On Aug 14 09:18, Andy Koppe wrote: > 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)?
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