I admit it. I'm an iconphile. Back in the Windows 3.0 days, I used to go and change all my Windows icons by hand. I thought this was pretty impressive. Admittedly, it didn't help me pick up women for some reason.
Since then, icons have come a very long way. A VERY long way. With Windows Vista, the end-user icon experience out of the box is beautiful. But from an icon creator's point of view, the lack of backward compatibility and effort to support has gone up tremendously. As a result, we've seen a lot fewer custom icons made for Windows Vista than one might have expected.
Microsoft made three decisions with Windows Vista that will forever affect the way we look at icon making on Windows.
Since then, icons have come a very long way. A VERY long way. With Windows Vista, the end-user icon experience out of the box is beautiful. But from an icon creator's point of view, the lack of backward compatibility and effort to support has gone up tremendously. As a result, we've seen a lot fewer custom icons made for Windows Vista than one might have expected.
Microsoft made three decisions with Windows Vista that will forever affect the way we look at icon making on Windows.
Microsoft Decision #1: 256x256 icons
First, Microsoft created a new icon size -- 256x256. For users, that's great. Having icons that are 256 pixels by 256 pixels means you will have beautiful icons that are incredibly detailed. But from an artist's point of view, it means that each and every icon is basically a work of art.
Years ago, I used to make icons. At 32x32 for the "big" icons and 16x16 for the "small", even someone with only moderate art skills could make pretty decent looking icons. Today, not only does such high resolution icons mean that only talented artists can make them, it takes talented artists with a lot of time to dedicate to them.
A full set of icons for Windows Vista is around 120 icons. You can get away with as "few" as 40 icons for most casual users but someone who wants a complete desktop makeover needs well over 100 icons. that's a serious amount of time and effort.
Microsoft Decision #2: No Desktop Scaling
The second decision Microsoft made that has affected icon creation is the decision to have programs displayed with either a down-scaled 256x256 icon or an un-scaled 48x48 icon. This decision is baffling for many reasons.
Check out this screenshot. See how the Windows Vista icons are noticeably bigger than the third-party icons? That's because the third-party icons don't supply a 256x256 icon. But here's the kicker -- the "large" icons are only displayed at 96x96 and will use the 48x48 icon size even if a 128x128 icon is available.
For instance, see the Galactic Civilizations II icon? You can see how it's smaller than the new Vista icons. This inconsistency is visually maddening to me. But what is even worse is that the GalCiv II icon has a 128x128 alpha blended icon in it. They could have used the 128x128 icon! In Windows XP, Microsoft encouraged ISVs to use the "new" 128x128 icon size. Many did. And in Windows Vista, they've been orphaned. They're not used.
Would it have really been difficult for Microsoft to downscale 128x128 icons like they do 256x256 ones? As a result, every single program will need an updated icon and every icon made will need an updated version or face being displayed as a stunted looking icon.
It gets even more obnoxious: Even though the icons on your screen are displayed at 96x96 pixels when you choose "large icons" on Windows Vista, it will not use the 96x96 icon that is in there. See here for what I mean.
To sum this up: Windows Vista will display either a down-sized 256x256 icon if you have large icons or it will simply display a 48x48 icon (or 32x32) inside of a box. It will do this even if the icon in question has an exact match for the display size.
Microsoft Decision #3: "Live Folders"
One of the coolest visual parts of Windows Vista in my opinion are the Live Folder Previews. When I look at a selection of folders, I can see some of the files that are inside. It looks really cool.
But on the other hand, it also makes changing folder icons impossible without third-party software if you want to keep the live previews and still change the folder.
Since the Windows 3.0 days, I've liked changing my folder icons. Sometimes I did it for purely cosmetic reasons, other times I did it because I wanted a particular folder to stand out. But on Vista, you lose those live previews.
On Windows Vista, you can change folder icons as follows by right clicking on folder, choose customize and press the change icon button. See here for what I mean.
