Solved Is it possible to have icons of 32px and their name BELOW?

In Windows Explorer the minimal icon size starting from which the name gets written at the right of the icon is 33 px. Yet the standard icon size since Win 3.x is 32 px. Thus many icons seem highly blurred. If to make the icon size 31px, the labels get written not below but at the right of them.

On the other hand, it is possible to make icons in the desktop as small as necessary with the labels remaining below. The desktop even has one of the standard sizes set to 32 px.

I wonder, is it possible somehow adjust this behavior so that the icons appeared at 32 px but with labels below in Windows Explorer's folders?

Hi,
The icon appearance usually is dictated by the quality of the image being used,
If blurred in a large state and not in a small one the quality of the image is poor quality,
Which icons are you having an issue with exactly
Post a screen shot of them
Use the links above my signature for how if you need to,
Cheers.

Hi, Anixx. I'm actually trying to do the same thing. I'm not entirely sure how icon sizing works in Windows, but I can give you some information.

If you have auto arranging icons enabled, you can do it by modifying ExplorerFrame.dll. But if you do this, every small icon size will have the labels on the bottom, and the labels seem to be pretty picky with their sizing. It's pretty glitchy.

However, I can see that both of us have auto arranging disabled (as you mentioned here), and we are both using the classic icon style. So I'm currently trying to figure out how to do this. If I find out anything, I'll be sure to let you know.

ThrashZone said:

Hi,
The icon appearance usually is dictated by the quality of the image being used,
If blurred in a large state and not in a small one the quality of the image is poor quality,
Which icons are you having an issue with exactly
Post a screen shot of them
Use the links above my signature for how if you need to,
Cheers.

Click to expand...

Many icons have the native size of 32x32. For instance:



This way (pixelated) the icon looks when having dimensions 33x33. One cannot set the native size 32x32 in file manager without the label moving to the right.

On the desktop it is possible though:

Looks like a small poor quality image
Allot of wasted space
Funny though the properties say 91x94 it says .png but it's a jpeg non transparent :/

It is exactly how it looks on the screen. I created the image using the scissors instrument.

It's just how Windows has handled icon sizing since Vista. It's pretty annoying since I like to use 32x32 icons. Unfortunately I don't know which files are responsible for icon sizing when auto arrange is disabled, and I don't even know where to begin to look.

Windows Explorer has much more of a classic behavior with auto arrange disabled (e.g. Windows XP styled selection, more compact details view, ect) so I wouldn't be surprised if it's in the same resource in Windows Vista/7/8 as in Windows XP. I kind of doubt it's in some easilly-editable string though, since Windows has handled icons in more or less the same way from Windows 95 to XP.

I do know for certain it's not in ExplorerFrame.dll, since the the non-auto arrange styled icons are still rendered in open/save dialogs, even with that file missing from System32 (I've done a lot of testing, and I wouldn't recommend doing that as it completely breaks Explorer). It's in UIFILE 40960, and you can change the label positions for small icons with the proper edits.

But like I said, this method doesn't do me justice, since I have auto arranging disabled. So I guess we need to find out which file has handled icon sizing since Windows 95, and then try to figure out how to modify it from there.

Sounds like kind of a complicated process if you ask me, but that's fine. I've always been very adventurous when it comes to messing with Windows, and I always like to figure out exactly how this stuff works.

I also wonder how to make 32x32 or 33x33 the default size for "medium icons". Because I frequently switch to the small icons but then return to normal size. With Win7 this requres me to adjust icon size with a mouse wheel each time.

PS. Please tell me what edits u made to UIFILE 40960 so to make the labels always appear below the icons.

I'm not sure where you get the 32x32 thing most are allot bigger,
http://www.sevenforums.com/customization/198372-custom-made-icons-1-a.html

I just like to use 32x32 icons because that size is big enough to see (I'm not a fan of using 16x16 icon unless it's details view), and it saves more space than the 48x48 size. For me, it's just more efficient. I just like that size. Just a preference.

Anyway, I would recommend using this because it's a lot easier to edit. Just do a search for item.smallicons and then change the label position. Like I said though, the labels still don't seem to work well. The only problem is I'm on Windows 8.1 a lot of the time, so I can't modify it, as Microsoft seems to have changed a lot of UIFILES from XML to code, making them un-editable.

As for setting 32x32 to the medium size, I'm really not sure about that. I'll look into it, but I really don't know how you'd go about changing that. Honestly, that would be kind of nice though.

You can try this one out just found it on a bing image search,
View attachment 337797

View attachment 337798

I've noticed that the icon mode with auto arrange disabled is the same one that is used in Windows Vista. So I'm going to start figuring out how to do this in Vista, as the process will likely be the same as in Windows 7/8.

Butters said:

Anyway, I would recommend using this because it's a lot easier to edit. Just do a search for item.smallicons and then change the label position. Like I said though, the labels still don't seem to work well. The only problem is I'm on Windows 8.1 a lot of the time, so I can't modify it, as Microsoft seems to have changed a lot of UIFILES from XML to code, making them un-editable.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I wonder where it is determined whether some size is smallicons or not. I also wonder why 33x33 is still considered "small icons" but have labels below.

Yeah, I find that to be really weird, since 33x33 isn't actually grouped with the item.smallicons information. If it was, the labels would be on the right of the icon. I am still trying to find how Windows handles the vista-styled sorting, since I like that view style better.

EDIT:
Actually that UIFILE doesn't determine what size is considered 'small icons'. But you can modify it to have the text labels be on the bottom. But keep in mind that this will effect any size that's considered a small icon. This means that even the 16x16 icons will have the text labels on the bottom (unless of course you're using details view, which will still work normally.

I'll keep looking into how windows determines a 'small icon size'.

Actually I find the really small icons a very useful mode, especially with this XP/Vista style which is very compact compared to W7 default:
http://storage9.static.itmages.ru/i/14/1023/h_1414044906_6345969_d88cea57a8.png

I agree, which is one of the reasons I'm not a big fan of that method. I'd rather have Windows recognize 32x32 as the smallest size to display the labels on the bottom. I'll look into it soon, but I'm currently working on this project. Don't worry though; this is next on my to do list.

EDIT:

Butters said:

I'm not a fan of using 16x16 icon unless it's details view

Click to expand...

Anixx said:

Actually I find the really small icons a very useful mode

Click to expand...

Butters said:

I agree

Click to expand...

Well I seem to have contradicted myself here. To clarify, I don't usually use 16x16 icons unless I have a bunch of files in a folder. I had mentioned this because I wanted to make clear that while 16x16 icons are nice and compact, 32x32 icons have more detail while still being more compact than 48x48. And having the text on the bottom of a 32x32 icon would make them even more compact. Sorry about that.

Alright, since the address bar thing is pretty much solved now, I'm going to start looking into this.

Truth be told, I don't really know where to start here. I guess I'll try to figure out how SysListView32 works, but that's all I can think of for now.

Any progress on this so far?

Unfortunately no. I really don't have any leads as to where to look right now.

By the way, the option to use ListView instead of IconView can be turned on consistently with the following utility:

Folder Options X

It works even for ZipFolders and just everywhere. Except the open/save dialogs, though.