This is the mail archive of the cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin XFree86 project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: X/Cygwin icon proposal


Actually, I have two NT 4.0 boxes and in both of them the icons in the
toolbar are garbled... and if I don't manually select the white boxed one,
the desktop icons are garbled too.
The point is: we are using NT 4.0 in the entire company, cygwin is going
under evaluation to become the official Exceed substitute. Making everyone
go and change the icons by hand is not practical.
We always complain about the lack of backward compatibility of M$
application... are we going in the same direction? (just a little
provocation... :))

Giampa

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Harold L Hunt II
> Sent:	Thursday, March 18, 2004 18:52
> To:	cygwin-xfree at cygwin.com
> Subject:	Re: X/Cygwin icon proposal
> 
> Earle F. Philhower, III wrote:
> 
> > Howdy Harold,
> > 
> > 
> >>Subject: Re: X/Cygwin icon proposal
> >>Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:22:12 -0500
> >>From: Harold L Hunt II <huntharo@msu.edu>
> >>
> >>>For someone who's entire contribution to XWin has been
> >>>an alpha-blended X icon you've got some loud opinions...
> > 
> > ..> http://x.cygwin.com/devel/server/changelog-050.html
> > 
> >>He added the "-nodecoration" parameter, scrollbar support, build rules 
> >>for Windows resource files, lots of stuff.
> > 
> > 
> > Sorry, then, Nahor, didn't recognize the handle.  (Just when I was
> > getting a good flamefest started, too!)
> > ..
> > 
> >>But Windows has rules for picking icons from executables (but they are 
> >>hard to find documentation on) and I would hope it is possible to order 
> >>the icons and provide the proper formats such that the default icon for 
> >>the *executable* (not shortcut) would be the one that looks nicest on 
> >>the system.
> > 
> > 
> > Yes, the .EXE it's going to take IIRC the 1st icon it finds in the file
> > (lowest resid, I think).
> 
> Yes, that is correct.
> 
> > What I'm really surprised about here is that
> > the ICON format lets you store a bunch of different formats in just
> > one ICON resource (you can specify a 1-, 16- , 256-, or 16M color,
> > all in 16x16, 32x32, and 48x48 in one ICON).
> 
> Yup, that is what both of our icon files have.
> 
> > Does the one that
> > everyone is so riled up about have the other, fallback formats included?
> 
> Yes, that is why this is so confusing.  :)  Windows *should* pick a 
> format that it understands, but getting it to do so either requires 
> tricks of ordering that MS doesn't make clear, or it requires including 
> more formats than you'd think you would need.  Or, it is just not
> possible.
> 
> Let me summarize the two things we are discussing at the moment:
> 
> 1) A Japanese user has reported that the new icon was garbled on his 
> Windows NT (I believe) system.  This is an isolated case so far and I 
> think it is due to something with that particular system and is not 
> something that we should worry about unless it starts getting reported
> more.
> 
> 2) On Windows 2000, the non-boxed X icon is showing up with a 2 pixel 
> thick white border (I've seen it too at the computer lab) that looks 
> pretty bad.  We are in the process of figuring out whether Windows is 
> generating this ugliness from the alpha channel icon or from the 
> non-alpha icons.  Jehan made some changes to the non-alpha icons as 
> well, and it is remotely possible that those changes are causing this, 
> not the alpha changes.
> 
> If the alpha icon is causing the ugliness on Windows 2000, then we still 
> have tons of options to explore and Jehan is exploring them at a good 
> rate.  We can work on this for a few weeks before it becomes time to 
> either fix it or revert it.
> 
> > As long as it doesn't crash, it can be a picture of an emu as far as I
> > care, but that all centers on whether that emu is safe under earlier
> > OSs or not...Crashing emus stink...
> 
> As far as I know, the Windows 95, 98, and Me OSes are not having 
> problems with the 32 bit icons... it is only Windows 2000 possibly 
> trying to treat the 32 bit icon as a 24 bit icon, with the result being 
> ugliness but not crashing.
> 
> Harold


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]