Problem with toolbar icons

[Clo]

Clo,

If the icons look like that, then either 1) You're not on XP, or 2) whatever tool you're using does not support XP alpha transparency. The icons look beautiful in XP. You saw my screenshots.
I guess we'll have to wait for Christian to comment...
John

Hi!

…1) You're not on XP,…

Do you think that I'm a moron or a pathological liar? Please, watch this:
Image: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/charries/relais/tc-xp-pro.png
I know what OSs I run in my PCs... The PC under XP-Pro is a 2-CPU Athlon 2000+, a good MB and 1GB of RAM amount.
The PC under XP-Home is my son's laptop, bought six months ago (an ancestor), Pentium IV
If you don't believe me:

• please, take a plane,
  cross over the Ocean,
  and come at home to verify!
  My home-address is easy to find…

…or 2) whatever tool you're using does not support XP alpha transparency.

¤ I didn't extract the first icon from your ICL with such a tool; I worked this my usual PC under Win98 SE, display=32BBP.
But I extracted another using XnView DeLuxe which supports the transparency, and under XP-Pro. I got this:
Image: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/charries/relais/sample-xp.ico
It's a bit better, but not "beautiful"…
Even if you think that I'm getting a bit gaga, I guess still that reduced icons can't look fine. Originals smaller ones would look better, as *.ico files.
Regards,
Claude
Clo

[Lefteous]

2Clo

Even if you think that I'm getting a bit gaga, I guess still that reduced icons can't look fine. Originals smaller ones would look better, as *.ico files.

Please use a tool like Microangelo (trial version downloadable) to take a look at the iconlibrary provided by jjcjrcpa. You'll see it actually contains 24x24 icons.

[Clo]

2Clo

Even if you think that I'm getting a bit gaga, I guess still that reduced icons can't look fine. Originals smaller ones would look better, as *.ico files.

Please use a tool like Microangelo (trial version downloadable) to take a look at the iconlibrary provided by jjcjrcpa. You'll see it actually contains 24x24 icons.

Hello!
¤ Thank you to take care of this problem.
I've already IconWorkShop by Axialis…
- I displayed the contain of John's ICLwith it:
Image: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/charries/relais/j-icl.png
- Note: the screen-shot is only 256-colour…
On this pic, you can see that the most icons exist as 1 or 2 formats... For instance, those I extracted as samples are 16*16 and 32*32 only. But yet, thet are shown on the John's screenshots in 24*24. Hence, the 32*32 is reduced , since TC "sees" only this frame-size.
Using IconWorkShop, I extracted always the same sample, and installed it under XP-Pro ( Yes, I've it!). In the bar, it looks as below (size is set at 32*32, and the installed icon is 32*32):
Image: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/charries/relais/sp3-xp.png
- Note: this screen-shot is 24 BPP. These round motives are not pretty in the bar…
In any case, I guess that Ch. Ghisler'll have something to fix in the button configuration…
It should be great whether TC could support *.TIFF or *.DCX image-collections: they are easy to make, and can contain pics of any size / type. So, all pics would be visible to choose.
What do you think?
Best regards,
friendly,
Claude
Clo

[Lefteous]

2Clo

I've already IconWorkShop by Axialis…
- I displayed the contain of John's ICLwith it:
Image: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/charries/relais/j-icl.png

This is Microangelos raw view:

http://members.fortunecity.de/lefteous/tc/images/misc/johntcicons_microangelo.png

On this pic, you can see that the most icons exist as 1 or 2 formats... For instance, those I extracted as samples are 16*16 and 32*32 only. But yet, thet are shown on the John's screenshots in 24*24. Hence, the 32*32 is reduced , since TC "sees" only this frame-size.

The library is a combined file icons and buttonbar icons library. Only the named (not the numbered) icons are relevant - all these icons contain 2 formats: 16x16 and 24x24.

[jjcjrcpa]

2Clo

The library is a combined file icons and buttonbar icons library. Only the named (not the numbered) icons are relevant - all these icons contain 2 formats: 16x16 and 24x24.

