Frogboy Frogboy

Boot Screens and other conundrums

▼

Boot Screens and other conundrums

from WinCustomize Forums

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.

38,758 views 70 replies
Reply #26 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Joe, like Bakerstreet, Paxx and nocool suggested, all that need be hosted are images or compatible images, not a cracked .exe which should minimize the concerns Frogboy and others have raised.
Reply #27 from WinCustomize Forums Top
well now, if bootscreens hadn't been a choice in the poll i guess there wouldn't be this controversy. imo if stardock doesn't intend to create their own boot screen changer then bootscreen section shouldn't even be considered here. as other users have noted, there are plenty of sites out there for the boot screen enthusiast. unless of course this is the only site they are able to navigate to.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #28 from WinCustomize Forums Top
well, as t says lots of sites have em, i get em form themexp.com, so i don't care if they're added here too. but with so many sites doing it, big popular sites, i don't think ms will try to stop it all. it's not worth the effort and it only makes people like xp more. but anywasy, if we all bought xp (or at least have it...) then we all have the files anyway so it's not like we're stealing files we don't already have.
Reply #29 from WinCustomize Forums Top
All I have to say is that I give props to those that run this business (Frogboy & all that work with him) for their efforts to operate with integrity and a sense of morals. It gives me even more satisfaction that I've invested, and will continue to invest, my money in this line of business. Hats off to you guys. Blessings!
Reply #30 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Personally, I would stay away from distributing the MS files if possible. That can only bring Stardock heartache unless you have a deal with MS.

I say if they want bootscreens and they don't want to use LogonStudio, they should probably look for another website, or Wincustomize can offer what nocool suggested, compatible images and links to the tools that will modify the person's personal system files without Wincustomize distributing the copyrighted code.
Reply #32 from WinCustomize Forums Top
lol @ paul

if you want a boot screen, why not just download a wallpaper... aren't they the same thing? that way you can add a trillian section and still have boot screens (or perhapse there are strict image requirements for bootscreens?)
Reply #33 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I dunno about xp, but bootscreens on win2000 are low-color bitmaps. I wanna say 256 colors.

I was wondering the same thing as paulbrittgarcia. I reboot my Desktop maybe once a week, if that. Not something that people see often enough to warrant a section, IMHO.
Reply #34 from WinCustomize Forums Top
If you actually hack the .exe I think the boot screen must be a .bmp, be 640x480 with 16 Colors for XP (perhaps also W2K?). But the apps mentioned can evidently convert walls to boot screens for these OS'. 98 and ME are as Paxx said so that's somewhat easier.

(edited to correct specs.)
Reply #35 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Hmm after reading all replies, IMHO best way is either avoid a whole issue, or host just bitmaps with heavy disclaimers that stardock is not reposable of user's hacking of system files.

Either that or just give up and start hosting xxcalc skins ( #10236th wanted )

Whole thing of modifing boot screen makes me nervious. Suppose patching went bad? It will be hard time fixing it.
Reply #36 from WinCustomize Forums Top
in regards to logon screens..
distributing the logonUI file allows the skinner to offer more in their skin.
LogonStudio is a good program, but is very difficult to do any hardcore moddifying in..
much like any Stylebuilder, and SkinStudio. it is limited by what ever knowledge the author of that program had at the time.. if someone figures out a new line of code to do something.. it can't be done using that program.. because it hasn't been added yet..

the msstyles are a completely different story.
the shellstyle.dll file is require to correctly display the skin..

MS has granted TGTSoft permission to release their product, so i don't see how MS would have a problem.. (as they are well aware that this is going on)

BTW i didn't think this site had msstyles..
is it because of the copyright thing?
or cause WB and MSStyles are somewhat competitive formats?
Reply #37 from WinCustomize Forums Top
It seems that you need to clarify the legal issue. "Grey" areas are never the place to be. Keep it simple, keep it straight.
Reply #38 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I've never understood the need to change boot screens. You see them for a brief few seconds during the boot process and then it's over. In my case, I boot a couple times a month so it's even less important what the screen looks like for those few seconds.

It seems to me you have a good relationship with MicroSoft now, and your record on copyright issues is above average compared to other sites in this community. Why take a risk moving into these murky gray areas, and possibly damaging that relationship with MS.

I say, leave the boot screens off. For those so anal as to need that couple of seconds of the boot process 'skinned', there are enough places in the community where they can get them.
Reply #39 from WinCustomize Forums Top
A boot screen on XP (and NT as well) is more than just a bitmap. There's a progress bar, a palette and a number of other graphical elements as well.

Also, any app that alters your boot screen deep down inside does hack ntoskrnl.exe. The way BootXP does it is that when you create your boot screen it opens up the kernel, replaces the necessary bits and pieces, saves it under a different name and alters boot.ini to load that altered kernel instead.

As pointed out, distributing these files as is or as a patch can lead to various problems, so such a section would only be feasible if there is a format to distribute it in and an app to apply them with (perhaps the one sig ponted at, still have to check).

