Boot Screens and other conundrums

Looking at this week's poll on sections people want, it is pretty obvious that people want Boot screens.

This puts WinCustomize into an odd position. Users often hear about "ripping" which is where someone takes another person's images and uses them in their own work without permission.

The problem with boot screens is that a "boot screen" is actually the Windows XP kernal, modified with new bitmaps, put into a ZIP file. Ignoring the support issues, there's the question: Is it okay for people to distribute the actual kernel of Windows XP in a zip file?

But this problem isn't just with boot screens. Logon screens often come with a replacement logonui.exe. It's the literal logonui.exe on your system that someone has modified and reuploaded. That's why WinCustomize's logon section uses LogonStudio because it has its own format .logonxp which allows people to make logons that don't have to include the actual logonui.exe.

And many "visual styles" that use .msstyles format include a file called shellstyles.dll which, again, is the literal .dll from a person's Windows directory.

In all these examples, these files are copyrighted by Microsoft. And I don't mean copyright in the same sense that an OS skin might be. I mean they are literally the code for the program. If Apple, for intance, gets mad about Aqua style skins on occasion, you can imagine how they would react if people were passing around the actual system files from MacOS X.  Microsoft must be aware of this stuff but so far doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

As a skinning site, we want to have the kinds of sections people want to have.  And in fact, every other major skinning site already has sections for these kinds of things.  So we are torn on this situation. Our inclination is to put up a boot section since so many people want them and every other skin site already has them. But we're uneasy in doing this because of the potential copyright issues.

So that's where we are. Please no responses with "I don't know why anyone would want to replace their boot screen" or "We should put section X up instead." I think we can all agree that there is a large demand for boot screen. The question is what is the best course of action.

38,755 views 70 replies
Reply #1 Top
Wouldn't the best course of action be to be able to post "compatible" images, and links to utilities that can utilize those images to make ourselves new boot screens?

Or maybe Stardock could release a utility to enable us to do this, such as logonstudio does for the logon screen.
Reply #2 Top
Like it or not if there is a copyright infringement we should not go down that road.
Reply #3 Top
I personally don't care if Microsoft punishes people or not. Stealing is stealing.
Reply #5 Top
I agree with nocool it would be a more legal and original way to get boot screens the same way we apply the logons in logonstudio and the shellstyles in windowblinds4 and maybe it might even works better than the original way as it happens with windowblinds4 that it works faster than the visual styles engine, and I know you guys can find a way for it as you always do.

So keep up the good work, and thanks for satisfy your users desires.
Reply #6 Top
Just go with the bootscreens scetion. If Microsoft has a problem with it then they will let you know. They are pretty good about warning a site first before taking any action. Or perhaps somebody from Wincustomize or Stardock could contact Microsoft just to see what they have to say over the issue and aks them what they think about sites that already have boot screen sections.
No reason to kill the idea totally without doing the homework first.
Reply #7 Top
It's refreshing to see consideration being given to this issue.

It does seem however that MS (so far, anyway) are not particularly bothered by this issue given the numbers of sites hosting boot screens.

Having said that I voted for *Trillian skins* anyway!

Reply #8 Top
The poll mentionned nothing about the OS. A boot screen for what OS? Windows 95/98 and ME are just bitmaps, while XP is an EXE.  Putting a boot screen section would be for what OS? I'm not sure putting a section just for XP boot screen would be the most popular choice, compared to the other software proposed in the poll. If I was still using Windows 98, yes, I'd be interested in a boot screen section because it's just a bitmap. But I'm not going to risk screwing up my OS by downloading a system file from somebody I don't know. Besides, I rarely see the boot screen in XP compared to 98.
Anyway, if we're gonna have a boot screen section, maybe nocool's idea is the best. Just upload the images and let people install the software they need to make the image an actual bott screen. This way, the image will work with any OS.
Reply #9 Top
I would say that put up a bootscreens section ONLY if Stardock or some other company releases a free utility for easily changing the boot screen. If there are no utilities like that, diss the section.

Still, there are loadsa votes on Trillian skins, boot screens and msstyles. I think these all three are such a huge part of the skinning community, that they should absolutely come to Wincustomize soon.
Reply #10 Top
Far be it for me to speak to you about your own company, but given your close relationship with Microsoft, I'd skip the Boot Screen section if I were you. Why get involved in an (obvious) copyright issue if it can easily be avoided?

