grayhaze

Join Date 07/2001

Review of Object Desktop in PC Zone Magazine

I just bought the June issue of the UK magazine PC Zone for the big preview of Half-Life 2, and happened to notice a mini-review of Object Desktop in an article about making your computer 'cool'.

Quote:

"Products such as Stardock's Object Desktop can be downloaded in a flash, and allow you to tweak and fiddle with the default appearance of Windows by reshaping its look and feel. The vast bulk of replacement frame, images and cursors are garish, blatant copyright theft or just plain awful, but if you couple Object Desktop with Winbar, which gives at-a-glance readouts of Godzilla's vital signs, you'll have something truly awesome."

Then elsewhere:

"Object Desktop - Turns Windows into an unusable, graphically offensive mess. Chalk up some points for being weird."

I'm sure I'm not alone in finding these comments downright offensive. They also lay into CursorXP by basically saying it's totally uncool.

Who knows where these so-called journalists learn to talk about this stuff, but it seems to me that they probably haven't even tried to research for the article. They probably just read an ill-informed comment on a forum somewhere and thought they'd add it to their copy.

If you'd like to give them some feedback on their journalistic integrity, you might like to e-mail their letters page at 'letters@pczone.co.uk'.

By the way, if you want to give Winbar a go to improve your horribly disfigured desktop after using Stardock's products, go to http://www.winbar.nl .

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

I sent them a little comment or two

Successfully updated karma reason!

Just another cheap shot at trying to look important at the expense of someone else.

If their product is "so good', why do they need OD to go with it?

To earn my money, it takes more than product, it takes a business filled with real people who have decency and sensibilities, and have the courage to stand on their own two feet.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I wonder what examples they have of "blatant copyright theft?"

Also, their remarks are like saying clothes make people offensively garish looking. It all depends on what one wears, doesn't it? If one wishes to make a garish desktop one can, but with so many choices it all depends on the user. Very odd.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sign Up or Login and this ad disappears!
There are many great features available to you once you register. Sign Up for a free account and browse the forums without ads.

sig101: all those MacOS rips probably (about 15-20% of the ObjectBar library).

Successfully updated karma reason!

"blatant copyright theft?"

Unfortunately, this is not all that inaccurate if you consider the use of icons here. The fact is, Icons are a 'work', and if you redistribute them, or use them to create a derivative icon or shortcut graphic, you have 'ripped'.

We understand that distributing a re-colored version of, say, a copperdeck icon without permission would be ripping. Requesting such would be met with backhanded suggestions to contact the author. If the same person asks for themed version of a Photoshop or other commercially produced icon, they usually get it. There have even been threads here in the past that asked what apps people needed icons for.

I know it is a sore subject, but the fact that post #60 by moshi on the 'Overdog' thread: https://www.wincustomize.com/msgboard.asp?id=138131&BID=WC&page=1#139472 wasn't acknowledged is still bothering me as well. As recently as last night I was really pondering if it was hypocritical to hold DevArt and others to such a high standard and yet be supportive here.

WC ignoring copyright violations in the login section is no different than Devart ignoring them in their wallpaper section. Great effort has been made there to heed violations in all sections, and they have a hellish flow to keep up with. If someone reports a few of the logins that Moshi linked here, will they be removed?

Successfully updated karma reason!

here´s some "blatant copyright theft?". have a look into the Dashboard section

those are just the most obvious ones, there´s plenty more illegal stuff (copyrighting Open Source, stealing icons, etc.):

https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=451
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=427
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=399
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=383
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=379
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=371
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=224
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=344
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=111
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=313
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=305
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=302
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=291
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=262
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=260
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=253
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=243
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=241
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=236
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=228
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=216
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=227
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=185
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=179
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=156
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=150
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=147
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=122
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=102
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=88
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=86
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=84
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=83
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=82
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=43
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=37
https://www.wincustomize.com/window.asp?Cmd=COMMENTS&Lib=14&SkinID=5

Successfully updated karma reason!

It's really sad what the United States press/Journalism has become. Freedom of the press wasn't meant to mean freedom to print whatever the hell you want regardless of proof or bias :-/

Successfully updated karma reason!

"Freedom of the press wasn't meant to mean freedom to print whatever the hell you want regardless of proof or bias :-/"

hrm. Honestly, though, a 'review' is kinda subjective by definition, wouldn't ya say? Go back and you'll find bad reviews for the greatest movies of all time. Is reviewing software any different? When people read a movie review, they understand that it is the opinion of the reviewer, and ignore it as they see fit.

