Is there "word from Microsoft"? No.
Now that we're clear that there's no word from Microsoft here and there probably will not be because that's not really how things function, you and I at the least can have a polite and friendly conversation about the subject without regards to anything more
than discussing what you're seeing. I'm speaking on my own behalf here, and no warranties are express nor implied. I just want to be crystal clear that I am not support. I am interested in what you're seeing.
What pixel format are you using? Generally the desktop uses 24bpp RGB, and should add color correction if available as specified. Without a sample image to examine it's hard to speak to this. You mention that you're using the same resolution for your
wallpaper as is set for your monitor, which is a good plan. What PPI are you using?
Well, I appreciate your interest in the matter.
I have a little trouble explaining things clearly, and I will appreciate your patience. I also want polite and friendly conversations, my apologies if my topic came off aggressive in any way. I can lack tact, but I do not do it on purpose.
Ok, so to get to your questions:
What pixel format are you using?
My DSLR camera captures images in 24bit format. I take my photos in RAW formats and sometimes RAW+ (A RAW + a JPEG Highest Quality). These photos are 14.6 Megapixels in size (4672x3104).
Using Silkypix (Photography development software) or Photoshop CS3, I crop my pictures to a 16:9 ratio, then I downsize my pictures to a 1920x1080 resolution. They are very sharp and nice.
I have spoken to a graphic designer friend, and have checked to make sure the pictures are all RGB and 24 bit. They all are by default, and I have never changed it. I have also tried changing my color profiles, etc.. put everything back to normal (default settings
as they were good).
Here is an example of a picture I have Processed:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2880/12225164825_bb17e12911_o_d.jpg
As you'll notice, viewed at a 100% zoom level (in Microsoft Picture Viewer or any other viewer) the quality is pretty fine, the lines are sharp and the colors nice. But then try setting it as a wallpaper.
I believe you know what I am talking about anyways.
What PPI are you using?
What puzzles me is that the PPI doesn't seem to change much either. I have used all these different PPI's: 72, 96, 150, 300, 600.
I have even saved the picture as a 16bitt TIFF which is supposedly the largest possible format, and loses no information or any quality as editing is done on the photo. Even with a 53MB Tiff file set as a desktop background, the pictures lose their sharpness
and the edges get 'blurred' out with artifacts.
I have also done the test with different computers and devices; ranging from my Windows 8 Phone, an Ipad, and these PC's: 2x Windows XP SP3, 3x Windows 7 x64 and my Windows 8.1 Pro x64.
The result was that (with THE same picture I have provided you the link with - 1920x1080) with Windows XP and the Ipad, my picture set as a wallpaper would lose no quality, sharpness, colors, etc.. The Windows 7 PC's, my Windows Phone 8 and Windows 8 PC all
suffered from the loss of quality when the picture was set as a Wallpaper.
If I set 1 picture as a wallpaper for a long time; I would def keep the suggested "fix". But the problem is I set my computer as a showcase, and I can have a whole lot of pictures in random rotation. I often add and change them as well. I've been developing
my photos in JPEG's for years as that's the easier format to provide to users online, or e-mail to contacts.
And now, to make sure that the issue isn't related to the WAY I process my photos (which it isn't because I would notice it in the Picture Viewer), you can take ANY picture from the web (that is originally the same native resolution as your monitor), set it
as a desktop; and notice the loss of quality around the edges, 'artifacting', etc..
Again, I do not want to come across as rude or insulting, it is not my intent. But I do not really know why the latest evolutions of Windows need to provide compression to images set as backgrounds.
Is it because having many images in rotation is too intense on the system? Or
is it to make sure the OS runs stable on ALL platforms, including the ones that are much weaker in performance?
I mean, the point of Microsoft's recent activities seems to be about simplifying things for the end-user; but having to 'hack' the system to simply provide a compression-free background picture seems a little harsh on the user, it is my
opinion. Please do not view this as an "attack" haha ;)
But I must also say that I have found out that by using PNG's, Windows does NOT compress the picture, and it appears perfect as a background. But the issue with that is imply a matter of time, I have thousands of pictures I would have to re-develop into PNG's,
and simply developing photos is a long process, can take about 25 minutes or more for 1 picture alone. ..and now that all my pictures have always been processed into JPEG's since I've used Windows XP... *sigh*
..and the fact that the same picture, a 600KB JPEG is about a 7MB PNG.. having thousands of those.. well yeah.
I just figured newer OS's would have even more polish than older ones, as hardware and technology evolves. I have been enjoying Windows 8.1 a lot, everything is really polish, sleek and fluid, just like on my W8 phone. Everyone has also been commenting positive
stuff when they see it and see how the OS works.
Anyhow, I appreciate your interest in the matter, I realize the answer is probably as simple as: "well use PNG's" but I also believe you see why having the compression of wallpapers removed would be recommended as well. I mean, at the moment, any 1920x1080
wallpaper is uglier than the actual picture.