Re: "Icon is corrupt or in the wrong format"
- From: "Dan Freeman" <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 20:41:19 -0700
I'm surprised older versions accepted those formats. VFP has always been
rather finnicky about image files in general, and icons in particular.
I *suspect* the reason they fail now is the switch from GDI to GDI+. Instead
of using internal routines for handling images, VFP now relies on GDI+. Why
it would object *now* is anyone's guess, but perhaps it's validating what it
hands off to the GDI+ library?
Dan
"Liska Station" <msnewsJUNKFILTER@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns990DD9B0AF466LiskaStation@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That's odd. I've been able to use 32x32, 64x64, and 128x128 icons with 256
colors in vfp5, vfp6, and vfp7. It's only since switching to 9 that I've
had the problem. I'll try jacking it down to 32, and see what happens.
I'll keep you posted.
-LS
"Fred Taylor" <ftaylor@xxxxxxxx!REMOVE> wrote in news:#$eeF$weHHA.5052
@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
For VFP9, I'm not sure what the limitations are, but the size has always
been limited to 32x32. I think you can now use the 256 color icons, but
earlier versions were limited to that size with 16 colors.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "Icon is corrupt or in the wrong format"
- From: Liska Station
- Re: "Icon is corrupt or in the wrong format"
- References:
- vfp9: "Icon is corrupt or in the wrong format"
- From: Liska Station
- Re: "Icon is corrupt or in the wrong format"
- From: Fred Taylor
- Re: "Icon is corrupt or in the wrong format"
- From: Liska Station
- vfp9: "Icon is corrupt or in the wrong format"
- Prev by Date: Re: "Icon is corrupt or in the wrong format"
- Next by Date: Re: "Icon is corrupt or in the wrong format"
- Previous by thread: Re: "Icon is corrupt or in the wrong format"
- Next by thread: Re: "Icon is corrupt or in the wrong format"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading