Anybody here knows when MS will release MSIE 6?

The beta's been out for almost a year... it's perfectly stable, just get that

..Actually, they prollie wont release it officially for quite some time because it's a key part of winxp.. ;)

Personally, I don't really care what stardoc and MS do.. I don't know about anyone else out there, but I have only bought one name-brand computer and that was a laptop.. every other one I built from scratch and therefore didn't have to worry about OEM's competing for space. As soon as I had the OS installed I deleted the stuff so what does it matter? Even when I did buy that laptop, one of the first things I did was reformat the HD because there was so much crap on it.. I would do the same with ANY new computer.

Sounds like a good idea to me... Keeps everyone happy and we can all move along with our lives.

I've seen so many people with a million icons on their desktops all scattered everywhere, and I've thought 'What a mess!'. I used Windows XP and found that instead of littering up my desktop, it was easier having those shortcuts on my Start Menu, and the less visited ones on my quick launch bar. The only ones left on the desktop were Recycle Bin, My Documents, and Outlook. I've know folks to have actual programs on their desktops, ini files, and all sorts of other junk, and I've asked them, 'Why don't you clean this stuff up?' Many of them don't what they are doing there or how to get rid of them. I think the Desktop Cleanup Wizard is a great idea, and the notion of not being application spammed with all kinds of junk on your desktop when you start it up for the first time. The same thing goes for all the junk software developers needing to have something running in the tray area.

For the perhaps nonexistant percentage of you who are developers, here's a few links to sites describing how to make DeskBand COM objects to fit into the taskbar. This stuff is childsplay. Stardock is a disgrace to Livonia and all of suburban Detroit.

#1) look at the sample deskband on http://msdn.microsoft.co.../ext/overview/Bands.asp

#2) http://codeguru.earthweb.com/ieprogram/CGBand.html

#3) http://codeproject.com/atl/rbdeskband.asp

Maybe so, but yet nobody is making the effort to innovate like Stardock is. For three years Stardock has been customizing Windows, and they definitely deserve credit for their work. I admit they may not be re-inventing the wheel or doing something completely unbelievable, but the simple fact is that nobody has done what they've done to the level they have. Nonetheless, I will definitely applaud your efforts to compete since it is so easy - please let me know when you have released a similar product that can perform such tasks.

Did Stardock claim to have invented anything? No. What Stardock points out is that there are APIs such as what you mention that provide ALTERNTATIVES to spamming the desktop with a bunch of icons.

Stardock's idea is quite neat, but I don't believe it would take much time for companies like AOL to create their own DeskBand.
(althought they did talk like DeskBand COM Objects are difficult to make)

Stardock thinks they are "smart" yet I do admit that they are much smarter then the basic OEM.
The stuff described... is indeed.. Childs Play. (I am 17 and have been doing this since I was about 14)

do spwolf is huge?

95% canadian?

I do not see why the hell MS wants to limit the amount of icons. They'll charge an arm and a leg for the OS then they limit the amount of OEM icons on the desktop becuase they think it's too hard for the user to handle. My resolution is 1152x864 and my desktop is filled with icons which aren't even lined up or arranged. I have room for like 3 more. I can navigate through it without a problem. Sure its a mess, but its an organized mess. I know right where my Winamp, mIRC, AIM, IE, ect icons are in the middle of the mess. And if I have a problem finding it, I click any icon to select it and type the first few letters of the icon I want to find, and windows will select the icon I want. So 5 OEM icons at a smaller resolution wont make anything hard at all. MS just wants more control over what is done with their products.

And when my comp came preinstalled with win98, there were OEM icons, and I didnt have a problem. Hell, within 2 hours of turning on my comp for the first time, my desktop was completley customized with the icons I wanted

MS is right about the desktop, cluttered desktops look REALLY bad! I personally get discusted at anyone who has more than six or so icons on their desktop, making exceptions for people who have more, but it looks good. I can't use a computer unless the interface is ascetically pleasing. Additionally I am upphauled at the fact that it took you two hours to clean it! When I first install windows it takes me 20 minutes to remove all instances of OEM products such as AOL and MSN, install all the programs I need, find a desktop picture, customize the color scheme to match that, and customize the icon set to match both of those. What's wrong with you?

