Am 24.04.2012 um 14:06 schrieb Esteban Lorenzano: > 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? > I think most people using pharo on the server are using VNC to maintain them. I do that,too, in lack of a better tool. So in this case there is a display and there are icons. Rendering is not an issue as long as you suspend to UI thread until you need it. So, let me just repeat
...new icons.... cool! ...svg icons.....cool! ...removable icons...cool! That's basically all I wanted to say. Norbert > 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 > >