The productivity benefits of Object desktop are not something that the average windows user is gonna understand without a little prompting. If the average user walked up to my PC with LS or Talisman running, it would be almost completely foreign, and therefore unusable. Given a week, though, they would be twice as productive as they were without it.

There are bad reviewers and good ones. The good ones would use OD for a month. A bad one would behave like a bad movie reviewer; they'd read a synopsis, watch the first ten minutes, and hack it to death...

I don't think that saying "Turns Windows into an unusable, graphically offensive mess" is much different than saying Star Wars was an infantile mess full of bad actors. Both are potentially damaging to the endeavor, but the format gives them the right to state their opinion, however pig headed it may be.

**

I am very interested in seeing what will said about the 'copyright' statement. I hope it won't be ignored this time.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Mooshoo: it's a UK mag, not a US mag.

Also, journalism has always had its hacks. And today's journalism (by largely reputable publications at least) is considerably better, although not perfect, compared to the days of the "yellow press" as late as the early 20th century. When if you don't have a story, you can make one up and the facts to suit. Not to say that doesn't happen today either, but it's not as widely accepted and usually people get fired when they're found out.

Then there's the tension point between opinion vs. fact especially in a product review. However, I think the Brit libel/slander laws actually are more strict than those of the US.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2419

Some of their stuff seems borderline libel.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I wish I could read the article. No online version?

People spend 100 million or more to make a movie and get reviews like "If you have the urge to go see this movie slap yourself and stay at home"... There is a pretty high standard for criminalizing a review. Were ther any totally false claims made? I wish I could read it.

**

bakerstreet glances back at post #7...

Successfully updated karma reason!

moshi...I don't think I've moderated anything at all in the Dashboard section, as I don't use the proggy...

If there's problems with stuff there then I'll have a look.

The 'line in the sand' relating to the use of proprietary icons in 'one's' work is, that if the icon [eg, Photoshop] is used to create a shortcut/graphic/thingie to click on for an interface or GUI not originally supported by Adobe...[eg a LiteSTEP shortcut] then that is 'fair-use' of the icon, provided of course its intended use is to launch Photoshop from that GUI. This is an enhancement or extension of the original intended function of the icon.
If the SUBSEQUENT modified icon/shortcut/thingie is used and altered by a third party then this can constitute a 'rip'.

If an icon/graphic/thingie is an individual, unique creation intended only to launch Photoshop, but contains no Adobe content at all then it's not 'fair-use' but a free-standing creation in its own right and again, any copy/imitation/use constitutes a rip.

'Fair use' would not include using the Adobe Photoshop icon in a icon/shortcut/thingie to launch Jasc's Paintshop Pro.

Skinners in particular are creating GUI extensions/replacements that the program creators were unaware of when they embedded their proggy icons in their dlls, etc for access by the OS. Perhaps it would be clever of them to include the numerous permutations of icons and pics to 'extract' for GUI customizing purposes/alternatives....but they don't. All we have to work with is the OS 'embedded' icon/s, so that's what is used.

I personally see no problem with that, and I'm willing to bet that any of the Proggy creators would be happy with it, too.

The only single entity who has voiced 'displeasure' is Apple, so currently, anything uploaded or updated which includes specific trademarks or Logos in particular gets the chop.
Cross-pollinating OS GUIs may be 'fun', but if a Manufacturer doesn't see it that way then our hands 'should' be tied.

The problem specific to icons and their ripping is that there are so many of them around, and they are so relatively small and comparatively indistinguishable, that many 'rips' may and I'm sure, do exist on any/every site...and are a nightmare to police.

Looks like today I won't be drawing a Medical Centre and earning a living....I'll be rip-hunting yet again....

What pisses me off is that I can go to Customize.org and be confronted with comments about how poorly 'copyright' is handled here at Wincustomize.com.
What a joke.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Just remember most of these reviewers are "critics" and remember the root of that word; all they ever seem to do is criticize (not a cue for a song).

Just form your own opinion, don't listen to other's.

Successfully updated karma reason!

OK...had a quick look at #7.....and see plenty I have a 'problem' with...perhaps a couple that I am at a loss to see where the issue is...if it's a MS Word icon that's used or similar read my previous post.
Primarily there are background images [photoskins] that perhaps shouldn't be there.

Something will be 'done'....

Successfully updated karma reason!