why don't we just all switch to LiteStep and build our desktop ourselves?
never stopped using it... and i certainly don't miss explorer
www.ls2k.org

Do u mean IE or the Explorer used to navigate drives and folders? cause IE is by far the best browser out there right now. though as soon as something better comes out i'll ditch IE. and no i ant no MS lover..i like Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris...the only OS of MS i use at home is 2k Pro and 2k Server...and right now i am using MacOs 9.1
i do like the customization idea though, i wonder if one of teir programs looked at Linux...hehehe;)

neither one. LiteStep is a shell replacement. the "explorer" i mean is the one that gives you the taskbar, start menu, systray, desktop icons... LS replaces all of that. you can customize every single detail. the problem is, though, that you actually HAVE to configure every detail... check out screenshots.jalist.com :) a few examples are given there. LS is not for the novice windows user (though i don't expect to find them at betanews anyways) and you NEED to learn how to configure it. you can't just set it up in ten minutes. once you got around that, you never wanna switch back again...
oh and you get to keep the IE and the file browser "explorer" if you want to

I agree LiteStep once had a lot of potential a few years ago. It was on its way to become a great shell replacement. Problem is the Dev team couldn't keep their act together and the project pretty much died before it was ready for mainstream use. Customization of LiteStep is great if you spend the time, problem is if you want to use My Computer or IE, Explorer *still* loads. Thus, you are going to have the extra RAM eaten either way. LiteStep could have gone a long way, but nowadays there are more robust and easier solutions such as DesktopX.

yes, development did slow down for a while, but now the dev team is up and working again. they're busy coding .25, aka Phoenix. LiteStep definitely is alive, there are still some days when you get 30+ messages on the mailing list. the latest (and all others since april or may) .24.6 beta build is very stable, plus there's some module coding going on. and the community is bigger than ever (and still growing)... it's quite the opposite of a dead project. i agree, tho, that it's not ready for mainstream use, and it probably will never be. if you want to offer maximum customization you can't easily make it a mainstream product that any novice could use (no offense).
you said that Explorer was still loaded when using IE or My Computer. well, that's not exactly true. for IE, the explorer *shell* is not loaded at all, neither the file browser (as far as i can tell). when using "my computer", the *file browser* explorer is started. and that one is NOT a resource hog like the *shell* explorer and it's NOT loaded permanently. so you DO save some memory, though that shouldn't matter with 128+ MBs of RAM that's usual nowadays.
DesktopX is nive, though to anyone that wants to invest some time i'd still recommend LiteStep. (but hey you can't argue about taste)
check out www.ls2k.org or www.shellfront.org, since litestep.net is down and litestep.com is in the middle of a general re-coding.

Great, now that's one more thing you gotta hack out of the Windows Registry!

yep

Hacking the Registry is I think illegal.

I think in the article, Brad made it clear that it was EASY to remove the extentions. I assume that means it will have a similar installation to the rest of StarDock's programs. No RegHack needed.

Uhh... no, otherwise a) we would have no apps, as all apps make changes to the registry, and b) we wouldn't have regedit with the OS.

woah, if i didn't know better i'd think you were a newbie.. **snickers to self**

Last April, I went out on a limb, and downloaded the Trial for Window Blinds. I liked it. I don't know about any of you.. but I get bored of my desktop, and want to make changes. For instance... Without the assistance of additional software... At the bottom of the screen, I have the normal Start button, and Task Bar. Remember the Quicklink Buttons? Well, I put my mouse cursor over the Vertical Seperator, and clicked down with my left mouse button, and dragged that puppy to the top. Voila! A New Toolbar! I have many Icons up there. 35 to be exact. All of programs I use. Maybe not all the time... But enough that I shouldn't need to look into my Start menu for a while.

With Desktop X - And the package I get with the purchase I made from Stardock, I am able to redesign the GUI of Windows into something it never was before. I've even messed around with not booting with explorer, but Desktop X... It works! Well the customizeability of DesktopX, the possibilities are endless what any Computer company can do. Heck, I can light my Recycle Bin on fire.. (And it looks pretty kewl.. let me tell ya!)

