Address bar + Vista integration

[sztihamer]

sztihamer, I'm really sure that icon took 1.5 MB in mentioned by me piece of software, it doesn't matter if it is compressed or not, its just a fact.

I don't see any need in 256x256 icons. Why icons must be big? Icon is a small picture that allows to identify an application, I don't understand 256x256 icons at all, even 48x48 is quite enough to identify an application. The only legal place for big icons is huge thumb view in Explorer, but it is useful for folders with images or videos, but not for folders with applications or links. So why do we need such huge icons?

And yes, I really like small programs. I don't like programs that take GBs of space and allows less than ones that take much less space. Just remember that large EXE/DLLs require both HDD and memory.

It was just a suggestion, not begging... And yes, big icons would be a plus if you have a touchscreen tablet, that it's not that all bad. For instance somebody have sausage finger, like most of us have. Big fingers and small icons it's just a nightmare. Imagine an Android phone having a very tiny touchscreen with some small icons. I don't know, but when I have to tap very small things on the screen I accidentally tap on other things that I didn't wanted too. But we are talking about desktop computers I know. Also it's much nicer to have a larger icon, just looks much more natural.

Also Microsoft with Windows 8 is now trying to kill the desktop with the new Metro interface. It's developed with touch in mind. So I plan to purchase a Windows 8 tablet in the near future and I would still like to use Total Commander in the near future. And on a tablet, I think you need precision to tap things. If you set the desktop icons much bigger then it would be easier to start applications. Sure you can do that even today, but try doing it now with a Total Commander shortcut on your desktop, and fill it up with some of the programs I mentioned before. Wouldn't it look much nicer if it would be the same just like the others?

Now you are also afraid of memory usage now. You can have a lot of useless stuff running in the background, that eats up your ram, and sits on your startup folder, and runs every time you power on your computer and stuff that most likely don't even use. A couple KB of more memory doesn't make Total Commander slower, and it's just an icon file. It doesn't do pretty much anything. It just sits there. The only time you see it is when you launch the program, and in the titlebar. That's all.

Computers nowadays have more than enough memory to handle that. I don't see that a problem, unless you are still running on 256MB or memory. Also if you care that much about memory consumption that means you are paranoid. You can have your browser filled up with 10-15 or 20 tabs open, that uses more than 600-700MB of memory, but you are worried about a couple more KB of usage. That's just wrong.

[ghisler(Author)]

2sztihamer
Make sure to get a tablet with an Intel or AMD processor. Tablets with ARM processors will only support Metro apps, and there will be no Metro version of Total Commander. To my knowledge, Metro apps don't even have access to the file system, so it would be pointless anyway.

[sztihamer]

2sztihamer
Make sure to get a tablet with an Intel or AMD processor. Tablets with ARM processors will only support Metro apps, and there will be no Metro version of Total Commander. To my knowledge, Metro apps don't even have access to the file system, so it would be pointless anyway.

I plan to get an x86 one if a hardware manufacture decides to make one. I'm sure that Intel and Microsoft figure that out, but if they don't there are many more alternatives out there. I will just get a cheap Chinese Intel Atom tablet, and I will install a retail copy of Windows 8 on it. Problem solved. I will be able to use x86 applications just like before. And Total Commander would not be an issue for the tablet I guess. It would run as smooth as on a desktop computer. I saw some convertibles that were demoed at the Windows 8 Consumer Preview keynote, and that would be another great option. I will able to use that machine as a tablet or a laptop.

The only problem now is that Total Commander can't be in the Windows Store, because it needs to be build with Microsoft tools, and Total Commander is written in Delphi 2 / Lazarus (Free Pascal). But oh well I can live with that, I like third-party applications.

Edit: MVV can you please name that application that you are talking about? I would love to rip it apart with my tools and check the icons file size
Thanks!

[MVV]

I think it is a good programming style to keep programs compact. But I won't discuss it, if you don't think about it you won't understand.

If I remember it right, it was Deus Ex 2027 starter. Yes, checked it now, 1605K icon file.

[sztihamer]

I think it is a good programming style to keep programs compact. But I won't discuss it, if you don't think about it you won't understand.

If I remember it right, it was Deus Ex 2027 starter. Yes, checked it now, 1605K icon file.

That's just a mod, and the only one who can blame it's the mod developer. We are not talking about gaming, Total Commander is a file manager. I checked the executable, and what I see is that the guy who compiled it used "Microsoft Visual C# / Basic .NET". Also you are just wrong about the size. You are talking now about all the icons in the executable. There are actually 10 icons in it.

http://i.imgur.com/Wg2Qs.png
16x16 24x24 32x32 48x48 64x64 96x96 128x128 192x192 256x256 512x512

These are the sizes that are available. Now cut me a break we are talking about 256x256 pixel icons. You are talking about icon sets. The total file size of all 10 icons is 1.57MB (1,644,172 bytes). So yeah... Now check the image I posted on imgur above for the file sizes. The 10th icon it's 512x512 pixel ico. It's a waste of space, because Windows Vista/7/8 icons have a maximum size of 256x256 pixels. That icon it's a waste of 1.03MB, and nobody asked for that big icon.

Next on the list is 256x256. 264.04KB It can be optimized for sure, and that's the maximum icon size. Which is not that big, that's why I asked what application uses that much space for a 256x256 icon.

The only ones that are missing from Total Commander are 64x64 96x96 128x128 192x192 256x256. That can be approx. 400KB-450KB in file size, because the ones that are already included does not count, they would not be changed.

Adding some icons to Total Commander will not affect performance, it will be just the same, just a tiny bit larger in file size. Maybe a couple KB more memory usage, but that's all. You are just paranoid MVV, that's all I have to say. That's your opinion that you wouldn't like 256x256 icons, but what about other peoples opinion? What about Christian's opinion? I haven't heard their opinions about this situation.

