>>495
PNG uses lossless compression, while JPG is 'lossy'. What this means is that for each year the JPG sits on your hard drive, it will lose roughly 60 bytes, assuming you have SATA - it's about 75 bytes on IDE, but only 30 bytes on SCSI, due to rotational velocidensity. You don't want to know how much worse it is on CD-ROM or other optical media. I started collecting JPGs in about 1992, and if I try to view any of the images I downloaded back then, even the stuff I grabbed at 1mb, they just look like crap. The color is terrible, the artifaction...well don't get me started. Some of those albums have degraded down to 5 or even 3kb. PNG images from the same period still look great, even if they weren't stored correctly, in a cool, dry place. Seriously, stick to PNG, you may not be able to see the difference now, but in a year or two, you'll be glad you did.