What about the workplace? Well let me tell ya. If you have an employee, who's primary purpose is to run maybe 2 software pieces... You can set Desktop X up for profiles, so each person logs in gets different priveledges, etc.. (This I know they were trying to work into the design, may not have been accomplished as of yet.) It would also be great for Parents, who have kids whose only purpose is to play those Video games. (Reader Rabbit, etc.) I mean.. If you want your kids to have access to computer, but not internet... this is a good way to let them use their programs, and not 'accidentally' get on the internet, and going places you never dreamed.

Okay, I'm going on and on, and I definitely don't want to go on and on like the first guy. I say... go to stardock's website, and try their trial software, and see what you think.

Later

StarDock products....well I have tried WindowBlinds under Win98SE and ME and quite frankly it was not stable enough for me to switch to using it. For reference I used versions 2.0 and 2.1 and several skins that appealed to me at the time. Was it great from an eye-candy point of view....definetely, but unfortunately there were enough glitches and stability problems for me not to consider using it all the time. That's not to say it's completely unstable, but it isn't stable enough (or wasn't stable enough) to be seriously used. I have not tried it under Windows 2000 so I don't know if it works any better, but as a result of my experiences with it in the past I'm in no great rush to install it on Win2K just for eye-candy sake.

As for Desktop-X, I have not used it, at the time when I was looking at StarDock products Desktop-X was at version's 0.7, 0.8 and 0.9. Given the problems I saw with version 2.1 of WindowBlinds I wasn't in any rush to give a

Win98 sucks. Get a real OS like Windows 2000 and you'll find desktop enhancements like WindowBlinds work great.

You're like the guy running Quake 3 on a Pentium 100 blaming Quake for being slow.

Yeah, I'm a bit leery too. Windowblinds eventually got on my nerves under Win98. There were enough glitches and slowdowns and incompatibilities that I uninstalled it after a couple of weeks.

Plus, 99% of the skins out there are either ugly or gimmicky. Windowblinds taught me to appreciate the clean, simple appearance Microsoft chose.

However, I've read that WinXP was designed to be skinnable, so perhaps Windowblinds will work more smoothly. I happen to like the Luna appearance, however, so additional skins aren't that appealing.

Windowblinds works a lot better on Win2k.

Thank you for your very insightful comment regarding Windows 98. Is there any other OS that according to you sucks and therefore I should stay away from it? And I do have a 'real OS' such as Windows 2000, so you shouldn't worry any longer. My comment said that when I was trying out WindowBlinds, I only tried it out on Windows 98SE and ME.

'You're like the guy running Quake 3 on a Pentium 100 blaming Quake for being slow.'.....First of all, WindowsBlinds is supposed to support Windows 98, quote 'It lets you decide how Windows 98, ME, NT & Windows 2000/XP look.', whereas I'm not sure that a P100 is even the minimum spec for Quake. Secondly, I wasn't saying it was SLOW, I said it wasn't stable!

You can run Quake on a Pentium 100 and you don't even need a hardware accelerator. It has software acceleration. It looks terrible and is slow. Similarly, you can run WindowBlinds on Windows 98 and it will probably work fine. But WIn98 is notoriously flakey.

Why, for instance, does WindowBlinds run perfectly on Windows 2000 but has so many problems for some people on Windows 98? Because Win98 is flakey for lots of people.

It works GREAT on XP... This is because WB is using the skinning enging Microsoft built into the shell, and it just hooks in. Resources are very minimally used. Performance rocks.

/Ryan

MS hasn't really made a skinning engine, they are using pretty much the same method that StarDock has been using all along.

But that's my point, it DOESN'T run fine under Windows 98, or at least not fine enough for it to be considered a good switch. I do not know if WindowBlinds runs 'perfectly' under windows 2000 as you say, but I have my doubts on that. I was simply sharing my experiences with it, I have no doubts that it may work perfectly well for some people - just as Win ME is generally regarded as being the worst of the '9X family, I didn't have a single problem with it (as an example).

And if I did not have a copy of Windows 2000, only 98, would you still be telling me that I should buy a $500 or so OS (AUD) just so I can run the product from StarDock with some better level of stability?

Excep[t that MS's luna themes manage memory better and the theme support is built into shell version6
Stardocks solution is just to "cover" the windows...

