1. The default terminal window size is still 80 columns by 24 rows. This still gives a size of the approzimate 4*3 ratio. There is no reason to change this size.
2. Icons are still 128*128 in size. The closer to the shape of a square the icon is, the more area you maximize from the total available area. Would the icon really look any better if it was short and squatty? I don't think so. Note that a lot of Apple's "utility" icons are very close to the square shape.
ONLY on a mac would people talk about an ICON :eek: :eek: LMAO <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> :eek:
Comments
1. The default terminal window size is still 80 columns by 24 rows. This still gives a size of the approzimate 4*3 ratio. There is no reason to change this size.
2. Icons are still 128*128 in size. The closer to the shape of a square the icon is, the more area you maximize from the total available area. Would the icon really look any better if it was short and squatty? I don't think so. Note that a lot of Apple's "utility" icons are very close to the square shape.
Frank_t
<strong>ONLY on a mac would people talk about an ICON</strong><hr></blockquote>
And it shows that Microsoft doesn't care about icons on Windows.
Seriously, due to Apple having switched, and still doing, it seems logically to update all icons to widescreens..
Oh.. My mac has spoiled my!