I don't have a problem with websites requiring a specific browser/extension IF and only if that browser/extension is plainly necessary to perform a function that is critical to the operation of said website. By plainly necessary, I mean it enables something that simply cannot be done with another browser, AND is useful for end users. An example is the proofreading company I worked for. Their OCR output proofing interface required FireFox. Why? Well, besides a few minor iss
Lotherius
One must remember that not ALL members of the left are as extreme as the radicals, just as those on the left need to remember that not all conservatives are "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out" either. Extremists on either side make life hard on those who have educated and researched opinions.
Empty desk space is lost productivity.
I've always used Xplorer2.... however the Vista integration is not so great. Had a very interesting adventure with directory renaming / virtualized files (which x2 is not aware of apparently). Of course, that led to my learning all about file virtualization in Vista (which is a b____h in some cases)... Looking for a replacement that has better Vista integration though... Okay, so I looked at some of those. XYPlorer: No split view??!? I thought that feature was ubi
My take (a bit late) 1) I like the discount on master skins - that is significant as a benefit for being a subscriber. However, in and of itself, it isn't significant enough for me. 2) WC Browser (the program) - I don't use it. There's no real need for me, and the only way to make it really necessary would be to cripple the website (which I'd hate to see happen). 3) Website features - Well, there's not much WC as a website offers that isn't available elsewhere besides
My score is 42. Does that make me liberal or conservative?
Anybody? Is there a solution for this bug?
Does this mean that I'm out of luck? Stardock has NEVER time limited downloads on outright purchases before? If this is the case, I will NEVER buy another premium skin. Also - if this is the case, then when the email from the support site is sent, it shouldn't include an already expired link in a new email.
Actually - as best I can tell that other thread is about areas that are not available. This is a completely different problem. I'm having the same issue as the original poster - incorrect readings. Says it is 87 outside when it is really 64 according to accuweather. I'm in Texas, so this is hardly an issue of incorrect location codes.
I discovered that WB supports enabling "always on top" on rightclick or double click of a titlebar. This was when I was using Vista - and this has become essential for my work to be able to put certain windows always on top of my browser. Imagine my shock, when after "upgrading" to XP, and enabling the feature in Windowblinds - it simply ignores it. I am not able to set windows always on top using the Windowblinds feature. What gives?
Never NEEDED to keep a backup. Thing is, you are SUPPOSED to be able to redownload these. I also had a new link sent, and it is no good either.
I bought the Premium Theme "AeroS" when it came out. I've redownloaded it a few times from the link in the original email. I just reinstalled windows last night, and now when I try to download "AeroS", I get an error saying "Link Expired". So, I went to Stardock Support. I got the email with all my serial numbers & Links - I figured, "Okay, new link, great"... Nope, the current link also gives me "Link Expired"... What's up?
I have reinstalled windows since I tested OD+ last.. but yes, I did have a system tray active as well. The way Samurai303 describes the problem sounds very close to what was happening to me.
JMBdev: I have reported the same proplem as the mouse freezing earlier in this thread. The actual pointer stops moving like a system hardlock, even if it is not currently over OD+. I'm running Vista with an ATI x850xt and a dual core AMD.
NGTV: Rendering a video is *nothing* compared to thousands of polygons and shaders. Funny, I can render the Vista desktop in Aero on two screens with no trouble - my point is rendering a desktop *isn't* that much work. The whole point is that it can't do it NOT because of a lack of horsepower, but because of an idiotic decision by MS to render the ENTIRE wallpaper in a SINGLE texture. This is not necessary in a dual monitor situation, and indeed is a waste of resources. It isn't a hors
MontyXP and others: Turns out it has nothing to do with RAM as I thought when I started the thread.... turns out it has to do with maximum texture size, which is a hard limit. On a single monitor, pretty much any decent card can do dreams, including the x300 and such. However, when going to DUAL monitors, this breaks any ATI card prior to the x1800, regardless of memory, due to the limitation of 2k pixels per texture. Frogboy/Neil: Thanks for the clarification. I had
So..... where is the "3d Photo Slideshow" dream that is in the screenshots above?
By cutting edge, I was referring to Windows Vista, not the x850xt.... And I'm sorry, it IS ridiculous that a video card with the power of an x850xt can't do this. There is NO technical reason why it can't. It's not like the GPU is "just too slow" - it all comes down to idiotic design at MS. Why, exactly can it render 1600x1200 in Oblivion with no trouble, yet can't handle a simple video loop? That has NOTHING to do with how cutting edge the card is.
Neil: Thanks. You are -mostly- correct. Turns out SOME of the DeskScapes work, but not all. Bouncing Box and Desktop Earth work. However, Exotic Plasma fails with the texture size error. NGTV: resizing doesn't work. DreamScene still requires a single texture the size of both monitors, even if you're only rendering a postage stamp sized image. I guess for now I'm just going to have to use whichever of the dynamic deskscapes work. Some seem to, but others don't. I'm not sure what
I finally logged onto IRC and got the sdcentral link from LickServ, that got me a different version than I am able to download from the stardock website - and it updated to the newest version correctly.
Oh yeah.. funny - nvidia card to improve my performance in Vista!! And then have bad performance in games. No, I don't have ANY performance issues with my x850xt. "I wouldn't recommend anything lower than a 7900 tho with Vista." - apparently you don't know much about either video cards OR Vista's requirements. And spending $400+ (8800 series) on a video card JUST to have a little movement on my desktop that is covered by windows 98% of the time seems just a little bit
I gotta agree with most people here, that the lists are completely whacked. Even some of the less obvious "avoids" are whacked. PDF download, for instance, I consider ESSENTIAL. Yes, there are a few sites that it doesn't catch PDF files on, but I don't care. The majority of sites, it stops PDFs dead, and lets me open them externally. Sorry, I don't want PDF opening in my browser - it usually results in a crash in my experience, or if you're VERY patient, it slows down the browser drastically. Al
Looking at the actual error in further detail, I get the idea there won't be a fix. It has to do with video card maximum texture size - Apparently all ATI cards below the x1800 (I have an x850xt) have a max texture size of 2k. In testing, not even a 1024x768 dual configuration would run dreamscene - I get the max texture size too small error. Running a SINGLE screen, of course, I'm below that (even at 1600x1200)... Which makes me wonder ... why are they running BOTH screens as
What Meds? Seriously though.... as far as it being a video memory hog... I'm not referring to system memory or spikes or anything.. It simply refuses to display DeskScapes at ALL unless I disable my second monitor.
I have a 256mb ATI x850xt. It gets a 5.9 rating from Vista. It also CANNOT run DeskScapes on dual monitors. It seems someone decided not to pay attention to the fact that MOST OF THE ENTIRE FRICKING WORLD does NOT HAVE 512+mb video cards! If you buy Ultimate based partly on expecting DeskScapes/DreamScene content, you better be willin