IconPackager still bringing troubles
or how it's a mess between Windows Icons and System Icons
Wednesday, December 7, 2005 by neophil78 | Discussion: Stardock Support General
Well, particurarly since IconPackager is V3, i get (and i'm pretty sure i'm not the only one) a trouble which is becoming very boaring: restoring defaults icons.
I try to explain myself:
When you install Windows (XP or any other OS) firstly on a machine, each type of files get a defaut icon; exemple, .doc are by default opened with wordpad.exe and the default icon for .doc is the wordpad.exe icon (same way for any kind of other files and extensions ...), so this icon is as well the Windows default icon and what i call the System default icon. BUT, as soon as you install Winword (with office or whatelse) the .doc default icon becomes the winword.exe icon ==> though the System default icon is then the Winword default icon BUT the Windows defaut icon is still the wordpad one (and that unless you uninstall Winword ...)
Iconpackager is confusing these two default icons and brings all icons to Windows defauft ...
In a just previous beta version of Iconpackager, i've seen that this specific trouble for default icons is solved when WinWord is installed ... wrong (at least for me), it does not, i've tried a lot of things, uninstalling completly Iconpackager, rebuilting completly - and handly all default files icons), as soon as i re installed Iconpackager and on the first launched of it, the .doc icon is still the Wordpad.exe one).
This trouble is exactly the same for all images types, all compressed files (i use Winzip, and sorry but as Winzip is defined as the program which open such and such type of files, IT IS the default prog one and the files opened with it should have the Winzip default icon ...) and so on for other software.
So, should it be possible that Iconpackager make a differnce between the Windows default and the System default ???? and leave alone all the Programs default icons installed when restoring/reparing (or even just launching IconPackager) default icons, instead of changing them back to Windows default ???
I try to explain myself:
When you install Windows (XP or any other OS) firstly on a machine, each type of files get a defaut icon; exemple, .doc are by default opened with wordpad.exe and the default icon for .doc is the wordpad.exe icon (same way for any kind of other files and extensions ...), so this icon is as well the Windows default icon and what i call the System default icon. BUT, as soon as you install Winword (with office or whatelse) the .doc default icon becomes the winword.exe icon ==> though the System default icon is then the Winword default icon BUT the Windows defaut icon is still the wordpad one (and that unless you uninstall Winword ...)
Iconpackager is confusing these two default icons and brings all icons to Windows defauft ...
In a just previous beta version of Iconpackager, i've seen that this specific trouble for default icons is solved when WinWord is installed ... wrong (at least for me), it does not, i've tried a lot of things, uninstalling completly Iconpackager, rebuilting completly - and handly all default files icons), as soon as i re installed Iconpackager and on the first launched of it, the .doc icon is still the Wordpad.exe one).
This trouble is exactly the same for all images types, all compressed files (i use Winzip, and sorry but as Winzip is defined as the program which open such and such type of files, IT IS the default prog one and the files opened with it should have the Winzip default icon ...) and so on for other software.
So, should it be possible that Iconpackager make a differnce between the Windows default and the System default ???? and leave alone all the Programs default icons installed when restoring/reparing (or even just launching IconPackager) default icons, instead of changing them back to Windows default ???
ZubaZ
Reply #2 Thursday, December 8, 2005 7:54 AM
For the record . . . this forum is not Stardock support. If you want Stardock support email support (at) stardock.com.
This forum is for the community to help each other. Sometimes no one else is having the problem, sometimes people are busy. One day is not a long wait when you are asking for volenteer's for help.
I almost never install IP betas. Any other Stardock beta and I'm there, but IP always wigs out somethihng for me.
Hopefully you'll get your problem responded to here soon. But if you want Stardock support, drop them a line.
Reply #2 Thursday, December 8, 2005 7:54 AM
| One full day later ... nothing |
For the record . . . this forum is not Stardock support. If you want Stardock support email support (at) stardock.com.
This forum is for the community to help each other. Sometimes no one else is having the problem, sometimes people are busy. One day is not a long wait when you are asking for volenteer's for help.
