shell32.dll and *.exe editing
Monday, November 17, 2003 by PixelPirate | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
I've seen quite a few screenshots with explorer.exe running, but they didn't have the ugly yellow icon as we know. I thought it would be nice to know how to change the system icons the hardcore way by editing dll's and executables. I did a Google search and found this site: http://ofg.ganai.com/dllhacking.html It's a tutorial on how to edit the files, it has a link to a free program to use for the subject. I've stumbled over another site which might be very interesting for all the Mac lovers who want perfection: http://www.jonmega.com/~iceman/ The Iceman has some edited files online for you to download and use.
Resource Hacker is really easy to use, I edited Winamp, Explorer, XNews and shell32.dll with no problems. The great thing about RH is if you edit a file and just hit save instead of save as, it creates a backup file of your original file so you can always go back. You have to overwrite your exsisting system files so REMEMBER TO BACKUP YOUR HARDDRIVE! I or the authors of the sites I've linked to CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE if you experience problems after playing around with the vital files.
It's at your own risk - you have been warned.
Resource Hacker is really easy to use, I edited Winamp, Explorer, XNews and shell32.dll with no problems. The great thing about RH is if you edit a file and just hit save instead of save as, it creates a backup file of your original file so you can always go back. You have to overwrite your exsisting system files so REMEMBER TO BACKUP YOUR HARDDRIVE! I or the authors of the sites I've linked to CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE if you experience problems after playing around with the vital files.
It's at your own risk - you have been warned.
 |
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Koasati
Reply #3 Monday, November 17, 2003 2:08 PM
Reply #3 Monday, November 17, 2003 2:08 PM
I must be missing something..... how do you change the icons for exe's with IconPackager?
PixelPirate
Reply #4 Monday, November 17, 2003 2:10 PM
Reply #4 Monday, November 17, 2003 2:10 PM
I use IconPackager but it won't change the icons on the taskbar on my pc. IconPackager has some glitches too, often in the Save as dialog box where the original Windows icons show anyway. By editing shell32.dll you can make this annoyance go away. It shouldn't be a problem with my pc - I formatted a week ago and installed everything from scratch. 
PixelPirate
Reply #5 Monday, November 17, 2003 2:16 PM
Reply #5 Monday, November 17, 2003 2:16 PM
You can't with IconPackager. That's why I posted this thread. If you want absolute perfection and make the crappy icons look better (as I do) you have to work around it somehow, i.e. with Resource Hacker.
PixelPirate
Reply #7 Monday, November 17, 2003 2:38 PM
Reply #7 Monday, November 17, 2003 2:38 PM
Dangerous it is, no doubt about it, it could easily go wrong. I don't expect people to go and try it out, most people would propably just go ? and wonder what the heck I'm babling about. The thread is targeted at more experienced Windows users. I do warn about it. 
kongit
Reply #8 Monday, November 17, 2003 2:45 PM
Reply #8 Monday, November 17, 2003 2:45 PM
all it actually does is change the icons embedded in the system files. I changed them a long time ago, because i can make my system icons much bigger now and they look good. The only problem is it resets itself if you install an update. There is somewhere an app that will do it all for you and backup your system files it is changing. However i feel that this is not the place to dicuss changing system files. It goes against the overall attitude of this site of making windows look better without changing the systemfiles. Microsoft and apple both probably dislike the practice of changing the system files and their icons on a base level. however if you still insist to do this the best site is http://www.aquaxp.com/theme/
in my opinion
in my opinion
IPlural
Reply #9 Monday, November 17, 2003 3:10 PM
Reply #9 Monday, November 17, 2003 3:10 PM
Posting Operating System Hacks opens a can of worms best left in the cupboard I would think...
There is a difference between tweaking and forcing a system to do what one wants by hacking software which opens up liabilities no matter how many disclaimers are posted or the verbiage used in them.
just my pov fwiw
IPlural runs back to corner ducking the mouse pads thrown my direction *klunk* "Hey, who threw the mouse?"
There is a difference between tweaking and forcing a system to do what one wants by hacking software which opens up liabilities no matter how many disclaimers are posted or the verbiage used in them.
just my pov fwiw
IPlural runs back to corner ducking the mouse pads thrown my direction *klunk* "Hey, who threw the mouse?"
bakerstreet
Reply #10 Monday, November 17, 2003 3:26 PM
Reply #10 Monday, November 17, 2003 3:26 PM
It is my understanding that it also violates the service agreement and other fine print you agree to when you install. Might not matter so much now, but as Update becomes more intrusive such practices could be construed as 'virus-like behavior' and trigger an automatic fix.
As Microsoft ramps up security and all their DRM stuff, hacking system files will become less and less attractive. I have often wondered if resource hackers couldn't be considered 'reverse engineering' and therefore somewhat illegal under the DMCA.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/1201.html ( section 'f' )
It might fall under the exemptions linked above in some cases, but some might consider removing the recognizable aspects of the OS a threat to their 'branding' or something. Sillier things have been won in court.
[Message Edited]
As Microsoft ramps up security and all their DRM stuff, hacking system files will become less and less attractive. I have often wondered if resource hackers couldn't be considered 'reverse engineering' and therefore somewhat illegal under the DMCA.
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/1201.html ( section 'f' )
It might fall under the exemptions linked above in some cases, but some might consider removing the recognizable aspects of the OS a threat to their 'branding' or something. Sillier things have been won in court.