Now, if you can find a stand-alone icon (because Windows Vista breaks Windows XP .ICL files) you will lose the customization and have an icon that is probably smaller than your other icons.
The Impact
There's no denying that aesthetically, Windows Vista is light-years ahead of Windows XP in the icon department. The icons that come with it are beautiful. And by forcing developers and others to make 256x256 sized icon or have their icons displayed in second class citizen mode will likely result in a much more visually impressive Windows experience for end-users -- eventually.
But during the transition, it means we'll be seeing an awful lot of stunted looking icons on our desktops that, to me, seems completely unnecessary. Ignoring 128x128 icons entirely seems to be a big missed opportunity. The difficulty for users to create and use customized icons on Windows Vista has meant a slow-down in the number of customize Windows icons.
Hardly the end of the world but for those of us who like pretty, consistent icons, it's a bummer at how it was implemented. What's your take? Icons schmicons or do you too like changing your icons around?
Editorial #2. You can see Editorial #1 here. Next Time: Fun with DirectX 10.
If you actually have the time to change the icons on your computer, why not use it better.
http://www.stud.uni-goettingen.de/~s275288...SandvoxIcon.png
It gives full control over which particular icons are displayed and how they are displayed (for example with overlays etc)
Using the worst case of bitmapped art, and using a 256x256 icon as a start point, there really isn't that much extra work for the artist.
For digital artists its a lot better to work on a big image that they can scale down later to use on different things than to actually create the image already scaled down.
I think this was because of so many newbies accidentally corrupting their filetypes. I would at least like a hidden option somewhere in the registry or group policy editor that would allow us to bring File Types back.
Then I saw it was a editorial. I though then: That explains it.
2 crap editorials so far. Keep up the good work Neowin!
I'm sure the other members of the staff would like to write an editorial about something. At least this one didn't have the red border and it didn't stay on the top of the front page way longer than it should have. How about giving other staff members a chance to post an editorial?. If it's going to be the same two guys doing it everytime then it's pointless.
That's just my opinion of course. Now I'm wondering if someone will get mad and say I spend too much time in my basement complaining because they don't know how to take any criticism.
2nd That
I'm sure the other members of the staff would like to write an editorial about something. At least this one didn't have the red border and it didn't stay on the top of the front page way longer than it should have. How about giving other staff members a chance to post an editorial?. If it's going to be the same two guys doing it everytime then it's pointless.
That's just my opinion of course. Now I'm wondering if someone will get mad and say I spend too much time in my basement complaining because they don't know how to take any criticism.
Well, your comment does beg the question of just how petty someone has to be to crap on everything other people do. Maybe that's why people think you live in your basement perhaps?
"Everything", by "other" people? He's just talking of two people on the specific subject of their article writing, and welcomes others to post articles.
And maybe you're skewing your comments to push your agenda?
He wrote an editorial that many people didn't agree with and instead of just taking the criticism and going on with his life he went in and started bashing people. Saying things like they spend too much time in their parents basement complaining on the internet. Others thought it was pretty bad that an admin can bash people lke that all they want, but if a plain member of Neowin had done that they'd be suspended or banned in a heartbeat.
And what's wrong with me wanting to see editorials done by other members of staff? Wouldn't it get a little old seeing a couple editorials a week being done by the same two guys over and over? One who didn't fully understand what he was talking about and another that can't take criticism so he bashes people. Are those two people that you'd like to see constantly writing editorials? Look at the few editorials done soo far. None of them have come out good because of what I'm talking about here.
He wrote an editorial that many people didn't agree with and instead of just taking the criticism and going on with his life he went in and started bashing people. Saying things like they spend too much time in their parents basement complaining on the internet. Others thought it was pretty bad that an admin can bash people lke that all they want, but if a plain member of Neowin had done that they'd be suspended or banned in a heartbeat.
I wrote a news item announcing that Neowin.net would have editorials. That's it.
