on my pc! :smile:

---

Hell, is an half-filled auditorium

Aaron, you fool, it's called the classic theme. And if you clicked the link, it loads the bigger picture.

But, yes, in general 2000 does run faster than XP (even if they are using sister kernels)

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Crono said:
And if you clicked the link

Where, there is no link?

crono said:
But, yes, in general 2000 does run faster than XP (even if they are using sister kernels)

So if I was to convert to Windows 2000, does this mean my Orange Box would run properly even though I have well over the minimum requirements and fall just below the recommended requirements, but my Orange Box struggles to run on the lowest possible settings?

---

Aaron's Stuff

I'm with Vaalbara here:



This is what happens when you get too used to Mac-desktops where the desktop picture stays you background even for programs like Photoshop. I already changed it from 128 grey to blue... to spice things up, you know.

---

Why snark works.

Nice one reaper47.

---

Aaron's Stuff

I would raise my start menu higher than 1 bar but my screen res is only 1280X800 which is (16:10), pretty much wide screen. So I need all the space for the applications I run that I can.

Auto hide, enable it and you have even more space no matter how big your taskbar is.

And my desktop:

---

SourDough2.0 - With Strawberry Jam

? quote:weee

If you ask me, STALKER looks more realistic than Crysis.

As for me.
My desktop is riped form vista. I downloaded all of them. This is the only one i liked. The pic isn't that grate but it makes my shortcuts look grate. Might have something to do with wear their placed.

EDIT: ^gramer

---

Reality has become a commodity.

Hehe.

2000 Professional is the standard for me, things run so smooth with it.

Rumple: .... plain and simple. Recycleing bin and "stuff".

RedWood: Nice wall paper :wink: . Whats utorrent?

---

Aaron's Stuff

The image, aaron, the image is the link.

Click this, aaron.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Well, It doesn't work for me. Maybe its because I'm using firefox and I have java script off. Anyways, thanks for the facepalm, I guess.

---

Aaron's Stuff

here is mines its from when i did the gnome achievment

http://s83.photobucket.com/albums/j311/ghostaner/?action=view&current=desktop.jpg

---

YeaY! Fer MesPehling WerDs

The expression for success is
(energy x enthusiasm)

~Zein

I use classic theme because 1. It gives much more customization options, 2. "Luna" is an gaudy, tacked-on waste of resources (disable theme engine) and 3. I don't like my taskbar to look like the top of a box of crayons.

Aaron, what's google?

---

o

Aaron, what's google?

I don't get it .

---

Aaron's Stuff

f**king nodes.

---

Boo f**king Hoo

It's funny seeing Vista on here, I have Vista on my other computer and i would just like to say "TO MANY PROTECTIONS" yes Vista punched the person who said "is there such thing as too many protections?" like when i want fraps working right when i start up (at the bottum of my screen) " there are some programs trying to run on startup" and when i look into the help me file and i probally quote this "you must hit 'allow program' every time you want it to run when windows starts". Oh and don't make me get started with me trying to run ANY program, to late you got me going, here is what it says, "Are you sure you want to run this 'Yes' 'No'" I mean REALLY! if i click on it i would like it to run for me. everytime it does that....everytime.

---

YeaY! Fer MesPehling WerDs

The expression for success is
(energy x enthusiasm)

~Zein

Yes Zein, we all know what vista is like, my dad has it. He cant even install things to his likening, he has to install it to vista's recommended settings. But you can disable that cancel or allow crap you know?

---

Aaron's Stuff

Yeah for clicking on a program, but not programs on startup.

---

YeaY! Fer MesPehling WerDs

The expression for success is
(energy x enthusiasm)

~Zein

My new one :

I got the wall paper from deviant art.

So.... what are you guys liking as the best desktop pic so far?

---

Aaron's Stuff

Mine!

---

SourDough2.0 - With Strawberry Jam

It's funny seeing Vista on here, I have Vista on my other computer and i would just like to say "TO MANY PROTECTIONS" yes Vista punched the person who said "is there such thing as too many protections?" like when i want fraps working right when i start up (at the bottum of my screen) " there are some programs trying to run on startup" and when i look into the help me file and i probally quote this "you must hit 'allow program' every time you want it to run when windows starts". Oh and don't make me get started with me trying to run ANY program, to late you got me going, here is what it says, "Are you sure you want to run this 'Yes' 'No'" I mean REALLY! if i click on it i would like it to run for me. everytime it does that....everytime.

i actually like this because i don't use virus protection and if any executable runs that i don't like or know about i get to tell it to kindly f**k off :biggrin:

of course i did get the ultimate version so i wouldn't have any of the home limitations and i'm not big on the price i payed for it

Home Premium is the same, except for all the new network security things that Ultimate uses from Business.

Hopefully you didn't shell out $400, in any case.

But, at first, it is annoying, but then you're like, "hey ... it actually stopped something" and it becomes less tedious and annoying.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

It's funny seeing Vista on here, I have Vista on my other computer and i would just like to say "TO MANY PROTECTIONS" yes Vista punched the person who said "is there such thing as too many protections?" like when i want fraps working right when i start up (at the bottum of my screen) " there are some programs trying to run on startup" and when i look into the help me file and i probally quote this "you must hit 'allow program' every time you want it to run when windows starts". Oh and don't make me get started with me trying to run ANY program, to late you got me going, here is what it says, "Are you sure you want to run this 'Yes' 'No'" I mean REALLY! if i click on it i would like it to run for me. everytime it does that....everytime.

i actually like this because i don't use virus protection and if any executable runs that i don't like or know about i get to tell it to kindly f**k off :biggrin:

of course i did get the ultimate version so i wouldn't have any of the home limitations and i'm not big on the price i payed for it

I have a friend who uses Vista that claimed he didn't need virus protection. I tolled him that it was a load of crap and not to trust Microsoft. He toled me i was a idiot, and i said wait and see. Lo and behold 2 months later his computer is slowing down and he doesn't know why. I install SpyBot for him and it finds a crap tone of stuff. Later his cousins install Avg anti virus and that found a couple more problums. He's not computer illiterate ether. He know what and when to deny things.

