Boot Screens and other conundrums
Saturday, August 9, 2003 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize News
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.
 |
|
Page 2 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Reply #22 Saturday, August 9, 2003 8:10 PM
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 Saturday, August 9, 2003 8:33 PM
Reply #24 Saturday, August 9, 2003 8:34 PM
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 Saturday, August 9, 2003 8:39 PM
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.
Reply #26 Saturday, August 9, 2003 8:45 PM
Reply #27 Saturday, August 9, 2003 9:02 PM
Reply #28 Saturday, August 9, 2003 9:19 PM
Reply #29 Saturday, August 9, 2003 10:00 PM
Reply #30 Saturday, August 9, 2003 10:00 PM
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 #31 Saturday, August 9, 2003 11:48 PM
Why?
Is Windows continuously crashing?
Reply #32 Sunday, August 10, 2003 1:38 AM
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 Sunday, August 10, 2003 2:11 AM
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 Sunday, August 10, 2003 2:12 AM
(edited to correct specs.)
Reply #35 Sunday, August 10, 2003 2:36 AM
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 Sunday, August 10, 2003 4:17 AM
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 Sunday, August 10, 2003 7:32 AM
Reply #38 Sunday, August 10, 2003 8:32 AM
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 Sunday, August 10, 2003 8:43 AM
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 Sunday, August 10, 2003 9:20 AM
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Saturday, August 9, 2003 8:07 PM
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.