Actually, Microsoft worked with Stardock directly to add themes into Windows. Notice recent versions of XP do not use Microsoft's poorly written .theme format - Stardock helped them create something better. Microsoft's system works exactly the same as WindowBlinds, as they helped each other create it. In fact, WindowBlinds XP will substitute Microsoft's current implementation with a much improved engine (they have had more time to optimize it) which will speed up the GUI by a fair amount. Initial tests show something around a 20% speed increase in the GUI with Stardock's new engine handling things. But more on that later.

As far as the GUI acceleration goes, I'll definitely have to see that to believe it...

But I'd like to see some examples of the skinning features of Windowblinds XP. The Stardock site is horrible, providing almost no screenshots - and the ones they do show are both ugly and from the older version of Windowblinds. Are there any good examples out there?

www.windowblinds.net. Seems pretty easy to navigate to me. There is a *beta* of WindowBlinds XP. There are also various GUI benchmarking progrmas out there. WindowBlinds XP running LunaX is about 20% faster than Microsoft's implementation and WindowBlinds XP is fully integrated in.

That's the thing, WindowBlinds DOES work on Windows 98 for most people. But it's a hit or miss thing because Win98 is flakey. But on Win2K and XP, it's bulletproof and XP is the future.

Um... thanks for nothing!

There are *no* screenshots of WindowblindsXP. Downloading a demo doesn't do me much good if I don't have XP.

Screenshots for WindowBlinds XP are the same for the regular WindowBlinds. The difference is in the engne. Check out Stardock.com for some screens of WindowBlinds in action.

I'd love to see someone try to play Q3a on a P100.. ;)

I actually agree with Chris.. I found windowsblinds to be unstable when i used it as well.. but that was a LONG time ago..

Umm... no you can't... run quake that is.. you have to have a vid card that supports OpenGL...

..Actually, win98se is the most stable MS OS i have ever run... win2k doesn't support a lot of stuff, winme really is still unstable on most systems, and the same goes for winxp. Win98se, when used properly, is golden.

All of the screenshots there are quite obviously based on '98, judging by the icons. If I wanted my desktop to look like that I'd still be using Windowblinds 2.2.

I guess what I'm really looking for is some examples that transcend Luna, building upon its strengths and applying the *new* features of Windowblinds XP. I know there are some new functions using alpha blending etc. I have yet to find anything, though. Perhaps when XP ships Stardock will make some noise.

Boy are you wrong...

MS worked with StarDock so they could extend the desktop properties to use Windowblinds XP, instead of it being a separate app, that's about it.

WindowBlinds XP just uses the skinning technology that's there in the OS, like always. It's nothing better by any means.

The .theme format is for desktop themes, not for skins.... the .msstyles extention is what is used.

I don't think you even have one ounce of a clue.

How come most people sit here and post a bunch of messages that are totally stupid?

Have any of you ever heard the term: "If you can move a mountain, then do it. If you can't, sit down, shut up, and accept it!"

Well, the same goes here. Someone wants to move a mountain, but couldn't find out how. Then, someone else (Stardock) said "hey, what about this.. " and it's an absolutely ingenious decision. Microsoft cares about the desktop because of many reasons. For one, yes, of course, the more money they can make the better, but that goes for the whole friggin world! If I can make money, then hey, why the hell not?

But another point I'd like to make is that we are in a time where customer service and customer interaction is big business. If you can provide help, support, and at the same time make your customers happy, you're going to be rich (well, maybe not). People for many years have wanted Windows to be more customizeable. Not just colors or screen sizes or resolutions, but the whole feel that GOES with the look. Microsoft has allowed people to send them comments and suggestions and wish-lists sort-of. This is a great idea, and now we are starting to see the results of this action they took many years ago.

People want computers to be easy. Especially people who don't like computers but have to use them. If you can make computers easy, likeable, enjoyable, and useable all at the same time, and you stick your name on that system, people will remember and like you. It's all a popularity contest, and Microsoft won't be #1 for ever, and they know it. Right now they are in the lead by far and have the lead reigns over the whole damn computer industry right now, but look at Linux, it's getting ever so popular and more home user-oriented every single day.

