Can stardock add 3DNA to its repository?

Linkage didn't work Judau....http://www.3dna.net/

http://3dna.net yeah, I had incorporated the link within parenthesees (pardon my typo)

It's highly unlikely that we will be adding a section for 3DNA themes. If we DO add another section, it would be from a very short list of programs, and I doubt 3DNA would get on that list. Sorry.

oh....damn. o well , thanks anyway

For folks wanting 3DNA themes, go to http://www.blizzbaby.com

- Aqua (3DNA Moderator)

I'd like to see a 3DNA section.

Here's why:

3DNA is from a real company. They also promote their works on-line. They are, in short, a net contributor to the community. They help spread the word on the benefits of customization.

They'd be on my short list that's for sure.

But I think we really gotta get a Trillian section first.  Once the migration to California is complete (end of month) we'll be able to focus on adding more sections.

We'll see what this poll shows and then we can take a look at how well the 3DNA themes do.

I for one am really looking forwards to a Trillian section.

As much as I love 3DNA, when it comes right down to it, it's only a desktop, like DesktopX. It's wonderful to be able to customize it, but I rarely ever see my desktop since I use the start menu, ObjectDock, and various docked and maximized applications all the time.

Trillian is something that is on my screen 24/7, docked permanently on the right side of my screen, and is thus it is quite important that it look good and go well with my current WB theme.

===============

As for having a 3DNA section, that would be terrific! At the moment, all of the 3DNA themes are hosted on http://www.blizzbaby.com with most of them being by only a dozen or two people (out of the hundreds of thousands who have used the program). Having a 3DNA themes section on a high visiblity site like WinCustomize with so many terrific people already into skinning would be a true godsend

Aqua....the whole idea about proggies such as 3DNA, Object Desktop, LiteSTEP, Hoverdesk and numeroud others is to alter your GUI....not just paint it pretty colours....styleXP can probably manage that much....but to actually revise the way you interact with your computer....WB's roll-up function is a perfect example of just one facet.....but by the time you get to shell replacements you can lose the entire virtual Microsoft experience....no more defaults like 'Start' buttons in a task bar....the world becomes your oyster.....[pretty clever analogy, that one....shells and all]....

I know that the point of these things is to alter the GUI and improve it towards certain goals. But for me, programs that alter how applications look and act will always be more important that those that only alter the desktop (like DesktopX and 3DNA) due to the rarity of which I (and many othe people) actually see/use the desktop. The only time I ever see the desktop is when I'm booting up the computer.

This is why I mainly use WindowBlinds (customized with additional controls), ObjectDock, and ObjectBar, and a virtual desktops program (which I can't recall the name of at the moment).

I suppose you're now wondering why I'm a 3DNA moderator if I have this sort of attitude about desktop replacement programs. The truth is, I fell in love with the community. On the other hand, 3DNA will soon be more than just a desktop replacement

Again.....skinning of a Window, something you appear to feel is more important or significant is merely visual enhancement and alone does nothing for functionality....it is not the GUI as such at all. Only the 'enhancements' above and beyond the functionality of the Explorer interface are of any 'real' benefit...from roll-ups, z-order modification/switching, access via hotspots, shortcuts, popups and/or keyboard shortcuts...these are what makes 'real' GUI modification beneficial to the User...pretty graphics/colours are 'just' eye-candy....

Aqua - I think the 3DNA folks would find a good market in licensing their technology to third parties for kiosks and other types of promotion. It really is a good program.

Anyone who goes to the 3DNA program can tell that they're a good partner. They promote their partners vigorously.

/me to Frogboy... Yup

/me to Jafo

This is why I mainly use WindowBlinds (customized with additional controls)

Those additional controls are rollups, transparencies, and other items.

And for some other things

'enhancements' above and beyond the functionality of the Explorer interface are of any 'real' benefit

ObjectDock, and ObjectBar

I don't mind debates and arguments, but I would appreciate it if you would read my post before chastising (sp?) me.

And also, you seem to appear to be saying that making the interface look good means nothing. Then why is WindowBlinds Stardock's most popular product? If people only cared about pure functionality everyone would be happy with the classic Windows look or some of those clunky looking (but functional) Linux style interfaces.

Aqua....quite the contrary....you said the desktop is not important....now unless you mean the desktop WALLPAPER...the 'background' then you are referring to the GUI which 'should' be important to a customizer...as, Wall aside, the desktop IS the GUI....

Aesthetics is all well and good...but as I said, styleXP and other half-baked proggies can make your interface/windows look 'kewl'.....but think about it....what would you consider to be the difference of worth between WinAMP 2x and perhaps Media Player, Sonique or for that matter...Winamp 3?

Dare I say it's the ability to alter the function or layout of the interface and not just paint it a 'pretty' colour as WA 2's most commonly 'constructed' photoskins are?

If skinners were totally happy with straight colour change and image altering there'd be no clear preference amongst their ranks for WB over styleXP, since if that was the only requirement they'd be on a par.

However, what separates the chalk from the cheese is the fact that WB can do so much more, providing greater flexibility for the creative/inventive juices of the skinner....again, in my own case the single most important reason to have the control buttons on the left.....because I CAN, and the dll-hack cannot.

The reason I prefer LiteSTEP as a shell to Explorer is that by removing the default shell completely you know you will be unencumbered by default bits filtering through into your preferred GUI functionality.  Litestep gives you [almost] total control and free reign to do exactly what you want...[as does other shells and DESKTOP enhancements].....and that's the important bit.

Again...since the 'Desktop' IS the 'GUI' and it's GUI skinning that we are all 'about', then the Desktop IS important.

 

Now, if all you mean is that you never 'see' it [the desktop 'wall'] because you always have your windows maxed....that's a different thing...

Ok, fair enough. When I think of the desktop, I think of the thing with the wallpaper and the icons strewn across it. I think of the taskbar, the start menu, the systray, etc. separately.

When I think of the difference between Winamp 2.x, Winamp 3, Windows Media Player, etc. is that WA2 is compact, functional, and fast I agree that the capability to alter the structural part of the interface is quite nice.

I believe that there are other reasons that WB has a clear preference over styleXP. I've tried both, I found styleXP to be a bit of a pain and buggy at times, but WB has been perfect. I also like that WB is a solid product by a solid company, not some dll hack. I believe that WB can also skin more parts of the interface than styleXP can. There's also the matter that WB is only one component of an excellent family of products.

I also like being able to put roll-ups, pushpins (always on top), and transparency into skins.

While I don't use LiteSTEP (though I've tried it), I agree that it's a wonderful program The reason I don't use it is that nearly everything I liked about it can also be done in the Explorer shell by just running an extra program or two, with far less hassle.