but, Norbert, I don't see the point. In a server you will not have (or *should* not have) a display... so rendering time, etc. is non an issue, because it will not be any... or I'm missing something?
cheers, Esteban On Apr 24, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Norbert Hartl wrote: > > 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