Besides, as you mentioned, lots of other sites already have Boot Screen sections AND wincustomize.com already has the LoginStudio section.

BTW, my vote was for Trillian.

Dave
Reply #11 Top
i've been considering the wallpaper section as the bootscreen section. with BootXP, you can swap/convert almost any picture can be a bootscreen. trusting someone else's butchered kernel ain't gonna happen by me.
I voted Other.
Reply #12 Top
Why would anyone want Boot Screens? You only see it once when you start your cpu and turn it off.

How about something more useable. I voted for other. Hoping for Rainlendar, which I see almost everybody uses.
Reply #13 Top
Though I did vote for boot screens,I don't exactly care,because I already changed my boot with BootXP 2,just for any body interested.It doesn't replace the boot file (ntoskrnl) with something possibly PC crashing,but it extracts the bitmaps from the file and uses them itself,or you can just load an image into it instead.And if something goes wrong,there's an option when you start up to run a backup. (you can turn this off later if all goes well and you don't want to see the option menu all the time)
I'm not trying to endorse anything,but just a safer idea than literally hacking into the windows files and flat out replacing it (I did this first,and with DISASTEROUS results)
I'll try to post the link later,but you should find it if you search for it under any search enging using the program name.
Just trying to help anybody wanting a cool bootscreen to complete that Mac look or any look at that.
As for other Windows version users,I suggest we should have a separate boot section for them.As for anything to make that safer,I don't know anything now.
Reply #14 Top
In addition to BootXP (Link to BootXP: http://www.bootxp.net/ )
I just noticed Inno Logo for XP and W2K at Belchfire which apparently has a converter so that any image can be converted to a bootscreen and used with Inno Logo. From their site:

"Why use Inno Logo?
The Windows bootscreen is actually an executable file with a 16-colour bitmap using a custom colour-palette compiled into the file. Traditional bootscreens, such as all of those posted on Belchfire.net, are simply re-compiled executables containing a custom bitmap. When you change your bootscreen, you must actually replace the bootscreen executable with a new one. This opens up the possibility of loading a bad bootscreen, potentially rendering your system unbootable. Plus, Microsoft made changes to the bootscreen executable with the release of Service Pack 1 (SP1) for Windows XP. So again, if you happen to load a non-SP1 compatible bootscreen on an XP + SP1 system, you can run into problems.

Inno Logo eliminates these problems. The bootscreen executable is never actually replaced. Plus, Inno Logo automatically detects which operating system you are using so there is never an issue of loading an incompatible bootscreen."

Link to website, info and app:

http://www.belchfire.net/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=24

I'm not advertising for either product and haven't yet tried either one, but it appears that there are products that can use images and convert them to bootscreens. So as bval says, there appears no need to download a hacked executable or a prefab bootscreen upload. And if these apps indeed do precisely what they say they do, that eliminates the concern about a hacked exe but also the concern about having a bootscreen section (or at least one using the .exe format at any rate.) But then would that be a wall section? Or just images to use with these programs?

(edited to added BootXP link and clarification)
Reply #15 Top
I agree that you only see teh bot screens for about three seconds when you turn the computer on. to me it makes little sense to put so much effort and truoble towards something that may addan extra touch, but is only seen for so short a time. then again, i am not everybody else.

as far as teh copyright infringement, yes, MS has a history of being linient, but if yu chose to do this you will be making an exception to your copyright disclaimer, which may lead to loopholes in your legal documents latter on and yu could wind up laying teh groiund work here for a much greater catastrophe. but i'm pesimistic.

Trillian skins would be useful, and they do ahve spot Number two in teh poll, they are free from teh copyright troubles you'll have with Boot Screens, and trillian is used by many epople. however, as a consequence,m you could wind up getting a heavy server load. i would suggest putting up a section taht immediately will not affect the server load too greatly, but can grow in teh future.

to please everyone across teh OS grid, i would suggest you make the new category summat that works for every OS instead of an OS specific one.

just my two cents.
Reply #16 Top
I have always held this site in high regard. It has always held a higher standard, helping artists when their work gets ripped, offering great products, providing exceptional tech support on a variety products, and just simply giving a kind ear (and voice for that matter) for people who are users as well as artists.

