A version for registered users will be available when it's been tested out a bit (there are a few bugs known already) and a trial/version for non-paying users at some time after that.
Whoops. Yes, I missed that last bit. Sorry. I do think that they're still more likely to be the reasons people are dissatisfied, though. I see a *lot* more posts on that sort of thing (rather than moaning about how OD isn't free etc), and you know that there are going to be a lot of people who don't post but still feel that way, justified or not. Like I said, did you really expect 100% satisfaction?
Yeah, well I voted "What is Stardock?" too. The question was simply too vauge - Stardock's products? Stardock as a company? And there was no neutral area - you were either for or against it. Not good. I also agree with some of the criticism of Frogboy's analysis. You just can't say "oh, 8% of people voted negative, they must be anti-commercial". They could just have had a bad experience with customer support, they could have picked randomly, or, heck, they just didn't like the sk
If it's a problem, try excluding the games. It *should* stop any CPU time being taken up by WB with them.
If you stack two (or more) toolbars on top of one another on the taskbar (say another under the quicklaunch bar) then it won't resize it.
This is an XP bug that unfortunately impacts WB users. Switching from Windows XP style to Windows Classic is what does it. WB has to do this every time it starts up, so it happens every time. The known workaround is to stack two toolbars (eg quicklaunch and one other, possibly empty toolbar). Resizing it programmatically has been attempted but hasn't worked yet (I tried it myself, it's not as easy as you'd think it would be). No idea about the shutdown message, sorry.
I have to agree with WOM here - we need to take care that quality doesn't fall by the wayside. Perhaps it's not possible to make a titlebar and border, but it's not hard to imagine something that takes a button image and extrapolates it into a whole bunch of other controls, and how likely is it that this exact same image will be ideal for all of the images it's used for? However, the skin will now be "complete", so why bother taking the time to make it better? And how likely is it that
Get off the Quad! *shoots the camper*
I believe on XP only the things that normally have skinned scrollbars have them. WB skins more programs more fully in the enhanced version - non-theme-aware skins will have skinned scrollbars as well.
crae: Because people read right-to-left, and so expect things they read to start at the left?
I understand the new server has been installed now. Things should be a little faster.
WinCustomize Forums
Heh heh. *hits*
WinCustomize Forums
BoXXi: I'm pretty sure that was the idea - it would go with their partner's products to help advertise NVIDIA.
User Interface Specification?
Reverse-engineering a music format and making a program to rewrite files in said format (yes, that comes under "fun" ).
Erm . . . WB *can* apply different skins to each app. Per-app settings.
The main Stardock WB tutorial is at www.windowblinds.net/skinning/ - as Snowman says, there are many more around (some are even quite good) - but the above should give you the basics.
It's apparently a network configuration problem. It's being worked on.
Don't thank me, thank the Kwilas.
The Stardock network is now online.
Are you using XP? If not you won't get a skinned start menu - you have to use ObjectBar for that (it can read WB XP skins).
I think WindowBlinds 4 might be a more realistic target.
Link it to how long it takes you to make the skin and match that to a reasonable wage - say $15 an hour (you're a skilled skinner, right? Skill is worth paying for). Say it takes you 20 hours. That's $300 right there. Don't sell yourself cheap - more complex skins will take longer and so you should charge accordingly. Skins tend to be sold on a work-for-hire basis where you make the skin and they get the rights to it, so they can make as many copies as they want, but if you think a licensing sch
Are you using nView desktop enhancements? There can be major problems with that enabled.
Ack. Well, that didn't work very well, since it took it to be HTML! "The bit" starts with "button id=atom(power)" and ends with "/button". Make sure you don't miss out the undock button as well.