So yeah, this one what not coded with brains, with small file size in mind. Total Commander however is coded by a genius!

[MVV]

I gave you an example of waste of size, file has only one icon, but icon contains 10 images. Anyway I don't see any practical need in icons for applications greater than 48x48. I see that you can't understand people that prefer usability to glamour. I'm using only classic Windows themes, 16x16 icons in TC and Explorer, 32x32 icons on Desktop. Just because it is more useful.

[sztihamer]

I gave you an example of waste of size, file has only one icon, but icon contains 10 images. Anyway I don't see any practical need in icons for applications greater than 48x48. I see that you can't understand people that prefer practicalness to glamour.

So yeah. If a person does not have as many posts like you, that doesn't mean that a person is stupid. Keep that in mind. I'm just as knowledgeable just like other people can be, even if the person is a newbie on a forum or other community. Feedback is always welcome, but you just bash other people if you don't like something or you are afraid of changes. I just tried to explain to you how that this can be useful, but every single reason I gave you, you just keep hurting other people feelings. I did my research thoroughly, and gave many reasons why this can be helpful, or how the product can be made better. If you don't agree that's fine. Most of other people will argue the same, and that's ok to me, because haters going to hate.

If this change going to be implemented, you can use Total Commander, just like before. Even if you are still running Windows XP. That operating system is outdated now, and it has more security holes than a sponge. I'm not asking to change the icon to a completely different one. The same icon would be on your desktop just like before, the only difference would be larger icon for the ones who use Windows Vista/7/8. You need to let go the past, if you would like to keep up with the future.

Let's wait until Christian replies to the topic, and not battle with each other. If he didn't want to add these, I will not bother with this anymore. It's his choice. I think the best solution would be to set up a poll in the appropriate section of the forum. Because nobody giving feedback other you and I.

Have a nice day!

Edit:

I'm using only classic Windows themes, 16x16 icons in TC and Explorer, 32x32 icons on Desktop. Just because it is more useful.

If the rest of the icons would be added in the future, you will not notice anything in terms of icon size. The same icons would be available just like in the past. So you can use however you would like. And I could use the way I would like, and many others. At least give people the option, so everybody could benefit from it. And others can do customize it to their own liking.

[MVV]

Number of posts doesn't matter. I just wanted to see some reasons for such large icons in a Windows file manager's executable, but the only argument you gave is the screenshot of Explorer's delete dialog (which won't be seen by user if he likes the software). In case of touch-screens I doubt that 256x256 icons will fit on it, they will take too much screen space (as I see, even iPad uses icons not greater than 144x144).

And, I'm using Windows 7x64.

[sztihamer]

Number of posts doesn't matter. I just wanted to see some reasons for such large icons in a file manager's executable, but the only argument you gave is the screenshot of Explorer's delete dialog (which won't be seen by user if he likes the software).

And, I'm using Windows 7x64.

Excuse me? Those screenshot were provided just for the proof of the executable sizes for you. Just to proof what I'm talking about all day long. I didn't said anything about that. Most likely you didn't read all the post, or just went ahead and just looked at the screenshots only. If that's the case, I recommend you to read everything what I said, because there's a reason why I did all that much of typing, and I wanted to say something by that. I gave reasons, just read them up. I read all your posts in this topic from the beginning to the end, and then replied. If that's not the case, then I apologize. The fact is that other people can get the features that they would like, but I can't ask for something, because I will get bashed, because you think that my opinion it's rubbish. Why can't we just agree with each other? Why bashing other innocent people? They question is why? I'm just trying to be nice here, and to socialize with other Total Commander members. If someone would love to have something, why can't you accept that? And why always have to the be way you would like?

Edit: You keep editing your posts! Nobody talked about the iPad, I don't know why you mentioned it. I would like to tell you that Mac OS X uses even larger icon sizes. That's right man. 512x512 icons. You are a very selfish person. You don't even care if a person has eye sight problems, and wears glasses. The only thing that it counts to you that you are healthy. You are still not understanding my arguments why this would we good, you only care about a couple kilobytes, and nothing else. We shouldn't fight for a minor change, in which both of us can benefit. And not only you and I. Millions of people across the entire world.

[gmb]

If you realy want 256x256 icon, just download ICO file from http://www.softicons.com/free-icons/application-icons/mega-pack-icons-1-by-nikolay-verin/total-commander-icon
And that's it.

[sztihamer]

If you realy want 256x256 icon, just download ICO file from http://www.softicons.com/free-icons/application-icons/mega-pack-icons-1-by-nikolay-verin/total-commander-icon
And that's it.

I don't like the look of that icon. It's too modern, and the smaller icons looks horrible! Also Total Commander would never get that icon, unless someone comes up with a brand new one that everybody likes and would give the rights to the developer. I'm thinking of making a 256x256 icon by scaling up the current one and make it look as much as good the original, that resembles the original!

[sekular]

The icon realy looks perfectly fine and i have dell 24" monitor at 1920x1200. If you want a different icon then you can change it.

[Balderstrom]

Here's an .ico with: 16x16, 32x32, 48x48, 64x64; 128x128 - based on the existing TC icon with a number of filters applied to make the resize to 256 look better.

Icon filesize is 111kb. The 256x256 png is ~54Kb by itself.

Uploaded to my server: tc-newIcon.ico
Rightclick, and choose save-as. Seems like Opera and possibly others attempt to view .ico files.

[Balderstrom]

Nixed file Encode, it didn't work.

[Balderstrom]

Converted to Rar (I don't have or use 7zip). As per request on next page.

Reduced to 2 Posts instead of 3.

Was surprised the PNG compressed though...