Thank you. It's obvious to me (a programmer) that if it works in 5.5, and doesn't work in 6.0, then something broke in between. Anyway, I'm just waiting for Christian's reply...

Clo: I'm not saying you're a moron, but you're clearly not examining my icl file thoroughly.

John

[ghisler(Author)]

Indeed TC doesn't have special functions for 24x24 icons - I didn't even know that this size exists! I will try to add support for them in one of the next releases. Can someone send me a small icl with 16x16 and 24x24 icons in them by e-mail, please? The file size (zipped) shouldn't be larger than 300k. Thanks!

[Lefteous]

2ghisler(Author)

Shell32.dll (Windows XP) contains many icons that have a 24x24 format. Examples (starting index=1) : 4, 16, 22, 24, 28, 44 and so on.

[jjcjrcpa]

Indeed TC doesn't have special functions for 24x24 icons - I didn't even know that this size exists! I will try to add support for them in one of the next releases. Can someone send me a small icl with 16x16 and 24x24 icons in them by e-mail, please? The file size (zipped) shouldn't be larger than 300k. Thanks!

Christian, my .icl file linked above has both sizes.

John

[vlado]

Hi,

all you discuss icon appearance while resizing it.
But TC 6.0 changes icons even when no resizing necessary!
I'm using 32x32 icons in button bar. My original ICO files are 32x32 too. Their appearance in TC is different from original, they are "smoothed".

Example: original icon, how it is shown in button bar, see difference

This is, I think, result of changes made for TC 6.0, see quote from History.TXT, [User interface] section:

Button bar: Support for 48x48 and 64x64 icons for very high resolution displays, better scaling of sizes between 16 and 32

Scaling algorithms used for TC 6.0 are responsible for your icon's appearance. Smoothing is not appropriate in all cases.

My opinion: icon handling in TC 5.51 was better than it is in 6.0.

My tips for Christian: (1) do not use smoothing or - at least - (2) do not change icons when they are not scaled.

Vlado

[Clo]

2ghisler(Author)

Shell32.dll (Windows XP) contains many icons that have a 24x24 format. Examples (starting index=1) : 4, 16, 22, 24, 28, 44 and so on.

Hello!
¤ A so similar issue - but about file-lists icons- is at:
http://ghisler.ch/board/viewtopic.php?t=2882
I'ld be glad to hear your opinion..
The ICONS WAR isn't ended yet!
Best regards,
friendly,
Clo

[Lefteous]

No other program recognizes the icons correctly and the problem is not TC related, at least not here.

I tried all different apps, IrfanView, XNView, ICO-Plugin and some other apps, they all don't display the 24*24 icons but instead zoom the 16*16 icons, that's why they look so ugly.

Only in Microangelo raw view the 24*24 icons are displayed, in desktop view they are not, so it definetely has something to do with either the ICL or some settings in XP. Maybe we have disabled alpha blending? No idea, sorry.

Icfu

My general answer to this is quite simple. If an application displays 24x24 icons wrong, it's buggy.
Change your icon size in windows control panel to 24x24, start Librarian and change to desktop view....

[Clo]

2Lefteous

[face=arial]

My general answer to this is quite simple. If an application displays 24x24 icons wrong, it's buggy.

Hello!
¤ Rather outdated... In Win9x, such icons didn't exist yet. The programmers are not wizards, they can't predict the future!
Especially when needed documents are distil(l)ed drop by drop from MS.

I asked for an update to the author of XnView. He's and old pen-friend of mine...
Unfortunately, I don't know the authors of other faulty programs...
{ A bit offtopic: I din't get your opinion about multi-page *.TIFF / *.DCX as icon-libraries, whether TC could support them later. Currently, TC can't open such files, it checks the EXE of the program associated with the *.ico file type! Thanks! }
Kind regards,
Claude
Clo [/face]

[icfu]

@Lefteous:
You are right, then the discussion is over I think.

Good that there was an ICL that contains no 32*32 icons otherwise this bug wouldn't have been discovered.

I wonder why so much apps are buggy then, really hard to believe...

Icfu