Quote Originally Posted by Lord Douche
Erm... you do know that saves the whole page itself, not a screen-shot or anything like that. It saves every image on the screen, every little bit of formatting data in the background that your browser takes care of.

*** I have no idea what formatting data is. If a screen shot doesn't save the whole page, then what does it save?


The visual improvements in this new version obviously are going to be larger, because there's more graphics, and those take up space.

*** You call these things improvements? I had to change my resolution from 800 by 600 to 1280 by 960 in order to get the same number of posts on my screen as in version 2, and you certainly can't say it looks better. Inefficient, yes --improved, no.

You mightn't notice it whilst you're browsing, as it only gets them once. But saving like you do, it makes copies upon copies of them.
I know my browser lets me save as "HTML only", so it doesn't keep all the graphics. Perhaps you should do that if possible, or use the method TG mentioned, keeping them in an [insert favourite word-processor] file.
LD
*** I'm not really sure what that means, either. I don't have that option in my browser, though there are other ways I could save as HTML, but I thought that was only used for files in which you want to preserve hyperlinks (and I would've guessed that any method that preserved hyperlinks was very space-intensive). Generally, files saved in my default format are smaller than or the same size as the original files. I know that when I reply to e-mails or send back story files people send me, the files I return with my comments are smaller than they were before I added my comments (often half the size). Again, though, I didn't realize that had anything to do with my browser.