> On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 08:36, Max Bowsher wrote: > > Robert Collins wrote: > > > On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 18:43, Gary R. Van Sickle wrote: > > >> 2003-03-30 Gary R. Van Sickle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> > > >> * cygwin.ico: Added two new resolutions, 64x64 and 72x72. > > >> Sorry, no Cyppy. Yet. ;-) > > > > > > Max, this is approved - if you could check it in... > > > > Umm. This cygwin.ico is 39 times larger than the current one. The size > > increase could be much reduced by not storing the new icon sizes in > > 16-million-colour format, when they contain only 2 colours. > > > Very good point. > Gary, uncontentious as it was, this should be changed (assuming it's > easy to do so) - we don't want to increase setup.exe's binary size > pointlessly. > > If it is hard to change, then I'd be interested to know the absolute > size difference the binary has - after upxing.
<head in hands, laughing to keep from crying> ;-) No, it's easy to change. I just did it. It goes from 30K to 7K. I made it 24-bit so we'd be ready for "future enhancements" (i.e. a fancier-looking icon, maybe with that "3-D" look the kids are all into these days), but of course who knows when that lightning might strike. The 16-color version attached, same resolutions, same Changelog. I don't have UPX (downloading it an several tens of meg of other stuff over "Ol' Pokey" now), but since it is currently only 3-color (transparent), it should compress extremely well I'd think. If they both compress to pretty similar sizes, I'd say use the 24-bit one so there's one less hurdle for somebody to cross if they want to make a more colorful Cygwin Staple ;-). -- Gary R. Van Sickle Brewer. Patriot.
<<attachment: cygwin.ico>>
2003-03-30 Gary R. Van Sickle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* cygwin.ico: Added two new resolutions, 64x64 and 72x72.
Sorry, no Cyppy. Yet. ;-)
