Saving OS/2 icons - OS/2 icon format in 2017

[Martin Iturbide]

Hi Joop.

I followed your advice, 24bits and your suggestion resolution (16x16, 20x20, 32x32 and 40x40) and I'm doing fine.  If I add the 128x128 resolution, the icon also works on OS/2. (Saving it as 1.2)

But does anyone notice that if you add some resolution like 64x64, in my case, the icon will no longer render on the desktop and will show the "default icon". Is that something that depends on the video hardware, the driver or everyone else see the same thing?

For example, attached here, "taskbar-2.ico" renders ok, but "taskbar.ico" does not render on the OS/2's desktop. Both can be opened with IconEdit, but only "taskbar-2.ico" is show as a desktop icon.

Regards

[xynixme]

"taskbar.ico" does not render on the OS/2's desktop.

</silence>

It does with another OS/2, but first you'll have to delete the next best matching sizes of (IIRC) 64x64 and 48x48 too. With 16x16, 20x20, 32x32, 40x40 and 128x128 it works as expected. There is an unverified, guessed possibility that 128x128 doesn't match the preferred 40x40, and that the OS selects the next largest size just once. This isn't an expected size, hence a default icon instead of a 64x64 or 40x40 icon. Changing the order of sizes may help.

So apparently a fully working icon file can include the size 128x128, but not all possible sizes of PNG icon files of Unix ports.

<silence>

[xynixme]

Mind that small things are not noticeable, so your icon must consist of simple things which are also recognizable when its 20x20 or 16x16.

</silence>

No, it mustn't. In lazy mode an unmodified image which was nothing but resized may stop being recognizable indeed, but some apps (including IBM's) do use different images for different sizes. If, for example, the brand name "Joop!" looks good in 40x40 mode, then one could use the same font's "J!" in 16x16 mode.

Regarding small details, it can be enough to suggest a shape too, just like a 16x16 "Jeep!" will probably look like a 16x16 "Joop!". An advantage of small sizes is that's harder to notice such a difference too, as long as "Joop!" itself is iconic on its own.

<silence>

[ak120]

So apparently a fully working icon file can include the size 128x128, but not all possible sizes of PNG icon files of Unix ports.

Sorry, that sounds strange. I don't know what you mean by "Unix ports" here. I'm using UNIX daily and no standard window system is using "PNG icon files". The "Icon Editor" in an UNIX desktop environment simply uses xpm files (*.pm) for coloured and xbm (*.bm) for monochrome icons.