hehe - I got it today too. I'm waiting for an offer to buy the Brooklyn Bridge..... This is the famous Nigerian scam just moved to DRC.
DavidK
See what happens if you take out the FrameCount=2 statement. Set Alpha=254 Which Alpha version are you running?
I've never put spaces in an image file's name, I'm not sure if that's a problem but it could be. The Frames= statement shouldn't be there. Try setting the Apha= to 254 and remove the GlyphAlpha statement. Check your margin settings for the background, I notice you only have a "right" margin set. my best shot for first thing in the morning...
oops... I was thinking of the logoff buttons background, that has 3 frames. The background you're talking about has 2. Try taking the spaces out of the image file name and I'll go look at some more possibilities. I think the "GlyphAlpha" line is unnecessary though.
OK now I get it... Try removing this part: FrameCount=2 GlyphAlpha=255 or change Frame Count= to 3 and remove the GlyphAlpha= line Change Alpha=255 to Alpha= (with no value, though that should be the same effect as 255)
Something like Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro to do the images and a good text editor or html editor to write the code.
oh - forgot one... I'm not sure what you mean in #3. What is the first frame in the XP start menu panel background?
You want to be careful not to make the directory for the skin to have too many characters because there is a limit on the path size in the UIS file. A skin's name doesn't have to be used for the directory name though. Try to keep the name reasonable, a few words or so should be ok, a paragraph would not. In the "Update" dialog you can change the name of a skin. I've never tried doing this so I'm not sure if it will work, but it looks like it's possible.
They're for the built-in color options. To recolor a skin.
Earlier today I had sent this email: >Are you aware that the skins you are selling on your website are the copyrighted property of several artists? These skins are posted on several "skinning" websites and are owned by their creators. You have no permission to modify, redistribute or sell these copyrighted designs. > >Are you open to discussing compensation and credit for the artists whose work you are using? > >Please reply, > >David Knott > Email >www.
There's a new version of it with some updates available. Best thing to do is download the new one by right-clicking on the link and doing a "save target as". Then delete the skin from WB using the WB config window (run a different skin when you do this) and use the "install skin fron disc" button to install the new copy from where you downloaded it to...
WELCOME BACK Mike!! This is indeed a good day! You and Fuzzy were not only missed but had our hearts aching for your troubles. It's wonderful to see both of you have returned. Stay well and take care (both of you)
Congrats on the new house Brad... I wonder if the bird will move into the old one now..... ?
I just saw this... Great News! I'm glad you're ok Fuzzy, Welcome Back! now we need WOM back too...
I sent them an email asking if they are open to discussing compensation for all the artists whose work they are using illegally. I wonder if they'll reply?
With WinFX you can choose to make only certain apps transparent. I agree, if the whole system is transparent it's more of an irritant than it is cool looking...
Just browsing through some of the skin pages I saw works I recognized by these artists: Adni18 Treetog Alexandrie Pixtudio Essorant MikeB Gillon Hippy Grayhaze Honz12 Dangeruss BAT Mercury This is an unbelievable affront to these artists. Their work is being sold. If these are the same Russian guys we encountered before they have no intention of being fair or responding to demands to stop. Stardock did have some communication with
Another thought... since the plan is to have this feature available on all sites that would support it, wouldn't an artist who wanted to reject a patch then have to do so on each site his work is posted on? Could be a source of aggravation to some artists and some site admins... In this case I would definitely think it should be an opt-in feature where the permissions would apply across all sites. In other words, the skin itself would activate the feature with some code in the UIS file, or somet
Jafo, that sounds like no different than how we do it now... I went back to the original post because I'm getting confused now about what is really being proposed. ________________________________________________ from post#1 Stardock's view is to make it so that the original skin author has the right to deny any skin patches be made for their skin (or at least displayed as part of the sk
btw - I mean no insult to wallpapers in the above comment. As a moderator you get a different perspective on them as a category because most people start out making wallpapers rather than skins and we get tons of them that never make it to the library. The ratio of rejected wallpapers to rejected skins would be thousands to one... forgive me... I probably dig my hole deeper...
I think the skinners that have responded to this so far are unanimous on the opt-in side. If only because the patch, in most cases, would have to use the skin's original graphics. I like the fact that a skin, once updated, would still be in its original state. The patches being a separate file from another person makes it less objectionable than re-releasing the skin under another name. I also like the fact that there could be several patches by different people for a single skin.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I'm about to start updating a skin right now that is almost 4 years old. It never got scrollbars or a lot of other features. If this skin was patched to have a shell styles and an XP taskbar, I don't see how it could be done without using the original graphics. It wouldn't match because there are textures in the skin that would have to be used. If the patched skin were installed it would still have no scrollbars, mouse-overs etc. Updating this skin fo
If to 'dote' on something is to worship and nourish it, then an 'antidote' would be to attack it or deny it, drive it away... ? Maybe there is something in 'dote' as a root for that word...
hehe - must be nice. I see the dentist this afternoon to get a painful tooth pulled out. I tried to pull it out myself but it wasn't loose enough to come out all the way. No insurance so I thought I'd try to save a few bucks. Now I wish I had some pain relief meds
"stand-off of bilical proportions" would of course be "biblical"