56k users only please

I am asking that only the 56k users partake in this poll. Please, it is the honor system and we will have to trust that you are indeed taking it as a 56k user.

The poll is, what do you feel is the upper limit acceptable for image file sizes that you as a user should have to deal with?

its a straight forward question, so please be honest.

I do have a request of anyone whom doesn't mind not being anonymous, since we cannot see the results without voting, can someone periodically post a screen of the results for the broadband users to see?

the results will influence at least my views.. if no one cares but me, the topic is dropped.

thanx

< 100K, no matter what the dimensions of the image.

There is no reason for anything higher for screens. It is just plain
laziness that prevents people from optimizing their screens.

For me as a 56k user 150k or less from that list. Although I'd see 120k as the best limit.

I said less than 150. Frankly you should be able to compress to less
than 100 losing little quality, but I reckon 150 should do it. As a 56k
user, it really bugs me when people post enormous screens which I have
to wait for ages for.

It's pretty easy to compress images so I suppose taking down the
quality to 75-85% wouldn't kill the quality but still bring down the
size quite a bit.

I put 100k 'cause I'm willing to lose a bit of quality... it's not like you can't tell whether a map sux/pwnz at that level. 150k'd be acceptable if the screenshot was actually good.

we only have 11 56k users throughout this entire site? :eek:

man, somehow i got the impression it was a bit more... no matter, be it one member or a hundred, they all deserve some generosity.

TBH, I voted too because until a while ago I was a 56ker aswell.

Current standings:

---

i am a bit surprised, but its nice to know where to make a stand.

perhaps, just perhaps <150k is enforceable.

thanx fragman, i truly appreciate it. :smile:

I'm willing to go to about 150kb max, and only if its a picture of Monq in the nip. :biggrin:

<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Mephs</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>I'm willing to go to about 150kb max, and only if its a picture of Monq in the nip. :biggrin:
</DIV></DIV>
for a chance to see that, i would bend any rule. :biggrin:

I'm on 512 at uni (well it fluctuates between 128 and 8mb) and 56k at home. To me at uni any image should be 100k or less anyway... Seems pointless being any bigger unless its artistic.

I'm on 512 at uni (well it fluctuates between 128 and 8mb) and 56k at home. To me at uni any image should be 100k or less anyway

I really am confused (so, what else is new?); even a 600kb pic should be displayed instantly at an 8mb transfer rate. Why less than 100k? Or is that 128kb - 8mb? :S

I'd guess 128kb - 8mb, as it is a uni connection it will be shared. Always place the smallest value first too.

as it is a uni connection it will be shared

At our university I have never seen the internet so congested that I
haven't been able to get all 10 Mbit (or at least 90%) from a good
source, or pulling from several sources. Driver downloads from
ati have never dropped below 850 kB/s in all the drivers I've
downloaded, and that alone is like 70% of the bandwidth and probably
due to a non-perfect connection, not because of having to share
bandwidth.

I'm on 56k at home on the weekends, and I really don't care how big
screenshots are. I like getting high detail and high resolution
screenies, and I don't particularly mind having to wait for them.
As long as its not something obscene like a 1600x1200 bitmap. And
thats also as long as I only have to view one, if there is a whole page
of screenies they should be below 250k. Though I agree that it
really isn't much use having screenshots be any greater than 150 k.

can one of our 56k users post the recent totals please?

bumps

same question as previous post.

thanx