gnome Gnome 3.8 to get new folder icons

[.Neo]

IIRC Gnome had the side panel before Finder did, I'm sure some Tuxxer here could prove me wrong though (or right).

Nautilus as it shipped with GNOME 2.6 in 2004 doesn't seem to have a sidebar, at least not by default. Apple introduced the Finder sidebar in 2003 as part of Mac OS X 10.3 Panther.

https://help.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/2.6/

[threetonesun]

Nautilus as it shipped with GNOME 2.6 in 2004 doesn't seem to have a sidebar, at least not by default. Apple introduced the Finder sidebar in 2003 as part of Mac OS X 10.3 Panther.

https://help.gnome.o...ease-notes/2.6/

it shows up in some form here in 2.24 (with tab support too), also released in 2003.

Anyway, it never struck me that Gnome was aping OSX, they both just seem like a logical way to make a non-Windows file manager.

[.Neo]

Having a way to store frequently accessed locations seems logical to begin with and something I would want in any OS. Although with recent GNOME iterations it does become extremely obvious they're going after the Finder's design. :p

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

I think the main problem is the usage of SVG files for icons. While vectors offer great scalability the images tend to be lacking in details giving them that fake computer rendered appearance. If you're purely going for simple symbols like the OS X menu bar / toolbar icons or Windows (Phone) 8 Metro that's not an issue. If you're going for a more realistic look it does become a problem.

I'm guessing it will be next to impossible to fully recreate this as a vector:

That is mostly vector anyway, the only thing that wouldn't be is the "recylcled paper" texture (And that would be because it's simply easier to handle that as a raster, doing it as a procedural texture is harder to create + more computationally complex)

You don't want icons using SVG filters basically, they're slow and if you end up rasterising icons on the GPU you're doing something wrong.

Edit: Everybody is using vector icons, the difference is that KDE/Gnome support them natively, you don't have to rasterise them first like on OS X or Windows.

[.Neo]

That is mostly vector anyway, the only thing that wouldn't be is the "recylcled paper" texture (And that would be because it's simply easier to handle that as a raster, doing it as a procedural texture is harder to create + more computationally complex)

Yes, and it were those exact details I was referring to... Without the recycled paper texture you would end up with a highly computer generated appearance like the folders in the original post.

Edit: Everybody is using vector icons, the difference is that KDE/Gnome support them natively, you don't have to rasterise them first like on OS X or Windows.

Like I already said "everybody using vector icons" is correct to a certain degree: With OS X icons the base is done in vector but a lot of details are then later added rasterized, meaning you don't have a fully vectorized icon. On Linux it's pure vector which explains why all icons lack detail.

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

Linux DE's can still use raster icons too, it's just that vector ones are more flexible.

[.Neo]

Linux DE's can still use raster icons too, it's just that vector ones are more flexible.

While vectors offer great scalability the images tend to be lacking in details [?]

It's a tradeoff you make.

[ichi]

I think the main problem is the usage of SVG files for icons. While vectors offer great scalability the images tend to be lacking in details giving them that fake computer rendered appearance. If you're purely going for simple symbols like the OS X menu bar / toolbar icons or Windows (Phone) 8 Metro that's not an issue. If you're going for a more realistic look it does become a problem.

I'm guessing it will be next to impossible to fully recreate this as a vector:

Google for photorealistic vector images.

On a more simple scale, Faenza has some fairly detailed svg icons.

[.Neo]

Google for photorealistic vector images.

It's feasible to use vector icons with that level of detail?

On a more simple scale, Faenza has some fairly detailed svg icons.

At smaller sizes maybe.

[HawkMan]

Yes, and it were those exact details I was referring to... Without the recycled paper texture you would end up with a highly computer generated appearance like the folders in the original post.

Except in ALL normally viewable sized of that icon, the recycled paper look is gone as it's to small, and it looks just fine. The graphics and gradients which are part of the gradient are enough. we don't need the skeuomophism to make icons look good, I'd say it'd look better without the lame procedural cell texture. and contrary to what the decryptor said, the cell procedural is very easy on resources and if that is part of the vector standard and can be rendered live, then in fact it would render fine live without needing much resources, but again, at icons sizes, totally useless. never mind you only render it once when you resize the icon anyway. procedurals are the least intensive ways to add super high res detail to textures in games, live rendered and animated. But as far as I know procedurals are not part of the live SVG renderer, but I haven't checked.

It's feasible to use vector icons with that level of detail?

At smaller sizes maybe.

The question is really, is it feasable to have so many details in an icon that a vector isn't MORE than good enough. they're icons, not photos. they're supposed to be simplistic and symbolic iconography, but yes, you can make highly detailed SVG Icons.

[HawkMan]

The problem doesn't really lie in detail level of vector icons as they can be extremely detailed, even textured if the texture is packaged with it, or it has the procedural as part of the renderer.

The problem with vectors is that, sure they scale infinitely, that doesn't mean a scaled icon looks good. and as you scale the icon down to normal usage sizes you WILL need to redraw it for that size or it's just a big mess. So you might as well just distribute them as rasters to start with, then you have full control of quality, and the big ones scale just as well down as vectors until you reach the next step down anyway, sometimes even better depending on how the vector is made.

http://www.pushing-pixels.org/2011/11/04/about-those-vector-icons.html old ish, but still valid.