I almost never install IP betas. Any other Stardock beta and I'm there, but IP always wigs out somethihng for me.
Hopefully you'll get your problem responded to here soon. But if you want Stardock support, drop them a line.
Neil Banfield
Reply #3 Thursday, December 8, 2005 8:41 AM
Reply #3 Thursday, December 8, 2005 8:41 AM
The lead developers of IP & I discussed a possible fix for your bug report on Wednesday.
No promises though.
Kevin_C
Reply #4 Thursday, December 8, 2005 8:43 AM
Reply #4 Thursday, December 8, 2005 8:43 AM
I see what you are talking about Neophil78. I use Firefox for my browser and most icon packages use a big Internet Explorer looking icon for the internet icon, but I just deal with it and move on. I believe IP works by associating icons with extensions, NOT with the applications that are registered to handle those filetypes (extensions). So, is it possible for IP to handle these special cases, probably. Does that mean it will? Perhaps, but I would say it depends on whether or not the trouble to make such a thing happen is deemed to be worth the development effort it would take.
Also, keep in mind if SD were to make IP support different icons for different applications that would mean icon makers would now have to make even more icons which I'm pretty sure most would not do. The more I type this response the more I doubt anything will ever be done to solve this. I'm thinking about how much of a pain it would be to somehow now associate applications with the icons in an IP file and then have to scan through and change only the icons that match the application and extension for a given icon. Nah, I just don't see it happening, at least not any time soon. But hey, maybe SD will surprise us both on this one.
Also, keep in mind if SD were to make IP support different icons for different applications that would mean icon makers would now have to make even more icons which I'm pretty sure most would not do. The more I type this response the more I doubt anything will ever be done to solve this. I'm thinking about how much of a pain it would be to somehow now associate applications with the icons in an IP file and then have to scan through and change only the icons that match the application and extension for a given icon. Nah, I just don't see it happening, at least not any time soon. But hey, maybe SD will surprise us both on this one.
neophil78
Reply #5 Thursday, December 8, 2005 9:40 AM
It's not really a problem a support for myself i think, it's mostly a question on how IconPackager is working ...
I put it here, because i had to put it somewhere ...
Reply #5 Thursday, December 8, 2005 9:40 AM
| But if you want Stardock support, drop them a line. |
It's not really a problem a support for myself i think, it's mostly a question on how IconPackager is working ...
I put it here, because i had to put it somewhere ...
neophil78
Reply #6 Thursday, December 8, 2005 9:42 AM
Not at all, i'm not speaking off how icons become when applying a package (with icons made by artists) but how icons should be when getting back to System default ...
Reply #6 Thursday, December 8, 2005 9:42 AM
| Also, keep in mind if SD were to make IP support different icons for different applications that would mean icon makers would now have to make even more icons which I'm pretty sure most would not do |
Not at all, i'm not speaking off how icons become when applying a package (with icons made by artists) but how icons should be when getting back to System default ...
neophil78
Reply #7 Thursday, December 8, 2005 9:43 AM
Reply #7 Thursday, December 8, 2005 9:43 AM
#3: hope my english was enough clear for you to understand what i mean 
neophil78
Reply #8 Friday, December 16, 2005 5:51 AM
Reply #8 Friday, December 16, 2005 5:51 AM
Latest version 3.10.101 (after uninstalling previous version, reboot cleaning up everything, rebuild by hand the associations types ..) seems to be correct now
c242
Reply #9 Friday, December 16, 2005 8:03 AM
For the record : This forum is labeled "Stardock Support". And did You ever hear the voices of users lost in automated answers and after answering that never getting any feedback ? I did...
Reply #9 Friday, December 16, 2005 8:03 AM
| #2 by Citizen Zubaz Thu, December 08, 2005 07:54 AM For the record . . . this forum is not Stardock support. If you want Stardock support email support (at) stardock.com. |
For the record : This forum is labeled "Stardock Support". And did You ever hear the voices of users lost in automated answers and after answering that never getting any feedback ? I did...
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!
Reply #1 Thursday, December 8, 2005 7:42 AM