[Message Edited]
PixelPirate
Reply #11 Monday, November 17, 2003 3:34 PM
Reply #11 Monday, November 17, 2003 3:34 PM
I agree with much of what you say, this thread isn't in the "right spirit" of the site. I just thought people here could be interested in it anyway, we like to modify our system, right? I know for sure Apple is against skinning, they forced skinners - who created Aqua skins for Kaleidoscope for Mac OS9 - to take them of the skin sites around the net. MS and Apple may not want us to change things in their respectful OS'es, but when you've purchased anything whether it's software or a piece of clothing, then you can do whatever you want with it. It's yours now, you bought it, also knowing what the result might be if you mess with it. Cutting a hole in your t-shirt isn't really something you can change back. You could sew it, but it's not as good as new. You can always go back to your old system files - if of course you don't delete your original files, but who would think of doing that?
kongit
Reply #12 Monday, November 17, 2003 3:36 PM
Reply #12 Monday, November 17, 2003 3:36 PM
i think that apple might even have a better case by the use of their icons in the system files. And apple is a stickler about their copyrights. They made y'zdock illegal becuase it was to much like their own dock. Perhaps it would be best if this thread kindof disappeared. 
Stumpy
Reply #13 Monday, November 17, 2003 3:43 PM
Reply #13 Monday, November 17, 2003 3:43 PM
Remembering of course that Stardock work with MS about icons, skinning, bootskins, etc
PixelPirate
Reply #14 Monday, November 17, 2003 3:43 PM
Reply #14 Monday, November 17, 2003 3:43 PM
BakerStreet, I really haven't thought of that when posting. You are most likely right, you are entering a license agreement. 
Already I think it's unattractive, especially for regular users who only uses their computer to play solitaire, check mail and surf the internet. There's only a small part willing and interested in exploring the possibilities of OS'es and programs. Such as myself, if I mess it up, I know I have to re-install if worst scenario...
Already I think it's unattractive, especially for regular users who only uses their computer to play solitaire, check mail and surf the internet. There's only a small part willing and interested in exploring the possibilities of OS'es and programs. Such as myself, if I mess it up, I know I have to re-install if worst scenario...
bakerstreet
Reply #15 Monday, November 17, 2003 4:02 PM
Reply #15 Monday, November 17, 2003 4:02 PM
Pixel Pirate: I think messing with your own system is fine if you are willing to accept the possibility of messing it up. As I said, though, I wouldn't expect it to be possible for much longer, and I would expect what you do now to be forcibly corrected in the future, near or distant. If you, like the rest of us, have wrestled with Windows File Protection, you'll know what I mean, especially once your OS is exchanging system info with MS at will.
I don't want Outlook express on my system. Anyone know how to remove it on Windows 2000 without hacking system files? It is my understanding that there is no way to ( http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=257761 ). Things like that will only get worse as the Windows 'security' measures get more intrusive.
I am waiting for an attractive Linux alternative to Windows with baited breath.
I don't want Outlook express on my system. Anyone know how to remove it on Windows 2000 without hacking system files? It is my understanding that there is no way to ( http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=257761 ). Things like that will only get worse as the Windows 'security' measures get more intrusive.
I am waiting for an attractive Linux alternative to Windows with baited breath.
PixelPirate
Reply #16 Monday, November 17, 2003 4:26 PM
Reply #16 Monday, November 17, 2003 4:26 PM
I think you're right about the future, the road Longhorn is taking is doubtful in some ways. I've tried a couple of Linux distro's and haven't been overwelmed by them, Mac might be an alternative, I use Mac everyday at work, but I feel more comfortable with my PC at home. If Apple could just port Mac OSX to x86 architecture. There's been some stories about this recently at osnews.com. It's possible and should even be quite easy for Apple to do so. Drivers need to be written, but that shouldn't take that long. Darwin which OSX is based on is possible to run on some x86 machines. I kindof think Apple already has a "backup plan" if things get worse for them. We see how they've already made iPod and iTunes for Windows. For now it's a PR stunt hoping to get people switch to Apple. They're not even making money on ITMS. It's marketing. I wouldn't think of buying a Mac, too expensive, and I've seen different benchmark tests on various IT sites saying the new G5 really isn't that fast.
Anyway, I've mailed Frogboy to take this thread away. Looking back when posting this thread, I already had my doubts. I'll stick to graphic design in the future, keeping my mouth shut.
Anyway, I've mailed Frogboy to take this thread away. Looking back when posting this thread, I already had my doubts. I'll stick to graphic design in the future, keeping my mouth shut.
PixelPirate
Reply #17 Monday, November 17, 2003 4:30 PM
Reply #17 Monday, November 17, 2003 4:30 PM
Oooh I'll check that Windows 2000 problem with my sysadmins tomorrow, maybe they know something?
bakerstreet
Reply #18 Monday, November 17, 2003 4:33 PM
Reply #18 Monday, November 17, 2003 4:33 PM
I don't think you did anything wrong. What you suggested is how most of us started 'skinning' to begin with, replacing the resource files in non-skinnable software. I just think that warez idiots have given MS and the rest an excuse to prevent us from doing so in the future. The software isn't ours any more, we just buy the right to use it.
kthxbye
Reply #20 Monday, November 17, 2003 4:43 PM
Reply #20 Monday, November 17, 2003 4:43 PM
"Messing with the defaults is dangerous"
Through reshacking? Yes, yes it is. That's part of what makes it so much more fun. (Though for a system-wide replace, nothing but IconPackager.
)
I'm curious about one big thing though... What ugly yellow icon are you talking about Pixel Pirate? For the life of me, I can't think of any 'ugly yellow icon' associated with XP - and inquiring minds want to know.
Through reshacking? Yes, yes it is. That's part of what makes it so much more fun. (Though for a system-wide replace, nothing but IconPackager.
)I'm curious about one big thing though... What ugly yellow icon are you talking about Pixel Pirate? For the life of me, I can't think of any 'ugly yellow icon' associated with XP - and inquiring minds want to know.
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 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Monday, November 17, 2003 1:56 PM