This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: 256x256 px icons
- From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 13:16:12 +0200
- Subject: Re: 256x256 px icons
- References: <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> <CAHWeT-bmDaduCO-zXdrFQrg03=O24bTCauvm+F=X51HoZnn6ew@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
On Aug 14 09:18, Andy Koppe wrote:
> 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)?
You're saving 12K or so. Given that we already have the icons, is it
worth it to delete them for just a few K?
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat