Jonathan Gordon wrote:
>
> tiny would be text heavy but no images.. the RAM required for even a
> stupidly heavy text based WPS doesnt come close to one which loads
> even a single medium sized image. And the space required for text is
> constant, whereas its display dependant for images. but yes, it would
> act the same as the max files in folder setting.
>
Well the numbers can be hammered out in time. I was more just proposing
that if a more technically intelligent way ends up too complicated, it'd
be possible to just have a tiny/small/medium/large/giant type selection
and give some general ideas about how I saw the size ranges personally
when thinking about it.
Received on 2009-12-21