We saw a re-make of the invention of the television a few years ago... Now, we're starting to see the invention of the color-televeision of computers.. Windows for anyone! I was an MS-hater almost as if part of a group a Nazi or gangmember would be part of, but now I'm seeing the light. Sure, MS makes some absolutely rediculous decisions sometimes, but c'mon, they have made some of the most famous, reasonable, and useable computer software available today. I praise them for it and thank that I have Internet Explorer running on Windows instead of having to have a $4000 Mac with Netscape. Don't get me wrong, I like OSX, but Mac doesn't like to let companies go in and change the way their OS works and looks and runs. MS _allows_ and actually programs Windows for that now!

Okay, I'm done with my speech.

And one more thing... I want to post my wish in the virtual void of the Internet...

I would just like to say that if Stardock had the ability to make an OS, I think they know what's up and could overpower Windows in a heartbeat.

I want to see Stardock's software make love to X11 and create the Ultimate OS.. OpenSource + Windows + Stardock + X11 functionality and changeability..

As homer would say.... "mmmm.. donuts..." =)

For one, yes, of course, the more money they can make the better, but that goes for the whole friggin world! If I can make money, then hey, why the hell not?

Thats the most intelligent comment i have ever heard from the internet.

Do you know what goes into making an OS?

Isn't it just the pretty buttons you click?

/Ryan

Don't forget all the other widgets like text boxes, radio buttons, check boxes, scroll bars etc etc =)

Strange how MS suddenly becomes so concerned that your desktop will be cluttered by unwanted programs.
They never cared about that in the past.
Seems to me they are scared that the trial against them might allow others to put their icons on the desktop.
So rather than sharing it with others, let 's make sure noone can...

Then why is Apple doing the same with OSX?

Don't you understand?? Microsoft wants to keep the desktop clean and keep OEMs from loading programs that start at boot time to make a better product for the end user who doesn't care about all the crap that OEMs do to computers.

And how would keeping your desktop clean prevent programs from firing up on startup? It wouldn't. Most people let their desktop become cluttered because they simply don't know any better. Most applications/games throw themselves at the desktop and the start menu and before you know it, it's quicker to run an app from c:\program files than weed through the mess on your desktop and start menus. Use a second toolbar, slam it at the top of the screen, set it to small icons, you can put 30 or more on it...sheesh

Sure, it 's always the others that are to blame.
If your PC crashes, it is most probably because of a faulty 3rd party driver or program.
Our programs just don't crash.
Strangely enough, most of the crashes I get are in Internet Explorer.
Last time I checked that was a MS program.
I think we 're witnessing a dangerous evolution here.
Everything not produced by MS is deemed to be crash-inducing, bug ridden and unwanted.
Who asked for a Microsoft Windows Media Player ?
I didn't, everything was fine with Realnetworks player.
Everything was fine when Netscape still ruled the browser world.
Of course, it 's hard to compete with a product that is "for free".
So, I 'm sure in no time there will be very few advancements in the Realplayer.
Now they 're forcing MSN down our throats, whether we like it or not.

Let 's give third party vendors a chance, so stop the bundling.

amen

yeah wow arent you special :P ...
internet explorer hardley ever crashes 4 me...

i used 2 have netscape on, but it completely crashed my computer almost every time i ran it, and when it did work, the browsing speed sucked!

netscape is very very slow to load, except i think they almost caught up with that in version 7, but even with the preload option, who the heck needs their computer to take another minute or two to load? huh? who?

id like to say more, but i dont have the time,
-TreVoR

It's good to see someone trying to cash in on all of this =)
Since the only time I've ever bought a computer from an OEM was back in 1991, I've never had to worry about having too many icon's on my desktop. But I can understand why they would like there to be no icon's (or at least a minimal amount of icons), I've seen some desktop's totally littered with icons all over the place - it's a wonder how people don't get lost.

I just hope they don't go overboard in creating additional toolbars! You'd have to have any room left on the taskbar!

check out the screenshot... "Windows XP allows for the My Computer window to be extended" - that's hardly new. you can add items to the My Computer window in Win9x. You can change the throbber in Win9x. You can add toolbars to the taskbars in Win9x. Stardock makes it sound like they invented the wheel. All of the above (in the article) is possible since the days of Win95... so start doing something creative instead of selling such BS.

