What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
96 Comments
- RubberbandLN6, on 10/12/2007, -10/+90I know, Get a Mac, and I will eventually. I have to ask though, does everything on OS X have to look so...good? I mean, almost every OS X icon looks as if you want to click it thousands of times. Why can't there be any really sleek, slick, nice looking icons, or even programs for the PC? Is good design only limited to the Mac or am I just looking in all the wrong places.
- eddyc, on 10/12/2007, -11/+60I think its because the user base for Macs and Windows PC's is quite different, Macs seem to be used mostly by students and creative proffesionals, pro-audio, pro-video etc.. and PCs are used mostly by businesses and lay users who probably couldnt care less about the ui as long as it worked, Mac users seem to have a better appreciation of the aesthetics in their OS I suppose
- phil.busch, on 10/12/2007, -10/+55Yes, they are so *****. I hate my macbook. I'm so mad I spent a little extra on a machine that runs OS X and doesn't get viruses or spyware (and looks sweet on top of that), and it runs Windows or Linux for when I need a specific program that only runs on those OSs.
Damn, my mac sucks!
/sarcasm ftw! - chesterton, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37Good design needs to be inspired by the passion of the designers. The Mac, for whatever reason, inspires a lot of passion in its users. Windows, for whatever reason, does not. Icons and screen candy in Windows *could* look better, but when you compare it with the icons Microsoft supplies, the standard is left pretty low. The icons Apple supplies sets the standard high, and the designers out there rise to the challenge.
- trunkster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26OS X can scale images (I forgot what the technology was called) which Windows cannot do. Which allows the images to reach high definition, compared to Windows which the max is 96 x 96 pixels?
Also probably the main reason is that most graphic artists own Macs, so they like to make icons for themselves ;) - nathanmock, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24Mirrored:
http://www.aberrant.us/mirror/macosxicons - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+28@do0m
From someone who uses a "chilidish, poorly designed OS", you will recieve a "chilidish, poorly designed" comeback.
You suck. - coolbru, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21It may be of interest to note that many of the icons in Windows XP were designed by the usually Mac-centric IconFactory: http://design.iconfactory.com/pages/winicon/winicon.html
- coolbru, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18OS X doesn't (yet) have scalable icons in the sense of them being vector-based, but it does have high-quality scaling algorithms that are used at every opportunity (try turning dock magnification on and move your mouse slowly across it - no nasty scaling glitching at all) so that when you do scale bitmaps, it doesn't look like crap. See Windows for an alternative implementation ;^) That everything is at least double-buffered helps keep all the movement smooth too - see Windows' 'Marquee' screen saver for the opposite extreme!
I'm fairly sure that the largest icon size in OS X is now 512 pixels square, which is probably enough until we get 1200dpi displays ;^).
I think I'm also right in saying that Quartz 2D Extreme (not to be confused with Quartz Extreme) is still not enabled in 10.4, so perhaps we should expect a major increase in speed and quality in 10.5. - yokat, on 10/12/2007, -10/+24proof that someone ^ has no taste.
- blueblood, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19well I'm a PC user so i know little about the standard of Mac icons. however they are hi rez compared to PC icons so i was speaking from that perspective.
- adodaro, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19If macs were only built to last "4 years" as you claim, then why are most macs going to be compatable with OS X Tiger when it comes out, while most PC's on the market today won't be capable of running Vista? Mac users pay extra because they want a nicely designed, beautiful computer that just works.
And about loading OSX on your dull box --- that's software piracy, according to the OSX EULA. Something most mac users don't do. Maybe it's the fact that many people are tinkering around installing OSX on their PC's prove that OSX is indeed one great force to be reckoned with? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+18Blocked!
- phil.busch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Minimalist look isn't bad sometimes. I used to do it with lite step on PC. I liked it there, but for some reason I like the "shinnyness" of my mac.
