Oh and to rogue, who mentioned about IE's lack of alpha transparency support. Yes you are right, IE does not support this, however neither does gif. So why does that make png useless? It's not like if you use gif you can use alpha transparency, so your argument doesn't make any sense to me at all. It's like saying you have a choice between A and B, B has signifigant advantages over A. However, both A and B lack a feature. Therefore you should use A. Well A doesn't have the feature either, so all you're doing is losing out on all the added benefits that B would provide. That makes no sense at all...
Let me rephrase what I said... since IE doesn't support PNG's 8 bit alpha channels which allows the images to be semi transparent, any transparent area of a
PNG will display at 100% opacity. At least with GIF, so called "binary transparency" is rendered by IE.
Here's a cludgy
work-a-round for IE if anyone is interested... wanted to include the link in my original post, but couldn't find it at the time.
I'd also have to agree with Watchdog when it comes to my own personal experiences working with GIF and PNG file sizes... I'm sure PNG should be smaller theoretically but I have yet to see it in my own graphics. I had heard that Adobe Photoshop wasn't very good at PNG compression so, on more then one occasion, I tried other graphic utilities and ended up with the same results.
PNG probably is better for certain types of images but I've yet to find what that might be.
