On 27 July 2011 18:30, Warren Young wrote: > - Do we need more sizes? I'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
