FA+
Shop
5444
Views
Views
106
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Cel Shading / Comics
Species Mammal (Other)
Size 800 x 850
File Size 202.3 kB
Report this content
★
More from Yak
This is the last in a series of tests that verify that uploading is working properly to the new data server. First test failed, let's see if this one goes through.
Artwork by
augman
[edit]
The upload worked, good. You folks don't see it because the upload is done to the new server. We still have to switch those places.
2
Artwork by
augman[edit]
The upload worked, good. You folks don't see it because the upload is done to the new server. We still have to switch those places.
2
Category Cel Shading / Comics
Species Mammal (Other)
Size 800 x 850px
File Size 202.3 kB
have a option to remove them insted of annoyingly been stuck their for ever spamming ur favs x.x
I was addressing that point, but I understand what you mean and I agree. I'd think it'd be quite helpful if it operated similar to if someone deletes a submission, but that's why I favorite sparingly. ;P
I was addressing that point, but I understand what you mean and I agree. I'd think it'd be quite helpful if it operated similar to if someone deletes a submission, but that's why I favorite sparingly. ;P
Repeatedly saving this as a "complete webpage" (to preserve all the comments that it IS, and WILL be flooded with)...
...is going to be the [second] best part of my day.
But if this gets deleted, I might miss out on a comment or two due to being slow to save it...
In all honesty, the image isn't appealing to me (with all respect).
FA HATH RECIEVED...AN HONEST COMMENT?!?!?!?!?!
I've turned FA into e621... *dies from thoughts of the horrid reality of that*
...is going to be the [second] best part of my day.
But if this gets deleted, I might miss out on a comment or two due to being slow to save it...
In all honesty, the image isn't appealing to me (with all respect).
FA HATH RECIEVED...AN HONEST COMMENT?!?!?!?!?!
I've turned FA into e621... *dies from thoughts of the horrid reality of that*
Maybe it was, but it gave Microsoft enough fight as for making them to internetize Windows 98 to the point that Internet Explorer was embedded on Windows 98's base files only with the intention of nuking it.
And that of course made internet to be sightly more accessible to the home users that didnt have the time and the connection as for downloading 3,5 MB for a webbrowser. o,o
Wow. Never knew that (but I'm never up to speed on general news and history anyway X3 <3).
And yeah, I remember those days.
Where a 500MB file will take about 10 to 15 minutes to download THESE days (depending on bandwidth, connected cable type, etc), a 10MB file could take just as long (on a 56K modem). >_<
It's great to know that even the most affordable hardware of this age has respectable waiting times as far as connection speed - and general read/write speed - are concerned. I love only having to wait about an estimated 45 seconds for Windows 7 to load up.
Remember "Windows 3.1" load times? ... </3
And yeah, I remember those days.
Where a 500MB file will take about 10 to 15 minutes to download THESE days (depending on bandwidth, connected cable type, etc), a 10MB file could take just as long (on a 56K modem). >_<
It's great to know that even the most affordable hardware of this age has respectable waiting times as far as connection speed - and general read/write speed - are concerned. I love only having to wait about an estimated 45 seconds for Windows 7 to load up.
Remember "Windows 3.1" load times? ... </3
It depends. I toyed with Windows 3.1 in a 386 and it took some seconds in starting up, but i was a kid. The first time in which I started to do benchmarking and to take note of Windows startup times was when I had my first personal computer (a 486DX4 100MhZ with 8 MB RAM).
Of course, in that monster Windows 3.1 took just between 4/5 seconds in loading. If you didn't hog your RAM with useless programs (or you moved them to the high memory with MEMMAKER or QEMM) the startup would be very fast.
When I moved to Windows 95 I started to ask why it was so slow. And Windows 98 was worse.
Right now my Windows 7 takes around one minute, but because i have a 2.1GhZ monocore processor and only 1.7 GB RAM for the OS to use. I'm sure when i renew this laptop it will be different.
Of course, in that monster Windows 3.1 took just between 4/5 seconds in loading. If you didn't hog your RAM with useless programs (or you moved them to the high memory with MEMMAKER or QEMM) the startup would be very fast.
When I moved to Windows 95 I started to ask why it was so slow. And Windows 98 was worse.
Right now my Windows 7 takes around one minute, but because i have a 2.1GhZ monocore processor and only 1.7 GB RAM for the OS to use. I'm sure when i renew this laptop it will be different.
Comments