This thread can be deleted as far as I'm concerned.... Paxx was able to help me.
Will Rose
Snowman, no I never got anything. Thanks for trying though. There are so many spam filters out there now who knows what happens anymore. It's all cleared up now though.
Koasati, I must confess you were not one of the people I've been inflicting myself on, but thank you for replying. I just emailed Paxx, but if he vanishes, you're next!
Thank you, I have emailed you...
I tried contacting people this morning, but have not heard anything back all day, and now it's after business hours so I'm wondering if people have gone home. I would appreciate it if an active Admin, Wizop, or moderator please contact me so that I may email them? Thank you very much.
Frogboy, sorry I tried to be clear, but it's mabey a bit complicated to explain. Thanks, I'll follow up with Alberto.
I've noticed this now with DX 2.2 IconX 1.0 (I didn't use IconX much before): State detection (the transitions on mouseover/mouseaway) seem to be behaving incorrectly. Specifically, when you have MouseAway and MouseOver icon sizes set to different values, a Mouseover event occurs when your mouse crosses the boundary of the MouseOVER icon size, instead of the MouseAway, which is the one visible. What this means is if you create a zoomer by setting MouseAway icon size to 32, and
Following up on my previous post, I finally managed to downgrade to 0.99 (although the archive said 0.95) and it seems to be working the same way with large icons as it does in 1.0. Isn't this still incorrect behavior, though? It basically makes "zoomer" type IconX icons unuseable.
IconX transitions (state changes between mouseover/mouseaway) seem to be broken in 1.00a. It doesn't properly respect the icon size or offset specified in the configuration dialog. For example, the mouseover transition occurs when you mouseover the area the mouseover icon would cover if it were visible (but it's not, yet). The transition should occur when you are over the area covered by the mouseaway icon
I'd say it was the quickest fix for SQL injection hacks, not the best.
I must say, a couple of those widgets look pretty cool!
Please see this thread: https://www.wincustomize.com/msgboard.asp?BID=WC&id=300096#300256
Anytime I try to post a comment that includes the word "" (S E L E C T without the spaces, in case it's deleted here too!) the word is deleted from the post. The rest of the sentence is there, but the "s-word" is missing. This is really a pain. > Does anyone know why this happens, and can it be fixed? Sorry if this has been asked a million times, but I searched and didn't find anything. If you thin
This is occurring because the weather object you are using is not able to properly parse some of the XML data that weather.com is returning. This is probably happening in the Function Iconname() section. To put a band-aid on the problem, as the first line of that function, add immediately below the "Function Iconname()" line: On Error Resume Next This will not make your object completely correct, but it will prevent the error message from occurring. (If necessary, check the
For those interested in a Moon Phase monitor: be patient. I'll be posting one in a few days. I guarantee it will not suck. Cheers, -Will
That is a fabulous looking skin! I'd think the price would be fair if it included ObjectBar skin and DX/ObjectDock zoomers. You'd really want the whole package if you have something that good looking. How does it handle people with high resolution desktops without the fonts being too small? Most WB skins are hard-coded to use 8-point fonts (which look good at 1024x768), so people with
I'm glad Stardock listened to their customers and created a much less expensive non-commercial version. Unfortunately, $99 on top of the price already paid for ObjectDesktop with DesktopX is just too much. $50 as an upgrade price for existing OD users would have been more appropriate and attractive. Tr
Although $129 will still be two high for a lot of people, I think that many _will_ find it acceptable at that price. To get really broad acceptance, selling it as a $50 upgrade to existing ObjectDesktop users would be very attractive. In any event, I think the idea of having both commercial and non-commercial licenses is definitely the right way to go, and $129, if not ideal, is obviously a lot better than $499. I just think that $129 on top of the ObjectDesktop price will be found by many to