[.Neo]

Except in ALL normally viewable sized of that icon, the recycled paper look is gone as it's to small, and it looks just fine.

Except what you're saying is plain nonsense. The effect is clearly visible in Stacks, Quick Look, Cover Flow, etc. On the MacBook Pro Retina you can even see it in Finder icon view at default size settings.

The graphics and gradients which are part of the gradient are enough. we don't need the skeuomophism to make icons look good, I'd say it'd look better without the lame procedural cell texture.

In the case of OS X vs most Linux distro's I'd say the photorealistic icons make the interface appear more inviting and a lot less sterile.

The question is really, is it feasable to have so many details in an icon that a vector isn't MORE than good enough. they're icons, not photos. they're supposed to be simplistic and symbolic iconography, but yes, you can make highly detailed SVG Icons.

In an operating system that shows large sizes in many areas details are needed, yes. So what they're supposed to look like is entirely dependent on the kind of interface you have. It's best to have either a lot of details at larger sizes (Aqua) or none at all (Metro).

[HawkMan]

I'm sorry but there's NOTHING photorealistic about that folder icon, that lame cell procedural texture does not make an obviously computer drawn folder photoreal. personally I like it better clean without the horrible cell texture.

The only ever good use of the cell procedural is to make starfields. it's the most ugly useless procedural ever created,

[.Neo]

I'm sorry but there's NOTHING photorealistic about that folder icon, that lame cell procedural texture does not make an obviously computer drawn folder photoreal. personally I like it better clean without the horrible cell texture.

I was talking about the OS X icons in general, which are considered to be photorealistic. Up to a certain degree of course. IMO the worst icon that ships with OS X is Photo Booth. It's a perfect example of how bad icons look at larger sizes when lacking detail:

[bandit_liberty_rumble]

In the case of OS X vs most Linux distro's I'd say the photorealistic icons make the interface appear more inviting and a lot less sterile.

One thing's for sure. The folder icons in OS X are the most eco-friendly around! :) (Y) :rainbow:

[.Neo]

One thing's for sure. The folder icons in OS X are the most eco-friendly around! :) (Y) :rainbow:

Haha true. :rofl: Don't forget the System Preferences Energy Saver icon! Apple actually updated that one back in 2011 from a standard light bulb to a CFL. :laugh:

[Haggis Veteran]

what color of icons would be best?

[Karl L.]

what color of icons would be best?

For GNOME? Definitely blue. I often use the GNOME Brave icon theme; its one of my favorites, if not my absolute favorite.

[ichi]

It's feasible to use vector icons with that level of detail?

Feasible? Sure, why not. It's all up to how much time and skill you have when drawing your icon set.

Would this kind of level of detail be enough?

At smaller sizes maybe.

You could add more detail but equivalent PNG folder icons are usually 96x96px at most anyway.

[HawkMan]

I was talking about the OS X icons in general, which are considered to be photorealistic. Up to a certain degree of course. IMO the worst icon that ships with OS X is Photo Booth. It's a perfect example of how bad icons look at larger sizes when lacking detail:

That large icon example is about 10 times bigger than a large icon should be, at one fifth of that it would still be more than big enough for any icon usage.

[.Neo]

That large icon example is about 10 times bigger than a large icon should be, at one fifth of that it would still be more than big enough for any icon usage.

The icon is 1024 x 1024 pixels. At ten times smaller it's maximum size would be about 102 x 102 pixels. That isn't enough for Quick Look or full Dock magnification on non-Retina Macs. Never mind the MacBook Pro with Retina screen which requires (off the top of my head) 128 x 128 pixels for the default icon size in Finder. At 205 x 205 pixels you won't have enough to support Dock magnification on said MacBook Pro with Retina screen either.

Feasible? Sure, why not. It's all up to how much time and skill you have when drawing your icon set.

I meant is it feasible for the OS to render an icon that detailed as a vector? The more details a vector image has the longer it takes to load in Adobe Illustrator (per example). I imagine something similar will happen within the OS when you have to load a complex vectorized icon. That said Adobe Illustrator isn't exactly fully optimized for today's hardware, so maybe it's different in software that is. :p

[HawkMan]

wouldn't matter, the OS at the core while it supports vectors would probably rasterize the icon anyway. for something like the dock, it would probably rasterize a dock size and a magnified version to keep in memory, and simply scale the large rasterized version. looks the same and is a lot less resource intensive.

as for details, the OS could probably handle it, it might take some resource during the loading of the vector and possibly during the scaling, but should be manageable, especially for more realistic examples of iconography, like the folder icon, even with the silly recycle spots included as vectors. though it makes more sense to package them as a texture.

[.Neo]

What you're saying, I see no gain whatsoever over just including rasterized icons and increasing the maximum image size once in a while like Apple has been doing. In fact it's seems like more trouble.

[HawkMan]

Because vector icons are as I've said and as the link I gave earlier showed, impractical on several levels, and because as you change size, you simply can't use the same vector for every size. And the rasters use less resources to do the same and look the same.

[simonlang]

Still poopy brown instead of the nicer yellower folder in windows 7/8

and so what? if you don't like it then use windows. or change the icons. globally. it's no big deal with linux but i am not so sure about that crappy windows. it probably still needs a costly software or heavy tweaking to change the icons globally. :s

also there are so many awesome icon sets out for linux. i think the windows icons look lame instead.