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.