I has nothing to do with WHETHER you could do it. The WAY you could do it was for geekheads who liked looking up GUIDs in regedit. Not something for your mom or pop to take on.
Now you can give _them_ the power. I salute Stardock. Keep the simplicity coming.
Powerlifter (but still a geekhead)

Could do it since Win95? Obviously you haven't tried. Sure, with enough work you could do anything. And Stardock hasn't claimed to have invented anything. To the contrary, they specifically state that they are taking advantage of Microsoft APIs. But if you know of an existing program that does thes sorts of things, give us a link.

OK. you've officialy been demoted to pet idiot.

SO, I quote FROM THIS ARTICLE:

> Because Microsoft has built the taskbar fully COM enabled,
> actual programs--called COM objects--can reside in its space.

Did you get the bit about ACTUAL PROGRAMS? NOT SHORTCUTS, PROGRAMS.

> For instance, an AOL user could look at their Start bar
> and see if they have e-mail waiting for them, if there's
> an instant message waiting ... Because toolbars are actual
> programs (not icons), that space can be used for many
> different things by the partner.

Yeah .. I think that pretty much sums up what's new here.

MY THOUGHTS: It's actually an interesting new feature of the OS!

If you ignore the fact that OEM's are going to use it to sell ads, the posibility of putting applications on that space was almost exciting until I remembered the FLOOD of UESELESS icons in my system tray from applications like AOL, AIM, REAL, and ever so many others. Icons which didn't actually DO anything but use up memory even before I started their associated applications.

You can only imagine that every app out there is going to try to take advantage of this, and each will make a bigger app than the guy before.

You can put any icons on the taskbar starting from IE 4.0 enhancement to Win 95 (right click, select toolbars, click new to make a new toolbar or use existing one and just drag things on toolbar). OEMs could also put things on top of start menu and I've seen lots of companies change the throbber in IE (all MSN cds have ugly MSN throbber)

It's not talking about putting ICONS on there. But actual COM objects on there. Big difference.

> It's actually an interesting new feature of the OS

you should have a look at zone alarm (for example). they have been doing this integrating thingy for years. so this it not new. maybe i chose the wrong words in my first comment. what i don't like is how stardock makes it sound like THEY invented this whole thing. they didn't. it's been around for years.

you can't do it in the original Win95 but in Win95 OSR2 (if i recall correctly) - when they started integrating the IE.

I don't expect this comment will make nme very popular around here but:

If you use hotmail and MSN messenger (not a great jump from AOL and AIM), you can already be notified whether you have mail from that little thign called the system tray, which is normally right next to the taskbar. What's the point of cluttering up the place more by using the taskbar to fit all this stuff in?

on any new PC that I have ever purchased... the very firest thing I do is format the drive... and install a clean copy of windows anyhows.. because 90% of the software included with the system.. is typicaly worthless to me... so i want all that wasted space back...

A capitol responce. Those of us who possess skills or just plain don't have tolerance for doltware will always protect or customise our desktop.

I totally agree with you... everytime I have to fix some newbies computer its because 6 fax programs, 12 frickin shortcuts to AOL ,18 disk utilities, 4 media players, 10 "graphics" programs, 6 picture veiwers and a Partridge in a pear tree all get start running at boot up. If someone asks me for advise on buying an OEM I tell them to buy one but to ask the tech to format and install a clean version of Windows. Now I can't even do that!

Hey, that's dangerous. What if Dell starts shipping computers with 1 GB of porn MPEGs and JPEGS, as a marketing ploy?

It'd be a shame to format away perfectly good porn. ;-)

I could do that years ago! I know I can make programs that fit in my taskbar.. I know i can add toolbars anywhere
it is too darn east I thought OEM's allready knew that

Hey everyone: piss off a-holes, leave my desktop _ALONE_ .

Peddle your paltry, filthy wares elsewhere.

I see that you didn't read the past few paragraphs.

Perhaps most important, Wardell assures BetaNews that an end user retains control of Windows and can turn off the extensions at any time.

In other words, in the end it will end up like the online services, and AOL Icons on the average powerusers machine, in the trash, but this isn't for us anyways, just as the original icons wernt.

Its not like stardock is forcing you to forever look at AOL, MSN, or compuserve ads forever on your machine, no one wants that, they are just making it so that the Advertisements actually work, as the way that it is now, even novices dont even pay attention to the plain icons now, maybe a actual program will get their attention.