16bit vs 32bit

[PHiSHnz]

Hey..
jst playing around, i changed my display to 16 bit (i'm sure that's what my pc used to be on)
and the icons went ugly as... i'm sure when it used to be on 16 bit, i couldn't notice a difference between 16 and 32 bit, execept for gradients.. i may be wrong
but if any of you know why this could be? help? lol
have a look at the pic anyway, coz i'm sure 16 bit is not meant to be that bad
thanks

PHiSH

 

[stuy_b]

16bit, uses half the colours of 32bit, it is bad!! yes whereas 32bit has many more colours giving you better gradients.

Your getting confused pal, you must have always had 32bit for high coloured icons.

The performance difference is non-existant, in this day and age with geforce graphics cards.

Hope this clears the issue.

 

[BobTheBuilder]

Did you reboot after the switch to 16 bit ? May help. But I do agree, 32 bit is nicer for gradients etc

 

[jkoXP]

reboot

 

[RyanC]

You can try 24-bit if you have it. My graphics card has the option and thinks look pretty good. I've never noticed a difference between 24-bit and 32-bit. Not sure if there is a performance diff either.

 

[mbunny]

WinXP uses 32-bit colours for its icons...

8-bits for each channel... and 8 bits for alpha transparency...

16bit is NOT half of 32-bit colour...

16-bit = 65536
24-bit = 16777216
32-bit = 4294967296

yeap... tad more colour combinations possible there =P

Just use 32-bit colour... its doesn't take much performance at all from your PC.

Phish... XP uses 32-bit colour as the default so... =)

 

[PHiSHnz]

yea.. i remebered that xp used 32 bit icons.. lol
soz 'bout that

 

[stuy_b]

no worries dude.