I would love to download lots of cool bootscreens...but if it is illegal then I insist...don't do it just cause it is popular. To do so would be a complete contradiction. Just because M$ hasn't said anything in the past doesn't mean that they are giving their stamp of approval. With the way things go in Redmond, just as soon as we start enjoying something, someone there will find a problem with it. Keep your high standard and keep your relationship with M$ safe. Don't cheapen your values for the latest popular thing.
Reply #17 Top
ToeJo: see above my post and bval's: looks like there are at least two apps that can convert images to bootscreens, so the screen image itself would not need to be a hacked executable which should alleviate some concerns at least.
Reply #18 Top
as i see it.. boot screens are about the only part of the OS that Stardock hasn't touched.

I Vote for Bootscreens,, AND a "better mouse trap",, a kick arse Bootscreen Tool....
Reply #19 Top
Its too bad you can't break the poll down as to who was on which OS when they voted. I can't believe it got so many votes, since its usually seen so rarely on XP/2000 .
On the legal issue though, sure MS doesn't apparently care about "hacking" of their files, but Stardock, to me, has had a respectful relationship with MS and I would think if we supported the hacked file route, it would "dirty" our relationship.
I suppose Stardock could choose to support one of the Boot programs mentioned here already, but then you force people to choose a certain program. Trillian, which came in second, is a far better option.
Reply #20 Top

Couple of clarifications:


1) We don't know for sure if it's illegal. A lot of things on the net fall into a gray area. What do do know is that the the NT kernel belongs to Microsoft and it's definitely a "Gray area" thing. I mean, we live in a world where there are companies that *sell* programs that do nothing more than patch a system DLL. If Mcirosoft hasn't done anything about that, it's hard to know what they'd do about other things.


2) A boot section could have sub sections that support other OSes. 85% of users on WinCustomize.com have Windows 2000 or XP.

Reply #21 Top
Stardock needn't choose to support any boot programs if all that is uploaded here are images. People could use the images to either actually manually replace the MS file, or use a program which apparently does not hack the MS .exe as noted above.

From the forum at Belfire comes this from the author of LogonUIBootRandomizer (another such app it appears): "The easiest and 100% safe way to use custom boot screens with NTFS is to add a new line to yours boot.ini file, which will be an other Operating System. It will be the same as the one you are using (WinXP), but it will have the default boot screen.

So, every time you restart the PC you will see a list with all the previous OSs and the new one.

In case of problems (the PC is not booting after you set a new boot screen), just reboot and select the "new" OS."

More details provided here:
http://www.belchfire.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=605

BTW I didn't vote for bootscreens but like others I previously wondered if SD would look into developing an app that does for bootscreens what it has already done for logons. It appears that the apps already mentioned can change the bootscreen without hacking the MS .exe file although they evidently modify the boot.ini.
Reply #22 Top


If it were to be done, I think it should just be compatible images. I normally hack out my own with a reg editor, anyway.

Beyond distributing code you don't own, you would also be distributing exe and hacked kernel files, which would rely heavily on your server's Virus scanning applications and/or hand testing. If someone uploads a maliciously altered file, there's a good chance it wouldn't be caught before it is downloaded and used.

I mean, couldn't other changes be made to the kernel that could possibly spoil one's day, even beyond injecting a detectable virus? How would one verify that the only change was the boot screen? Doesn't seem like a good idea. Self-executing exe zips and such have always been taboo for these reasons. Dunno how this would be different.
Reply #23 Top
Umm Not to sound so pointfull,,But ever think of just getting in contact and asking permsion..I mean after all wincustomize is not charging for the boot screens so where woud it be a problem..You never know until you ask...SometimesPlease and Thankyou have saved Natio0ns from starting wars..
Reply #24 Top
I've also seen people in forums reporting problems because they attempted to use a boot screen made for the XP orig release with an XP SP 1 system. They're evidently not compatible. Not to mention concerns about downloading a modified system .exe file.

Hosting images only should alleviate these security, compatibility and hacked propriety file concerns while allowing the user to choose which manner (and for what OS) the image would be converted to a bootscreen. The method used would be determined by the user, not the host site. (Of course if any image can be used and converted to the required specifications by the user, either manually or with an app, then as bval says, the wallpaper section at present is also a source of "bootscreens." )
Reply #25 Top
Well...

I would just say that I guess there shouldn't be a boot section from what I read of Frogboy's news.

Other sites have them and I suppose that will have to be good enough.