Am 24.04.2012 um 12:50 schrieb Igor Stasenko: > On 24 April 2012 11:44, Norbert Hartl <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Am 24.04.2012 um 11:35 schrieb Geert Claes: >> >>> >>> Norbert Hartl wrote >>>> >>>> Of course, if there is an ugly replacment that can be used if the system >>>> is minimised. Having two icon sets introduces the possibility to make the >>>> ugly one consume even less memory, e.g. make it black and white. >>>> >>> >>> I have no idea what you just tried to say :) When you say ugly replacement, >>> are you talking about the current ugly icons or do you find Esteban's >>> suggested icons not appealing enough? >>> >> It is just an addition to my first statement. If we call the current icon >> set medium in the sense of medium cutiness and medium memory consumption >> than there is a new situation with the new nice icons. Igor is right, if the >> vector world is coming to pharo then it is easy to make really good looking >> icons in the image. But the memory consumption and CPU intensity will be >> raised. That contradicts to usage of pharo in a server environment. So what >> I was saying is that I think that the new icons are great. But then there >> should be a replacement for it when the image is shrinked. The same happens >> with the fonts if you shrink. And if the icons are replaced they could even >> be replaced by something really basic that saves additional memory. On a >> server with VNC or the like the icons aren't that important and maybe can be >> removed completely. >> >> More clear now? >> >> Norbert >> >> > > did i miss something? since when memory consumption for vector > graphics takes more space? > look at the size of .svg files and compare them with size of .png > files for same icons.
There is a difference between storage size and in-memory size. The storage size is important if you put the resource class-based. For the rest you need to decide. Either you render the icon every update from source or you do cache and from then on you have storage size + in-memory size for your icons. If you do fancy stuff automatically which means it probably uses a lot of colors so this can be quite big. > Vector data are much more compact. > So, actually if you really want to shrink things down, you need to > operate with vectors :) Yes, and then you need a lot of cpu cycles. Just what I said. > More CPU for rendering vector graphics? Perhaps. > It is of course more expensive than just copying memory from one > bitmap to another. > But desktop environment requires a lot more complex operations that > just copying bits from one form over > another one. > And also consider the cases where you need to use 5 different > operations to simulate just one. > (look at famous corner rounder hack). Again what I said. It is feasible to have good looking stuff. But everything you said is unimportant on a server. I'm just begging you not to forget that. That's all. Nothing against any of your plans. It will make pharo better. Norbert
