@Pieter Omvlee: I know this is too small for Leopard, but how necessary is it really to get a bigger icon?
There are two reasons you want 512 size icons. The first is the obvious one: larger scaling factors will be available to users before too long, and your icon won't look good if it has to scale up. But this feature doesn't have an announced ship date yet (though some guidance was given at WWDC).
The other reason is the one you allude to: the CoverFlow feature in the Finder. Even from just screenshots on the public site, you can see, icons in that view are displayed at a much larger size than the typical Finder window.
Your icon won't break in either case, it will just look all pixely if it's scaled up. And yes, that is the technical term. Pixely.
by Scott Stevenson — Sep 22
There are two reasons you want 512 size icons. The first is the obvious one: larger scaling factors will be available to users before too long, and your icon won't look good if it has to scale up. But this feature doesn't have an announced ship date yet (though some guidance was given at WWDC).
The other reason is the one you allude to: the CoverFlow feature in the Finder. Even from just screenshots on the public site, you can see, icons in that view are displayed at a much larger size than the typical Finder window.
Your icon won't break in either case, it will just look all pixely if it's scaled up. And yes, that is the technical term. Pixely.