File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Does anyone have a lower resolution for this?
Preferably 1024x768

Thanks!
>> Nata-chan !jG14jPoLic
....WTF?
>> Anonymous
Either you are very lazy or are very new at the concept of "wallpapers". If it's the latter, there's many free programs out there that you can use to resize larger images to your preferred resolution without too much compression.

Since you use 1024x768, might I suggest you also keep the larger versions in a separate folder if you plan on contributing here.
>> Anonymous
>>159584
protip: every OS can scale down images for the wallpaper

interesting fact: 1600x1200 and 1024x768 have the same aspect ratio, so it scales down cleanly even with Windows' sagey image renderer.
>> Anonymous
yes, but it's also worth noting that if you hide your desktop icons, for some reason the scaled down image becomes jaggedy.
>> Anonymous
chalk it up to Windows' sagey image renderer.
>> ~Caine
     File :-(, x)
Personally, I size the image to my windows size because the windows resizer sucks testicles.
It comes back grainy and flawed.
However, I also only use BMP files as they take less background resources.
anyway, I feel the OP's pain if the reasons are related. If not, then lets all kick him in the teeth...
pic related...
>> Anonymous
http://www.wallpaperchanger.de

And if you're worried about the background resources used to deal with a wallpaper that's in formats other than BMP, you must have an exceptionally shitty computer.
>> Anonymous
>>159584
/r/ original image
>> Anonymous
http://www.irfanview.com/

open an image, Ctrl+R, choose Lanczos Resampler, choose your target res (there's a preset for 1024x768), hit ok, hit Ctrl+Shift+C, and you're done
>> Anonymous
>>159975
thread over