---

Reality has become a commodity.

Well, it's important to keep in mind you could give access to a program that has a security weakness.

Most viruses that come in to your computer come through a running application and attach themselves to "known" programs to go undetected. If it has its own process, Vista will see it and prompt the user ... but otherwise ...

People don't get that for some reason.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Its only a matter of time before virus programmers somehow find away around the cancel or allow thing.

Sorry Rumple, you can't vote for your own :razz:

---

Aaron's Stuff

I keep my PC clean without an active antivirus service, software firewall, or anything like that with XP SP2 and connecting through a properly secured router. I scan about once a month and find an actual threat maybe once every couple years. Out of the blue I installed adaware a couple months ago just to see what it could find, and was a little bit surprised when it found absolutely nothing.

Having done tech support in various schools and workplaces it really makes me wonder how people muck up their computers so badly so quickly.



I think my favorite image for a background would have to be the helix nebula.

---

o

Phear:

Nightelf, yes. Hate me.

is she naked?

Does she look naked?

Sort of, yes. The naval on the same colored area as the pants makes it look that way. When I saw it I was like "vag tat?" then I figured out the bellybutton-though-shirt thing (I'm guessing).

Shenanigans in any case. :razz:

---

o

Hmm, you're right! :dorky: The original version didn't have the shirt, guess that was left behind.

Riven said:

^^^Low Res^^^


^^^Full Res^^^ (very big)

BTW, I have no idea what the correct BBcode is in order to add the little thumbnails with the res info underneath so sorry for the Javascript prompt :/

Nice, someone else with a three screen setup. I've just recently brought a forth monitor from my parents, although I can only connect three monitors atm. When I buy a new computer I'll go with dual videocards so that I can connect all four .

Four screens might be going a bit too far, but two monitors at least is awesome. I would never go back to just one again, I'd rather have two smaller screens than one big. More screen area for the money as well.
How do you have your screens set up btw, Riven? I have two connected to an AGP nVidia card with two connectors, and the third one to an old crappy PCI Radeon card. I've had some driver issues lately, so I only have two screens connected atm. Think it was thanks to Windows installing drivers that I didn't want, and then it was freaking impossible to remove them again.

---

What the Snarkpitters listen to!

I use an Nvidia 7800GT 256Mb to run the two right hand monitors. Those are pretty much just for surfing the web and opening non-video intensive programs like SoundForge, Microsoft Outlook and any IM apps. Then I have an Nvidia 8800GTS 640Mb running just the left hand monitor that I dedicate for gaming and any 3D apps like Hammer or XSI.

When installing them though, I had to install the 7800 first (older drivers), then the 8800, and the new Nvidia control panel helped me work everything else out.

I used to only have two monitors though (borrowing a 17" from my parents when they weren't using it), and the 20.1" you see in the screenshot in the middle. And every time I had to give it up so they could use it, I felt like I was taking a huge step back in productivity; it made such a huge difference. So then I had the idea and started saving up money for two new 22" Samsungs. I don't think I can break from these now having had them for almost a year.

OtZman said:
"I would never go back to just one again, I'd rather have two smaller screens than one big. More screen area for the money as well."

I agree, multiple smaller monitors is better than one bigger one. you can configure the space the way you want it. having a fourth monitor was an option for me, but besides running out of desk space to put it in my dorm, I opted out mostly because it wasn't symmetrical. I knew I wanted a "middle" monitor; it just felt right, i don't know why.

BTW, I didn't think it was possible to have an ATI card running along side an Nvidia card simultaneously. I wouldn't know though, I'm strictly an Nvidia man :biggrin:

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202

Hehe, at least it works sometimes. :razz: I have to use the Radeon card without any drivers installed for it.

There are different drivers for the 8xxx and the 7xxx series, right? I've been thinking about getting one good/monster card (8800) and another good/decent card both from nVidia, a bit like your setup. Would be nice though if I only had to install one set of drivers. I've had some bad experience installing multiple video card drivers simultaneously (Windows refused to boot => bluescreen).

Btw, I'll probably give Ubuntu a try this weekend. Does anyone know how it works with multiple monitors / video cards?

---

What the Snarkpitters listen to!

There are different drivers for the 8xxx and the 7xxx series, right?

Nope, the drivers are the same for the 7xxx & 8xxx nVidia cards (Forceware drivers), however I dont know how things would work with 2 cards from different series :S

---

SourDough2.0 - With Strawberry Jam

Ok, guess I could ask around on the nVidia forums :smile:

---

What the Snarkpitters listen to!

Nvidia Forceware is a Unified Driver Package (UDP) so installing different GeForce models works fine. Ditto Ati cards and the Catalyst UDP.

Running, for example, two GeForce cards with one in each PEG16x slot on your motherboard is referred to by Microsoft as an homogeneous multi-adapter environment.

Running two or more cards that require different drivers is called an heterogeneous multi-adapter environment.

WindowsXP supports the latter situation, but unfortunately not very well and it is usually best to ensure driver homogeneity.

If you are running Windows Vista the WDDM model does not support driver heterogeneity, limiting your options somewhat. You can still use legacy XPDM packages, but the enironment still requires homogeneity so you cannot mix WDDM with XPDM packages for the different cards. Obviously using XPDM will also remove support for Aero.

You may find it useful to use an application such as Ultramon to manage such configurations, as native windows support is generally poor.