Why don't GNOME/KDE/others use a seperate icon filetype?

[Whiffle]

Why limit yourself to the finite number of sizes you can stick in an ico file, when you can use an svg and have any and every size, with no increased demand on memory?

Multiple size directories with png's are easily dealt with a script, and perform the same thing as having multiple sizes in an ico file, without having a specialized editor/file format.

I guess I just don't see what advantage there is to something like an ico format.

[Perfect Storm]

I like how it is now. Morely (is that word?) because I custom diffrent sets of icons depending on their sizes. I uses diffren types of icons for 16x16 and 22x22 because (most) stylish icons looks bad at that size. Therefore changed them to something simpler and cleaner for that sizes.


Here's what I'm talking about; http://www.imageviper.com/displayima...-290809-02.png
Note the system tray icons. They are simple compared the rest.

[JillSwift]

Vector graphics, by definition, scale infinitely

In the context of vectors, yes.

But as those vectors must be rasterized, you bump into the problem of aliasing at smaller sizes. That's what I mean when I say "well enough", the smaller sizes occasionally leave a little something to be desired.

[JillSwift]

If your system runs slower because it has to render .ico instead of .svg you really really REALLY need a new computer. 1 MB more or less system-wide does not matter in 2009.

And I don't know what's meant with "special editor". It's only special because no one has made it yet. Mac OS comes with all the tools (except an actual image editor like PS or GIMP) to view icons in different sizes and compose them together. Windows fails with the preinstalled software, like always.

I don't see why these "special editors" are somehow impossible to develop for Linux.

Never assume that a megabyte means nothing in any day and age. Being efficient means being supportive of more platforms.

Those special editors are in no way impossible, and no one made that claim. The question is: Why bother when the current system works just dandy and with less effort?

[insane_alien]

thats what anti-aliasing is all about.

[Wolki]

thats what anti-aliasing is all about.

But it makes things look blurry, especially at small sizes. See for example http://www.firewheeldesign.com/spark..._vs_vector.php

[Skripka]

In the context of vectors, yes.

But as those vectors must be rasterized, you bump into the problem of aliasing at smaller sizes. That's what I mean when I say "well enough", the smaller sizes occasionally leave a little something to be desired.

That is when ya need to get a bigger & better LCD panel, grasshopper. That ain't a problem with your SVG icons, that is a hardware limitation imposed on them.

[JillSwift]

That is when ya need to get a bigger & better LCD panel, grasshopper. That ain't a problem with your SVG icons, that is a hardware limitation imposed on them.

Alternatively, I could just not wear my glasses. Then they'd be blurry at every size and I'd have no reason to complain

[MaxIBoy]

I know Haiku has a vector format which is optimized to be efficient for small images. One of the developers put it this way (more or less, I can't remember exactly how he phrased it.) "If you use it for icons, it's fine, but if you use it for anything big with lots of detail, it's going to suck, big time." It was in a Google Tech Talk video, you could look it up if you wanted to.

So there's a pre-existing format for these.

However, I think that, in most cases, the benefits of using an existing standard outweigh the benefits of creating "yet another format." And with OpenVG soon to be hardware-accelerated in many video drivers, the overhead of rendering SVG will soon be negligible.

[days_of_ruin]

I'd like to know why they don't just use .svgs by default and get rid of all those redundant .png and .xpm icons in different sizes.

Because scaling an svg to small sizes looks like CRAP.