Dreamscene Wallpapers

z3r010 · Jul 28, 2007

Does anybody know where I can find some good Dreamscene wallpapers?

I have tried most of the stuff from wincustomize but they had nothing I realy liked

Brink · Jul 28, 2007

John,

Here is a great place for regular wallpapers.

Free wallpapers, wallpaper download

larryk · Jul 30, 2007

I really like Digital Blasphemy.
He has posted two animated desktops so far and is in the process of making more. It costs a little, but his work is worth it.

Generator · Jul 30, 2007

running dreamscene uses 150 to 180 mb of memory also 20% more cpu usage it seems alot just for a image on your desktop moving.

larryk · Jul 30, 2007

I guess those numbers are about right, spread across both cores. I see anywhere from 10-22. My only response to that concern is: if you're not running Vista for the visual effects and goodies, run XP.

z3r010 · Jul 30, 2007

Its all about the bells and whistles lol

I found this site while searching, but still nothing that realy does it for me Download Vista DreamScene Videos - HTTP - Download HD DreamScene Videos

TBH I can't believe that their isnt hundreds of sites knocking these out, its just ashame I'm crap at making stuff like that as I see a very untaped niche.

Brink · Sep 30, 2007

I found these two free programs that will add more to DreamScene and let you make your own. Plus, you can download from a ton of already made Dream files.

Stardock DeskScapes - Adds the Dream file type for Dreamscene to use as well.

Stardock DreamMaker - Allows you to make your own Dream file.

http://dream.wincustomize.com/index.aspx?c=1

NOTE: After you install the program, check Windows Update for a Dreamscene Update.

Enjoy,
Shawn

Asky · Sep 30, 2007

hmm Thnx for tht Shawn.

Gonna try it out.
And yeah about the 150-180 MB,if u have 2GB or even 4GB then y not use it :D

Brink · Sep 30, 2007

Hi Asky,

Yeah, I have been playing around with it some, and it is pretty nice. :party:

Shawn

Snake3yes · Oct 1, 2007

I love the generic water/cloud effect ones! Lets be honest with 4gb installed why would you not use it? Nothing nicer than going to a LAN with your pimped out system with a pimped out case that even has a pimped out desktop!

Tstright · Oct 1, 2007

larryk said:
if you're not running Vista for the visual effects and goodies, run XP.

That would be a poor choice to switch OS's IMHO.....

larryk · Oct 1, 2007

Tstright said:
That would be a poor choice to switch OS's IMHO.....

So in your humble opinion, why have you already made the switch to Vista?

Tstright · Oct 1, 2007

larryk said:
So in your humble opinion, why have you already made the switch to Vista?

I work for a 3rd party software developer. We have apps that run on 64bit AutoCAD.

larryk · Oct 1, 2007

I must assume your company has moved to Vista to develop a product that takes advantage of the software components which provide for the visual effects and goodies available in Vista, which of course you consider "poor choice [sic] to switch OS's [sic]," so I must then conclude that you mean aesthetics are a poor reason strictly for the end-user, who of course, is your customer and will be seeking the graphical benefits of the new product...

As a developer, or a receptionist for a software developer, you must surely be aware that visual appeal and an overall enjoyable experience with your machine - whether gaming, web surfing, or business applications, is the essence of the modern operating system, or more precisely, the GUI of an operating system. I would guess that most people really don't care what is going on behind the scenes - even at the cost of efficiency - or else command line monochrome interfaces would still be prevalent, which are far more efficient than bloated Windows/OSX/OpenWindows/etc. environments.

OS GUI improvements and enhancements are the ONLY valid reason for upgrading an OS, IMHO.

Tstright · Oct 1, 2007

larryk said:
OS GUI improvements and enhancements are the ONLY valid reason for upgrading an OS, IMHO.

I guess being able to use more than 4gig of memory is not a valid reason?

I'm guessing you never used any CAD Software...

larryk · Oct 1, 2007

I'll concede "only" was not a good choice. I would go with "the number one reason" instead...

But there are plenty of operating systems that can take advantage of 4GB of RAM, including the mature Windows platform, XP.

No, I'm not a CAD user myself, but I'm not sure of the relevance there... But, assuming your point is that CAD software is resource intensive (and that gaming does not compare?), it supports my position. What is the difference between a CAD program that runs on 3.5GB v. 4GB? I'm guessing the sophistication of modeling is a biggie? Appearance? Visual quality? Can a CAD program exist without such sophistication? It has; but the prettier it is, the better...my point.

Tstright · Oct 1, 2007

With CAD it's usually faster, which requires more memory. What used to take Days now takes Hours. And to a point your are right, We use all that memory to Render images to make things look pretty.

To me the pretty option rates 2nd or 3rd....but everyone has a different list....

larryk · Oct 1, 2007

Quantity of memory may allow for more of a program to be stored as it waits to be processed, but processor power (both system and graphic) seems to me to be the primary determinant in speed of image rendering. Of course, if access to the hard drive is required, that is a major bottleneck.

Agreed, we have different priorities, but 2nd or 3rd sounds a bit different than "poor"!

Dreamscene Wallpapers

My Computers

My Computers

Member

My Computer

My Computer

Member

My Computer

My Computers

My Computers

Here to Help

My Computer

My Computers

64bit Convert

My Computer

Member

My Computer

Member

My Computer

Member

My Computer

Member

My Computer

Member

My Computer

Member

My Computer

Member

My Computer

Member

My Computer