Iconpackager screwed me on windows 7

from Stardock Forums

I tried out the current iconpackager trial, and it totally messed up all of my icons. They're all wrong; my DVD icon looks like a floppy disk, my default icon is a big UAC shield, and so on. Restoring to windows default doesn't help, uninstalling iconpackager doesn't help, and running the odnt_zapper doesn't help.

Reading through the forums, it looks like my mistake was installing 4.2 on windows 7, and this is fixed with version 5.0-- but I can't get version 5.0 without paying, which obviously I'm not particularly inclined to do at this exact point in my life. Can anyone help with this? Am I basically out of luck?

iconpackager
18,101 views 29 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top

Luckily I had a system restore point from this morning, which resolved the situation.

For anyone reading this, do NOT install iconpackager 4.x on windows 7!

Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

Not to labour a point, but...

System Requirements
●
Windows XP (32-bit), Server 2003 (32-bit and 64-bit) and Vista (32-bit and 64-bit)
●
Minimum screen resolution: 1024 width and 768 height
●
50MB free drive space
●
256MB RAM
●
Impulse must be installed in order to download and update software

No mention of Windows 7 there in the requirements... ;)
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top

This is true, however googling for iconpackager and windows 7 doesn't show any warnings, and even has some people running 4.x with no issues (assumedly they didn't try to revert back to stock icons), so one might reasonably be led to believe that it works fine. Actually come to think of it, iconpackager is the only program I've seen so far that isn't 100% compatible.

Stardock should include a warning on the 4.2 download page until 5 is available. Or even better, the program should refuse to install on 7.

Reply #4 from WinCustomize Forums Top

better yet, go by the requirements

 

Reply #5 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Request a refund from Stardock, and as Fuzzy and Bichur have written: Go by the System Requirements.

They were put there for a reason.

Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top

I didn't pay, it was a trial.

You guys are crazy if you don't think this warrants a warning, but I guess that's the beauty of the internet, the crazies all congregate together. Enjoy the kool-aid, I guess. Shrug.

Reply #7 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Request a refund from Stardock
End of quote

He didn't want to pay for 5, that's why he was using 4.2 trial. :\

Reply #8 from WinCustomize Forums Top

I tried out the current iconpackager trial
End of quote

Doc... last I checked, the trial was free.... ;P ;P

Reply #9 from WinCustomize Forums Top

When a new OS comes out it is normal to check if any software or hardware runs on it before installation.

Reply #10 from Stardock Forums Top

You guys are crazy if you don't think this warrants a warning, but I guess that's the beauty of the internet, the crazies all congregate together.
End of quote

There's no need to insult people. Especially when you are the one who didn't read the system requirements.

Why were you looking on Google instead of checking the software page?

Reply #11 from WinCustomize Forums Top

I didn't pay, it was a trial.
End of quote

He didn't want to pay for 5, that's why he was using 4.2 trial.
End of quote

Doc... last I checked, the trial was free....
End of quote

[sarcasm] Request a refund from Stardock[/sarcasm].

Doc's reading comprehension scores are good. Unfortunately, sarcasm doesn't always come through. J'regret.

Reply #12 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Doc's reading comprehension scores are good. Unfortunately, sarcasm doesn't always come through.
End of quote

 

That's okay Doc...

 

either way, it's still funny for us....

 

:troll:

Reply #14 from WinCustomize Forums Top

I'm running 4.2 in Windows 7 x64 Ultimate with no problem
End of quote

I was (upgraded to IP5 beta)... and the only issue I had was with some of the package previews not appearing.  Other than that IP4.2 changed all my icons correctly and reverted back to stock/default without issue.... Win7 x64.

Reply #16 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Good grief. Charlie Brown has all the good quotes....;p
Reply #17 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Don't forget this is the site where it was ok for the CEO to park a Porsche in handicapped spots as a joke!
End of quote
Also don't forget it was the CEO's Porsche,the CEO's parking lot, the CEO's handicapped spaces and oh yeah,the whole thing was a joke staged by ..............wait for it............ the CEO. :frogboy:

Reply #18 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Quoting Wizard1956, reply 17

Don't forget this is the site where it was ok for the CEO to park a Porsche in handicapped spots as a joke!

Also don't forget it was the CEO's Porsche,the CEO's parking lot, the CEO's handicapped spaces and oh yeah,the whole thing was a joke staged by ..............wait for it............ the CEO.

End of Wizard1956's quote

Would have been a whole lot funnier if there had been a crumpled wheelchair underneath it... front end, and a couple of spread-eagled (fake) legs hanging out the back end.

:-"

Reply #19 from Stardock Forums Top

Yeah well I think you were unnecessarily harsh to that guy (despite the fact that he clearly had no clue what he was doing).

I have worked in IT for 10 years but I too tried the latest Iconpackager on Win7 without reading the requirements. It happens. 

Unlike the guy in the thread, I have bought pretty much all of Stardock's products and I DO think it's reasonable to expect Impulse to give a warning message instead of doing nothing useful other than checking licences..

My experience was that Iconpacker ignored the folders and only skinned the files.

Looking forward to the Win7 compatible version.

 

 

 

Reply #20 from WinCustomize Forums Top

Unlike the guy in the thread, I have bought pretty much all of Stardock's products and I DO think it's reasonable to expect Impulse to give a warning message instead of doing nothing useful other than checking licences..
End of quote

 

respectfully i disagree, It's up to the person to check whether there O/S or machine supports or meets the recommended/minimum requirements before installing something. It's called common sense. and even though most of us have forgotten or just did the ...ahh she'll be right thing, it's no excuse. It's too easy to blame the tools and not the worker these days and some responsibility is needed.

Reply #21 from WinCustomize Forums Top

 

don't new OS's come out with warning about stuff may not be compatible?

Reply #22 from WinCustomize Forums Top

It's all 7's fault.. I knew it :beer: :D

Reply #23 from WinCustomize Forums Top

may not be compatible
End of quote

Just like a bunch of people in this threado_O

Reply #24 from WinCustomize Forums Top

It's all 7's fault.. I knew it
End of quote

Hmmmm!! The old, blame 7 trick, eh, 99??  :-"

 

May not be compatible

Just like a bunch of People on this thread

End of quote

Now see here!  I'm compatible... if'n I lays orf tha curried cabbage fer a bit. O:)

Reply #25 from Stardock Forums Top

This is as bad a the support moron who chastised me about Vista 64 & minimum requirements for Object Dock Plus! "minimum requirements" != newer versions not supported by definition, and yes I get that it's not like needing 256MB RAM & having more.

In this case Win7 being "new" code there's likely changes that make software for older windows incompatible, with X64 & ODP it has more to do with programmers not doing their jobs. Damn well better be a free upgrade to ODP 2 & soon!