- smhill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11They are making a ton of money now on their hardware, lowering prices to compete with dell's base line toy doesn't make much sense.
Compare the $600 Dell with the $1100 MacBook. You'll see they aren't even in the same ballpark. To get a similar machine from Dell you will pay roughly the same price.
Macs are not that much more expensive than PCs anymore (not comparably equipped ones), if at all. And in the grand scheme of things, the price is negligible. Given how often most of us use our computers and how much value they provide and how long they last, a couple of hundred bucks (if that) is nothing. Price differences in cars are much more dramatic. Saving a 5-10 bucks a month on a cell provider is the same (over time). A cheaper ISP, or watching your electricity usage or have a more fuel efficient car or cheaper rent/refinancing all would save you more money.
I dunno, worrying about 200-300 bucks in a one time chunk that will last years doesn't qualify to me as "expensive". $1000 difference, maybe, but not that. - eddyc, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15Yeah XP and earlier have set icon sizes, I think KDE/Gnome and OSX are the only OS's that can scale icons, I think in future mac os's the icons will probably be vector based
- m99stump, on 07/29/2008, -2/+10They are (sadly) in .sit file which requires Stuffit Expander... a big pain in the ass, I really wish people would dump the format like Apple did in favor of the standard zip.
- adodaro, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16and why is that exactly? don't be an ass.
- Yogurth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9You need program that opens .sit files called stuffit expander. It's completely free for both Mac and Windows.
http://www.stuffit.com/win/expander/index.html
http://www.stuffit.com/mac/expander/ - Twango, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8After years of seeing PC-only stuff ALL over the net (e.g. people not bothering to mention downloads were PC programs) ... Boo Hoo.
- garyg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Thanks for the digg but all the traffic has shut my site down. Come back in a couple weeks!
For everyone who downloaded some of my icons and doesn't have Stuffit Expander I apologize for not getting around to re-archiving everything as .zips. I spend my spare time doing icons and not much of it on site maintenance (ergo my simplistic website design).
Cheers. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@ trunkster
Windows Vista can absolutely scale icons. - JAppi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9An ATI chip is usually called a GPU. Where as Intel makes CPUs
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7> They are (sadly) in .sit file which requires Stuffit Expander... a big
> pain in the ass, I really wish people would dump the format like
> Apple did in favor of the standard zip.
I looks like the newer icons are compressed with zip rather than Stuffit.
The icons are stored in the resource fork of the file, something that Zip archives do not natively support. Since 10.3 Apple has supported resource forks in Zip files, but if these icons were created prior to 10.3 then the author would have been forced to use Stuffit. - webscoper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"Dugg down, seriously if you know a cheaper and safer way, please tell me, I actually want to know"
Mac mini @ $600 - muyuu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The license is a killer... for personal usage, I really don't care. If I could use them for my apps or my web, that would be nice. So no digg I guess.
Good job anyway. - eddyc, on 10/12/2007, -11/+15My Os is better than yours!!! seriously ,who gives a *****
- brianmost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I wish at least other .Mac subscribers could still see it. Then at least I'd be getting *something* other than keyring and bookmark syncing for $99/year.
Feh. - sneakerelph, on 10/12/2007, -14/+174 years? my PowerMac G4 is at least 5 years old, and it runs tiger like a dream. the thing about OS X is that every time a new version comes out, it gets faster, not slower (though they did get a little bit more RAM hungry). I can't wait for Leopard to see how much FASTER my 5 year old mac gets.
733 mhz = can barely run XP on a PC
733 mhz = run tiger just fine on a mac.
you have a childish, poorly designed OS.
oh yeah, uh... you suck! - alej744, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5actually It seems the OSx86 Project is probably some hard pain-in-the-ass process with tons of hacking required
It's actually easy on a mac with B00T Camp
so yeah thats it, macs are better
Windows sucks. Don't be a troll. - DocNo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Um, bandwidth was exceeded for that .Mac account - I guess no other sites submitted to digg go offline due to bandwidth, eh? Blame the submitter for not submitting the story to a mirror first.
