The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: Oxygen
by EMP3ROR on Sunday 03/Jun/2007, @15:13
|
Maybe you're right when you compare the two icons, but I think when you look at the whole picture the new ones are better.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Oxygen
by Anon on Sunday 03/Jun/2007, @23:52
|
++
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Oxygen
by Cissou on Monday 04/Jun/2007, @06:33
|
I totally agree!
The previous was a lot better !!
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Oxygen
by Jonathan on Monday 04/Jun/2007, @07:00
|
I totally agree, but it seems the previous version is bigger and more complicated for pcs to render. This means that an old computer would be slower since the icon is shown almost everywhere.
@ Nuno: am I right or is there another explanation?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Oxygen
by Robert Knight on Monday 04/Jun/2007, @11:27
|
The icons are rendered to raster images for the most commonly used sizes ( 16, 22, 32, 64, 128 and in some cases 256 pixels on each side ) and stored in PNG format on disk, so there shouldn't be any difference in the rendering cost. File size will vary slightly depending on the image data.
Complex vector graphics do take longer to render than simple ones, but rendering from the vector 'source' only needs to be done if the icon is required in a non-standard size.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|