This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: 256x256 px icons
- From: Andy Koppe <andy dot koppe at gmail dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 09:18:16 +0100
- Subject: Re: 256x256 px icons
- References: <20110725091106.GN29727@calimero.vinschen.de> <CAHWeT-bURQ4+dxVDbRPw3X7ooeaBaXz2k8SrPQxqTdUVmNPrDg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHWeT-btxx0=far5ncQ_-xs_riHTTASqibPZK=Chqz=prUqZQQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAGHJv4eWawEw_OAbf0kqsZsBxMqFa8XBoXtbWAjQ=FxCwf8qqg@mail.gmail.com> <4E2E05DD.40101@cwilson.fastmail.fm> <4E2E0847.3060004@cwilson.fastmail.fm> <20110726110134.GU29727@calimero.vinschen.de> <4E2EB916.6000501@etr-usa.com> <20110727074143.GV29727@calimero.vinschen.de> <4E304B49.2070308@etr-usa.com>
On 27 July 2011 18:30, Warren Young wrote:
> - Do we need more sizes? ÂI've seen reference to odd sizes like 64x64 and
> 96x96, but surely we can trust Vista+ to scale the 256x256 to these sizes
> without needing hand-tweaked versions?
Picking up on an old point here. As Warren suggests, the 64x64 doesn't
actually seem to be used if 256x256 is present. For example, when
setting the desktop icon size to large, a downscaled 256x256 is used.
Shall we drop the 64x64s for a bit of a size saving (particularly as
they're in BMP rather than PNG format)?
Andy