Facelifting the second

Regarding background I typically use the following
snippet:

|colors form|
colors := Array new:256 withAll: #(0.0 0.0 0.0).
colors at: 1 put: #(0.329 0.329 0.329);
       at: 2 put: #(0.204 0.204 0.204);
       at: 3 put: #(0.267 0.267 0.267).
form := ((ColorForm
                        extent: 1@10
                        depth: 8
                        fromArray: #( 16777216 0 33554432 33554432 33554432
33554432 33554432 33554432 33554432 33554432)
                        offset: 0@0)
                        colorsFromArray: colors).
World color: (InfiniteForm with: form)

Gives a good contrast to the bright windows.
May be too dark on some computers. However, just wanted
to share.

A JPG just grows the image size of the standard image -
but maybe we should connect Squeak to a free wallpaper service ... ;)

Bye
T.
--
GMX.at - Österreichs FreeMail-Dienst mit über 2 Mio Mitgliedern
E-Mail, SMS & mehr! Kostenlos: http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/atfreemail

> A JPG just grows the image size of the standard image -
> but maybe we should connect Squeak to a free wallpaper service ... ;)

Once it's absorbed into the World's form is that still true?  Or is
the InfiniteForm a "dynamically-calculated" form that stays with the
World even after its been initially set?  If so, I wonder how does the
repaint performance compare with straight blitting out of the JPG
image..

If a JPG source guarantees a greater image size, then I would prefer
to avoid it in favor of either a tiny patterned image or InfiniteForm
(or equivalent)..

On 26 Mar 2010, at 00:00, Chris Muller wrote:

I like Torsten's pattern and would vote for a dark background like it  
in the standard image.
Regards,
Tim

On 26.03.2010, at 00:00, Chris Muller wrote:
>
>> A JPG just grows the image size of the standard image -
>> but maybe we should connect Squeak to a free wallpaper service ... ;)
>
> Once it's absorbed into the World's form is that still true?  Or is
> the InfiniteForm a "dynamically-calculated" form that stays with the
> World even after its been initially set?

The JPG is uncompressed when loaded into Squeak, so we are talking a significantly large bitmap, a few megabytes.

>  If so, I wonder how does the
> repaint performance compare with straight blitting out of the JPG
> image..

Blitting out of the uncompressed bitmap is as fast as it gets. A computed gradient would be somewhat slower, but maybe not by much. My hunch is it would be worth it to avoid the large space overhead - but measuring would be better of course.

> If a JPG source guarantees a greater image size, then I would prefer
> to avoid it in favor of either a tiny patterned image or InfiniteForm
> (or equivalent)..

+1

- Bert -