From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24446 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2011 08:18:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 24431 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Aug 2011 08:18:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-pz0-f43.google.com (HELO mail-pz0-f43.google.com) (209.85.210.43) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 08:18:17 +0000 Received: by pzk1 with SMTP id 1so1842811pzk.16 for ; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 01:18:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.5.28 with SMTP id 28mr1202922wfe.79.1313309896777; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 01:18:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.62.103 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 01:18:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4E304B49.2070308@etr-usa.com> References: <20110725091106.GN29727@calimero.vinschen.de> <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> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 08:18:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 256x256 px icons From: Andy Koppe To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2011-08/txt/msg00163.txt.bz2 On 27 July 2011 18:30, Warren Young wrote: > - Do we need more sizes? =C2=A0I've seen reference to odd sizes like 64x6= 4 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