As for cross platform support, check this page:
http://www.stuffit.com/unix/index.html
Stuffit has been around almost as long as .zip - aacidusX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.digg.com/software/Best_Selection_of_System_Icons_for_Free
- Jerk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3These icons are really nothing special. Go to xicons.com (sorry, interfacelift.com) or Iconfactory.com for good icons. Even pixelgirlpresents.com has some nice icons and backgrounds.
- phil.busch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4It is safe for you, because you know what you are doing. But for John and Judy Novice, it is unsecure because they don't know how to update their Windows, use a firewall, and run the antivirus every week.
And what's wrong with porn? :-P - PineSap, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Actually, i downloaded them and finished installing them in the time it takes to get down the column. btw, Tiger runs just fine on my Summer 2000 iMac 500 mhz; I'm also using a G5 dual 2 ghz processor (1st rev) w/ 4 gigs of RAM. Life is good.
- Davidbt, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6B-E-A- UTIFUL! you can never have enough swanky icons for your mac. thanks bros
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Mac icons are only one size (at least in OS X), that size is usually at least 256x256. They are scaled using Quartz.
Now Windows on the other hand, using multiple fixed size icons in one .ico file. (e.g. 16x16, 32x32, 48x48, etc.).
Get the facts straight. - r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@do0m
"last for 4yrs if that."
At least they still run the OS and other software well after 6 months. PCs tend to need refreshing at least every 1-2 years to have decent performance. - ninjatroll, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Ah yes glerb, as always bandwidth should be 100% free, like in Star Trek.
- alej744, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2WHO CARES? Nobody is going to come after you and threaten you with a marshmallow gun for using these icons like that.
- KCorax, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7@trunkster, alwaysmc2
No he is not. OSX doesn't do vector icons. Also icons in windows 2000+ are always raster and can be of *any* resolution. At least up to 1024sq which I've tried. - Crypty, on 10/12/2007, -10/+11It's a very well known fact. The CPU clock speeds just don't jibe between the two. It's the same deal when you look at Intel chips vs. ATI chips, and P4s vs. Pentium Ms. That's why the PPC chips topped out arount 2.7Ghz before apple dumped them for Intel x86 chips. P4s from the same time period were up around 3.8Ghz
The frequency isn't everything when it comes to processor performance. - pabbo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5>Windows Vista can absolutely scale icons.
Windows Vista is vaporware. - TomRemixed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Some times I wish I just had a mac for all of that eye candy.
- whitesaint, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5very nice icons, love the "Rename Xcode Project"
For those of you who don't know how to set icons, you can select the icon you want the picture of, get info, select the picture in the get info window, Edit->Copy; then select the destination icon, get info, select the picture in the get info window, Edit-> Paste
That may seem like a lot, but the whole process takes about 3 seconds. - Powerdrift, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3They are used as folder icons. I don't have Candybar so I don't know how to do it with that, but I have this Finder extention (I forgot the name) where you Control+Click/Right-click the icon and save it to a collection of icons. Then you can just paste the icon on something else.
- ricomac, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2More great Mac icons and screensavers:
http://www.macrecon.com/2006/07/28/great-mac-icons-and-screensavers/ - oOLiquidNightOo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7wow! i just downloaded a crapload of icons that i have absolutely no use for .. thanks! :) i especially dug the "slotracer", very nice.
- smhill, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I tend to agree. I absolutely love seeing beautiful icons (and the ones on that site are fantastic), but I really don't ever use them. I really like the "smoothicons" sets (you can get them at iconfactory). They are simple and clean and hold up well at small sizes.
- GarethRogers, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Handy Freeware for extracting .sit files (and others)
http://www.extractnow.com/
remember to download the dll for stuffit files -
Show 51 - 96 of 96 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is