As for the "I don't see why this is necessary" crowd, some people switch off their machine when they don't use it (saves the environment, my ears and the electricity bill), so they do see the boot screen.

Besides anyone committed to skindom would want to skin every damn aspect of the system.
Reply #40 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Just add a section for BootXP, though personally I would never use it - I'd prefer a Trillian section.
Reply #41 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Besides anyone committed to skindom would want to skin every damn aspect of the system.
by craeonics Sunday, August 10, 2003

hehe dutchy...
Reply #42 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I also "switch off" my machine when I don't use it, it's just that I use hibernation instead. When I bring it out of hibernation there is no 'boot screen' to see.

My point was that it seems a lopsided trade-off just for a few short seconds of the boot process.
Reply #44 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Seems to me that if this problem was thought about before making the poll then you probably should of not put it in the poll in the first place?

Giving us candy like that then thinking about taking it away lol

I'd go with ask Microsoft and see what they say.
Reply #45 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Maybe the answer doesn't lie with the poll. I know there is a GFX section, but that is there to share and allow others to use your GFX in their own work. What about a section that noobs / vets alike can post artwork (scanned, 3d, photoshop, etc) of their own, and allow it to be judged and criticised by the sexy visitors to wincustomise? I know this has been done on other sites, but wincustomise has a very nice intelligent regular visitor base and some very good artists who post here a lot with their own work; I know a lot of people would like their input on works of their own. Maybe I talk too much.
Reply #46 from WinCustomize Forums Top

I have spoken to Microsoft specifically about TGTSoft. Microsoft NEVER gave TGT Soft permission to release Style XP. Simply because they didn't sue them doesn't mean they approve of it.


But that really does require additional explanation:


In May 2001, Microsoft released a new beta of Whistler (Windows XP) that made it so that you couldn't use third party .msstyles.  Within a few days, we had figured out how to get around that so that anyone could make their own .msstyles. We began making plans to update SkinStudio to support .msstyles and enhance WindowBlinds to use .msstyles as a new format.


But then Microsoft specifically asked us NOT to do that. For support and branding reasons, Microsoft didn't want third parties using .msstyles. So we didn't.


Think about that. Months before there was a uxtheme patch or a Style XP, we had this.  The only reason why Style XP exists is because we adhered to Microsoft's wishes. And we've been paying for it ever since.


Fast forward 2 years and WinCustomize operates at a competitive disadvantage because it doesn't offer boot screens, logonui's, and .msstyles. And not only has Microsoft done nothing about it (and they know about this stuff) but their lack of action has given people the mistaken believe that Microsoft is "okay" with it.


Boot screens are a definite gray area. I tend to think of them as low level software piracy. Same for logonui's and .msstyles that include shellstyles.dll are iffy.  Yet Microsoft knows about them and hasn't done anything about them.


Which of course brings us to this constructive discussion we have here.

Reply #47 from WinCustomize Forums Top
IMO somebody should REALLY ask Microsoft about this.
But then again,we should be able to,after all we PAID for the new OS (or paid extra $$ for a new PC with it installed),and they disclaim any damage to your PC as a result of modification to the OS (don't they?).
Therefore it should be allowed,but we should also know the risks taken as a result of attempting to fix the OS to our tastes.
But as I've found out,it isn't just our tweaking that can ruin a PC-some of those updates Microsoft has can mess the computer up too-my dad's PC hasn't had any of my tweaks,but he's downloaded loads of updates on his nearly 2 GHZ PC,and now the system hangs so often it's ridiculous,not to mention the video card's driver seemingly has conflicts with some of those updates,resulting in it occasionaly failing and displaying in 16 color(that's 16,not 16 million!).So he has to reboot an awful lot.
I've only downloaded WMP 9 and SP1 on my 300 Mhz (I know that's VERY slow) but it's 160 Megs of RAM help make up,not to mention it's video card is better than the one in my newer computer that recently died(older one can display 32 color but newer one can't?? odd..) ,so my computer runs smoother and faster than my newer one did,and rarely hangs.
So I don't think it's always our fault if the OS crashes or goes awry,but I don't think it (usually?) helps.
And I am NOT suggest you risk your computer getting hacked,but instead crashes and hangs too much probably isn't that worth it.
Though I suggest a good firewall and update a lot will likely help anyway.
And sometimes the hotfixes make it worse!!!
Just my fill on this,I'll be surprised if you read it all.
p.s. Thanx to sig for posting that link,much appreciated
Reply #49 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Wow, what a topic. I will bet that stardock didn't think it was going to get so many people flamming! Heck after reading (these comments) about boot screens and bootxp, I tried it! I use the "LogonStudio" and (object desktop) window blinds and etc. I feel that my system can really have a particular theme applied, from bootup to power off! A lot of good people with good information on these news replies!
Reply #50 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Well with the .dll hack out there and used by many, StyleXP has lost many customers and revenue too. So they got stung by what they popularized.