"Wiz" wrote in message
ups.com...
Thanks for the advice, Pete. I figure with a 640 x 480 original image,
it won't download tooooo slowly, though!

Depends on who's looking at them, but no...you're right. The 50K or so per
isn't going to be much of a big deal for most people (anyone on broadband
won't even notice).

I proposed that more as a point of elegance, since there's some "waste" in
sending a bunch of data to the browser that winds up just getting thrown out
right away anyway. But the other way to look at it is that there's some
"waste" in adding a 5K thumbnail to the server when the 50K original is
perfectly suitable for immediate download, even if the client never does
look at the full-size version. So I've got no real justification for that
except for personal bias anyway.

But hey, on the bright side, the whole issue gave me an opportunity to waste
another 10K or so of Usenet bandwidth, so there is that to be happy about.


Pete