Koopie Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 (edited) Am I the only one who thinks this 2d icons looks ugly? They are used on almost all dialogs and explorer windows. Why can just they use the "3d" ones? Edited September 21, 2006 by Koopie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Natan Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Are those 3d icons from older betas? I don't have Vista installed now, and I don't remember what the icons are... You are right, though, the 3d icons look much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batfink Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Wow... Welcome to NT4! Those 2d Icon's are fugly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bamsebjørn Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 I like the 2D ones better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daninku Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 3D icons look much better than 2D, they're still clear even if they're small, so I don't see the reason why they're using 2D in explorer! Did they change from 3D to 2D lately? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Anthony Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 do you mean 16 vs 32 bit icons ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koopie Posted September 21, 2006 Author Share Posted September 21, 2006 They are from RC1. Just use control+wheel and see the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeeZuZz Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 In that low resolution, i think the 2D ones looks clearer. The 3D ones are really unclear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzla Veteran Posted September 21, 2006 Veteran Share Posted September 21, 2006 For claritys sake the 2D icons are better. 16x16 icons should always be as legible as possible, especially with higher and higher DPI screens coming out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis W. Veteran Posted September 21, 2006 Veteran Share Posted September 21, 2006 For claritys sake the 2D icons are better. 16x16 icons should always be as legible as possible, especially with higher and higher DPI screens coming out. Definitely correct. It is though a small error on Microsoft's part to scale down the 32x32 icon when scaling between 16x16 and 32x32. Nevertheless, those downsampled icons still look pretty clear, but not as clear as having a straight-forward perspective for such a small icon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.M.K Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 The 3D look alot better then the 2D icons but I still reckon the 3D icons can look better again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malisk Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 I think this is a good decision. 2D for the small variants, 3D for the large ones. If you compare e.g. the Network icon above, I think the 2D one is much more clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julius Caro Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 I like the 2D much better, minus the control panel. I thought it was pretty much stablished that scaling down the big icons to 16x16 is a big mistake, since they become very unclear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhangm Supervisor Posted September 22, 2006 Supervisor Share Posted September 22, 2006 The 2D icons are specifically made to be displayed at 16x16px. They have enhanced contrast and use the limited pixel space more effectively than the large icons. While larger icons (72x72) can afford to be realistic, smaller icons should stick to simple, clear symbols. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikyouCrow Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 i can't remember how this is supposed to work really but the smaller an icon gets the more head-on the appearence is supposed to be. it's just the 'same' 3d icon 'rotated' another few degrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1Frothy Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 I prefer the 2d ones. They look clearer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsciiSmoke Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 I really hate the new icons in Vista, especially the new Recycle Bin icon which is almost invisible against some backgrounds. I'd rather have the old XP ones, hopefully the RTM release will have some alternatives (not just some crappy dinosaur or wizard ones) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Natan Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 I really hate the new icons in Vista, especially the new Recycle Bin icon which is almost invisible against some backgrounds. I'd rather have the old XP ones, hopefully the RTM release will have some alternatives (not just some crappy dinosaur or wizard ones) Don't worry... IconPackager will come out for Vista eventualy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linkinfamous Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Look at those 3d icons on a 15.4" laptop screen at 1920x1200 and see if your opinion changes. ;) The 2d ones are without a doubt clearer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemo Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 i personally like the 2D ones more... they seem more minimal and less flashy.. I like that... but yeah, the definately do look much better than the 3D ones at the lower resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts