Icon Tags - RealWorld forums

Log-in or register.

Icon Tags

Should I be using Windows 7, Windows XP and/or Windows Vista tags?
cdl
on January 9th 2013

Should I be using Windows 7, Windows XP and/or Windows Vista tags?

And which of my options for rendering would you say is the best if I want to make sure everyone (as many people as possible) can use my icons with ease and nice results.

The program I am currently using (sorry not RW) will allow me to render in sizes 256x256, 128x128, 64x64, 48x48, 32x32, 24x24, and 16x16 - ARGB, 256 colors and 16 colors. No option for 512x512 when creating the icons one by one.

I can also batch create (which I usually do not use) in sizes 512x512, 256x256, 128x128, 48x48, 32x32, and 16x16 - 32, 24, 8, 4 and 1 bit. There is no option for 64x64 or 24x24.

Which method would you say is the best given my choices, or should I render sets with double icons to cover as many sizes as possible?

Call me confused, I'd really appreciate some input on this. Thanks!

Vlasta
on January 9th 2013

The main purpose of the tags is to connect related sets. If a tag is set for almost all sets, it does not help to select related sets. So, it is best to use few tags that are highly relevant to the set. Windows XXX should only be used then the set has a special relation to that Windows version -> in very rare cases.

512x512 is not a valid size for Windows .ico files and .ico files with such images are invalid (there may be Mac .icns icons with this size). The web probably would not work correctly, if you tries to upload .ico with 512x512 image (please don't try that).

When selecting sizes for icons, I think, it is best to only stick with the standard sizes: 16, 24, 32, 48 and 256 and leave all the others out. For color depths, I would recommend 32, 8, and 4 bits. Not 24 or 1. An alternative is only using 32 bits - everybody is using truecolor displays these days anyway.

cdl
on January 10th 2013

Thanks for the prompt and most thorough answer to all my questions Vlasta.
I wasn't aware that 512 was not a valid size as the program allows it. Stoopid program.. lol =/
Will try to stick to your recommendations.
Got it now on the tags, will only use the above mentioned in special cases and others routinely sparingly. :-)
Have a great day!

cdl
on January 13th 2013

This thread may also be of use to future viewers:
http://www.rw-designer.com/forum/1154

horsehead
on April 6th 2013

I am using window 7, it is more efficient in comparison to other windows as I see.

khalil2134
on November 23rd 2013

hey

Anonymous
on November 15th 2016

yeah win7 is more efficient and it does support resolutions up to 512X512, as a matter of fact its the highest size available on that OS. BTW.. what ever happened to 96x96 icon resolutions in the program? I'm a one pixel perfectionist, but new to this app. I would like to know any tips any users can share about masks, and mask templates also, if possible.

Vlasta
on November 15th 2016

No, what I said above about the 512x512 size is still valid. It is not officially supported in the Windows .ico format in any current version of Windows. This is still valid and there were no changes regarding .ico format since Windows Vista.

While you can misuse the .ico format and place incorrectly sized PNG inside it, it won't do you any good when you use the file in Windows and there may be compatibility issues. If you want to have a 512x512 image, just use the PNG format.

Page views: 2388       Posts: 8      
Vista & Win 7 icons
What about ICL files?
Select background