Re: 256x256 px icons

[Warren Young <warren at etr-usa dot com>]

On 8/14/2011 5:16 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> 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?

Are you calculating the setup.exe size delta after upx, or are you 
looking at the .ico file?  upx should provide similar benefit as Vista 
PNG icons, as compared to standard BMP style icons.

My reason for asking if we can skip the other sizes was more a matter of 
removing unnecessary work than saving single-digit KB in the binary.

(I tried upx on cygicons-0.dll, by the way, but it apparently broke 
something.  On trying to use my compressed version to supply an icon for 
a shortcut, Windows complains it doesn't contain any icons.  *shrug*)