Come on Stardock!!!

Well, we're now on 5.1 and still no skinning of the command prompt window. This was the best capability of 4.6 alone... I only have one thing to say... W T F?!?!
5,043 views 12 replies
Reply #1 Top
Even in 4.6 that only worked with UIS1 files. Most skins made these days are UIS2.
Reply #2 Top
Maybe so, but without the command prompt being skinned it just makes WB5.1 seem WEAK.... like StyleXP WEAK... know what I mean?
Reply #3 Top
JRSCCivic98


I've missed your riveting commentary. I look forward for this post to devolve rapidly into Stardock bashing like so many of your other posts.
Reply #4 Top
I've missed your riveting commentary. I look forward for this post to devolve rapidly into Stardock bashing like so many of your other posts.


   Good lookin out Zu!
Reply #5 Top
Since it's prize season around here, how about a pool to get Z a real trophy? WWW Link

Reply #6 Top

That has to be something short of totally useless....

Reply #7 Top


not something to carelessly jam into your pocket, that's for sure.
Reply #8 Top
what? no torque wrench??? useless!
Reply #9 Top

Use Console 2 instead, it takes the skin.
And you can run several different shells in it at once, with tabs.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/console/

It also has so called fake transparancy, where the desktop wallpaper is used as background for the console regardless of what other programs might lie underneath. I wish all programs had this feature!

Reply #10 Top
only have one thing to say... W T F?!?!



He does indeed have a way with words!
Reply #11 Top

We are still considering reintroducing command prompt skinning, but I cannot promise when it may appear.

The number of users who care about it are much less than the number of users who would use the wallpaper changer for example.

Reply #12 Top
The number of users who care about it are much less than the number of users who would use the wallpaper changer for example.


Yeah, because it's really hard to right-click on the desktop and change your wallpaper that way. So basically you're introducing a "feature" to make a process easier rather then a "feature" that actually introduces a new "function".... seems logical to me.   

Hell, at least you're still considering it.