16bit vs 32bit

Discussion in 'Desktop Customisation' started by PHiSHnz, Sep 10, 2002.

  1. PHiSHnz

    PHiSHnz Guest

    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

  2. stuy_b

    stuy_b Guest

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

    jkoXP Guest

  5. RyanC

    RyanC Guest

    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.
  6. mbunny

    mbunny Guest

    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... =)
  7. PHiSHnz

    PHiSHnz Guest

    yea.. i remebered that xp used 32 bit icons.. lol
    soz 'bout that :p
  8. stuy_b

    stuy_b Guest

    no worries dude. :)