Virtual Desktops (Stable) Can Crash Explorer.exe On XP

  Huh?  :NOTSURE:

Thanks for posting the problem and the fix though.

I'm sorry Zubaz. I was not very clear.I just meant that I spent many, many hours figuring this one out & I'm not going to give all of the details for free. I know that the folks who run these sites don't like people who have a "entitlement" attitude so I don't think Stardock is "entitled" to the full information (though I suspect they knew about this already since it is fixed in the latest beta). I'm glad to help users since they have paid for a defective product. If Stardock wants the full info they can pay me for my time, which includes 4 reformats, uncounted restarts & bug tracing. Hair implants are in order as well.
I'm not trying to be a biatch. I'm just trying to conform to the beliefs stated by the people who run these sites.
Fair is fair.

Why not . . when you have a problem . . call or email Stardock . . they might have given you the answer right away.  Or you could have posted here in the forums an dmaybe somone here could have helped.

And . . if, as you say, the beta is already fixed, it's unlikely that you will be paid for work they have already fixed.   :NOTSURE:

We all make choices.As an aside . . . I don't know where you get the idea that the owners/operators are out to take care of #1 first.  The folks that run this site and the members that hang out here are more interested in helping each other and hanging out.  Stardock is most interested in keeping customers happy so that buy more products and tell their friends.  I think you are generalizing what you've experienced in other sites onto WC.

I hope that you stick around long enough to revise your opinion.    

---

I'm just going by statements like the one above. The true "irony" seems to be that someone who gets contributions, for free, is increasing the price of software that allows people to make content for this person, his companies, and his companies software. I don't have to generalize what I see on other sites. The owner speaks for himself. Even when someone is "lucky" enough to make money off of their artwork here, they have to submit a large number of free skins first. Even then, Frogboy takes a cut of the money. I'm not sure you could find any other example of "looking out for #1" that would compare to this. This site is an island. The fact that "there are fewer and fewer people making stuff" might be due to the impression that Stardock believes it is owed content. Who is the hippy then? You can all convince yourselves that I am wrong, but you can't convince the thousands of other people you have sent away from here with a bad taste in their mouth. There is absolutely no self inspection going on. It's always about what is wrong with the person complaining. Never what is wrong with the company. If anyone dare speak out about it, they are scolded into oblivion.

As far as the bug being fixed in the latest version...this "seems" to be true. BUT, you are the first one to tell people that they shouldn't use beta versions unless they are willing to suffer the consequences of being on the "bleeding edge" of technology. It's
pretty crappy that ANYONE should have to look to a "beta" program to fix the flaws of a
supposedly "stable" version. Many people would never get that far.

IF Stardock did know about this problem, and fixed it, it was their responsibility to inform their users. Not mine. I *could* have posted my problem here, but there was no way of knowing that VD was the problem until I ruled all of the others out. (Keep in mind that there were a TON of programs bundled with this PC, but THEY weren't the problem)

It could be that the problem was fixed entirely by accident too. It's also quite possible that this bug was introduced because they are trying to make this program work well with Vista & didn't bother to fully check in to the programs stability in XP.

Either way, I did more than I got paid for. Sorry if I flamed a corporate hippy. (or hippycrit as the case may be)

You can fool yourselves, but it is clear that you aren't fooling a lot of people. Hence
the drop in submissions, lamented by the owner of this island.

Me? I'm just happy I could fix the problem that my purchased software created. Thanks to Stardock & WinCustomize for nothing.

Even the "Evil Empire" releases hotfixes. Stardock just releases "betas" without admitting any problems or faults. Imagine if all software companies did this. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Is that just a catch phrase for those you don't like?

It's sad. I really thought I would like it here, but having taken a cursory look through these forums, I'm not the only one who was disappointed by the way things work here.

Just fix the freakin' software. That's all I ask. The rest will haunt you in time.

unhappycamper88 : One thing I am a little unclear on, did you at any point contact Stardock technical support regarding this issue?

In general you should stick to the non beta builds unless you have a specific problem with the current non beta build.  You can think of the beta builds as beta hotfixes if you like.  These eventually turn into releases but they are released as beta so we can get additional feedback from any customers who are comfortable running betas.

Usually if a beta has been up for a month or so it is unlikely to have serious issues at which point someone who is less keen on using betas should feel more comfortable about using it.

I do think we need more fine grained control in the upcoming SDC replacement so a user can indicate what kind of pre releases they are happy to use.  There will be some users who want to use alpha builds of things, but others may prefer to wait until something hits RC status before using it and some will want to avoid betas at all costs.

Usually a beta of a new major release would have more chance of problems than a minor release beta.

In the case of this beta of Virtual Desktops, it looks like the beta should have been changed to non beta some time ago.  So it is probably an oversight (Virtual Desktops is not my area so I am not 100% sure)

If we were to mail every user about each beta update then we would have a lot of irritated users who would think we are spamming them!  Opening SDC would inform you of any updates or you could install and run Component Tray which tells you without having to open SDC - so kind of like Windows Update.

Finally I must point out that just because you have a problem on one machine does not automatically mean all machines have the same problem.  So it may well be your issue is still being triggered by something else.  The bug could be in Virtual Desktops, or in the other app, or be the result of some strange interaction between the two.  If app A works on a machine and app B works on a machine but A + B on a machine results in problems, which is at fault?

I totally agree Neil. I am not trying to be overly combative & I know that there are a heck of a lot of combinations of versions of software that can cause these problems. My issue is that there was no way for me to know about this without systematically going through each program. Honestly, each program, as it relates to another is most likely the problem here. But I have given you the .dll that was ID'd with the MS error dialogue. I have also said that I *think* it may have to do with Google Desktop being bundled (again, this is just a guess). It very well may have something to do with this computer being made in China. (yeah, I gave you one with this). Either way, I'm very happy that I was able to re-install the Stardock products (which I love). But I'm not happy about all of the re-formats. Not at all. If you say that you didn't know about it...I believe you. But this is one of *those* situations where there was really no other way to expose this. I don't know deep coding. I feel slighted when I have to figure out what doesn't work. But I DO understand.

I will let this lay if that is what you like. Just so as you know that there is definitely a bug here. I spent a lot of time tracking this down. This comp is lightning fast & unbelievably inexpensive. But there is a conflict going on. I am more than willing to re-create this error if you like, but I'm not going to do it for free. If you are interested in knowing what's going on...I'll re-format and let you connect remotely. You can see what's going on for yourselves. If you don't see what I did, I will show you what happened with you watching after re-formatting again. I won't do any of this without receiving compensation however. I'm not greedy, but my time IS worth something, just as yours is.

I will add that I appreciate your responding to me with such politeness & candor. It was unusually tempered from what I've seen around here in the past. Take that as a compliment, or a dig. It's how I feel.

Somewhere in all of this, I have to believe that re-releasing XP on new computers with a ton of bundled software, is *almost* as criminal as releasing Vista. I know that Frogboy called for the end of bundled software. Now I understand why. Still, time is money...whether it's yours, his, or mine. I don't want much. But how many customers are you going to lose because someone doesn't take the time to do what I did? It's your choice. The software works for me now & I have helped my fellow software purchasers to the extent that I can. Release the beta & everyone is happy again. No probs here.

I don't understand this at all.