Here is the news item in question:
http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=41940
Here is the text in its entirety:
We would also like to hear from you. If you have an idea or a technology trend that you would like our editorial take on, drop me a line a brad@neowin.net.
And in response a number of users came on and personally insulted myself and Daniel.
So yes, I think that some of the people who posted nasty comments to such an innoculous news item have too much time on their hands.
Obviously, my comment struck too close to home for some. There is a phrase "Don't dish it out if you can't take it."
Incidentally, nothing is stopping other staff members from making editorials. The comments to the aforementioned news item weren't criticisms, they were juvenille insults directed at me personally.
If you read the two actual editorials I've written, I have not taken issue with any criticism given in the actual editorials.
i didn't know that! cool, thanks
Which is the reason for 256x256 icons, because you can zoom it to that resolution. 128x128 zoomed does not look that good.
That to me is a good improvement, which unfortunately is dumbed down by the stupid bug in Explorer that likes to change my Control Panel icons to 256x256 without my permission.
"Next Time: Fun with DirectX 10."
I don't know if I like reading 'fun' in the sense of an editorial.
my icons all look stunning, i love it.
32*32 lovers: why dont you keep developing such icons, or if you really want em not to look bad, then its prolly no hassle for you to start photoshop, gimp, whatever instead of paint and make some love with lady art...
if you dont want to, dont complain...
things develop, thats the life of technologies
for the consumer side of view:
32*32 icons streched on your desktop? dont like it? well, set the icon view size to 32 then
Glassed Silver:mac
That's half the problem with Vista. About the only thing really improved (and that's DEFINITELY not the correct wording) upon was the eye candy.
I'd be careful to say that the appearance of the shell is the only improvement (albeit objective) in Windows Vista. I've worked with the OS and read enough to know that really the true improvements are under the hood, in the kernel, and how the OS uses memory, graphics memory, and is more secure and stable.
You may think like many people that Vista just looks better and that doesn't matter a rat's a**, which maybe you're right in thinking. But there are plenty of other significant improvements in Vista beyond how it just looks.
And if people want to customize the icons on their desktops for programs, it doesn't mean they have the most boring life in the world, no more so than someone who enjoys putting up artwork in their house or painting the walls a certain color and coordinating that with their furniture and having nice looking dishes, glasses and silverware for their dining room. We don't call those people as not having a life simply because such things aren't necessary to live. It's called aesthetics. And it's not really a bad thing, whether you apply to your home, your car, or in this case, to your computer.
Just my 2 cents...
However, Vista icons....are just the tip of a much bigger story that those of you shooting down the idea of "skinning" them, or even bothering to open your eyes to the issue being presented here... is yet just another excuse for basement rants..... as the movie Hackers quotes "keyboard cowboys". No fish is bigger than another on the net.
The point everyone on the opposing side of the issue is simple. You simply do not understand what artists/enthusiasts are all about.
Icons are an integral part of theming your computer system. "Uber" geeks as some have put it, have spent thousands of dollars on bleeding edge technology to run the operating systems, or their games.... as would a car enthusiast spending all their time remodeling an old 55 Chevy BelAir. You don't just get to a point and say "ok, it's all good..... we don't need to do the interior since 99% of the people driving these days don't give a rat's ass about the seats".
Us "ubers" like to see the system shine on the inside, as well as on the outside, and I for one appreciate the time that Stardock has taken to investigate the intricate details of just how much a pain in the ass Vista is even from a skinners perspective.
I really don't understand Microsoft's thinking on custom icons (some folders can have them, some can't....). I haven't used Vista, and was hoping it would have better, more consistent/logical custom icon support, but this article shows me that Microsoft has again included another feature that could be cool, but has only been implemented in a half-assed way, and works illogically (such not using exisiting icons when they exist at their native size).
That to me is a good improvement, which unfortunately is dumbed down by the stupid bug in Explorer that likes to change my Control Panel icons to 256x256 without my permission.
yeah i like this post..
oyun | zeka oyunları | araba oyunları | çocuk oyunları
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.