Just remember...if there were to be NO 'free use' consideration given to proprietary icon use/reprodution....then probably every single screenshot on the internet would be a violation of copyright....probably hundreds of millions of them.

I may be conscientious, but I'll be DAMNED if I'm going after all of those, OK?

Successfully updated karma reason!

baker...re post #6....I'd lost that list and the link.

Thanks for posting it...

Successfully updated karma reason!

"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."

There is enough slack in the definition for debate, but I really don't think that re-colored and extracted, re-packaged icons would be 'fair use'. For personal use, maybe, but I think the sticky part is the extraction and redistribution.

**

As for screenshots, my understanding was the legality was based upon:

"incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."

In our case the desktop is being visually archived, not unlike an image posted of one's own car with various tradmarked logos on the tires, customized parts, etc. The icons aren't .icon files, and they are being recorded on a desktop as they are being lawfully used by the author. I don't think that is a problem.

Successfully updated karma reason!

That is actually the entirety of the article bakerstreet, at least so far as Object Desktop is concerned. The rest talks about graphics cards, monitors and suchlike.

The main problem I had with what they said was the idea that Object Desktop, which in itself is a collection of several independant applications, is painted with such a broad brush, and with little real knowledge of the product or the skins available. They seem to think that simply installing Object Desktop on your system makes it unuseable and counter-productive.

Perhaps Frogboy should get in contact with the magazine and request that they do a proper review of the product and take into account more than just wrongly-held misconceptions amongst the 'popular' online forums. I'd be more than happy to have my skins put forward as an example of just how unuseable a desktop can be...

Successfully updated karma reason!

bakerstreet, I agree with what you're saying, however there is a fine line between an honest opinion on software in comparison to simple trash talking.

"Turns Windows into an unusable, graphically offensive mess"

If he actualy did a little research you will know FOR A FACT that that statement is false. There are many skins in fact that TONE DOWN the gawdy windows interface.

Successfully updated karma reason!

baker...in 1961 there were no icons [as we know them in computer terms].
In 1961 ther was no GUI.
In 1961 the concept of extending functionality of a program interface/shortcut was not contemplated or imagined as a potential 'issue'.

Until officially told otherwise by Supreme/High Court ruling or contested example I think the concept of 'extension' of an icon's use with regards to a program launcher is a fair and legitimate one.

Failing that, it is neither my place nor yours, or rather is it within the realms of our capacity or capability to effectively reverse this 'belief' or 'trend'.

Pedantry would not distinguish between 'extraction and distribution' as applied to an image/shortcut containing an icon, and the 'extraction and distribution' of a screnshot image containing an icon.

They are identical. Both are images containing 'proprietary' content.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I would imagine the journalist (I use that term loosely) doesn't know anything more about a computer than Video Professor has taught him if he thinks that poorly of Object Desktop.

Successfully updated karma reason!

It's really easy to sit and point out 'copyright issues' and make wonderful judgements and determinations about all and sundry, but sometimes you look at both ends of the scale...on one hand you'd have something like Devart WAS...anything/everything was uploaded and copyright was 'never' an issue at all...the excuse being it was the responsibility of the submitter, to the other extreme that absolutely NOTHING is acceptable unless your own...and forget about ports or permissions or any of that....do your OWN thing or nothing at all...no collaborations [just in case there's a falling-out [don't laugh, it happened]]...forget 'community skins'...they are ports...some of it ain't yours...etc...ad nauseum.

The only solution is to draw 'lines in the sand'.
Read my 'permissions.txt' thread for one of those 'lines'.
Another line is with what is 'fair' when creating program launchers...[icons in shortcuts, etc].
Again, I still expect no dissention from the product manufacturers regarding this particular 'line'...

Successfully updated karma reason!

i agree, that icon thing is going a too far. but isn´t it a little strange that each time somebody starts a thread like "can somebody do a Matrix theme?" every admin or moderator is there and preaches about copyright but then there are quite a few around (cut and paste crap). i could not care less wether this stuff is up or not, but especially KarmaGirl´s belittling of Adam Solley on his OS X rip was ugly when there are probably more than hundred of the same kind in the library.

Successfully updated karma reason!

moshi...that wasn't/isn't the full story, and I'm not commenting publicly...

Successfully updated karma reason!

grayhaze & mooshoo: If you look into any of the more 'intellectual' centers of UI discussion, you'll find that the review is a common opinion of skinning. Not unlike what real Graphic Designers think of those who buy themselves a copy of Photoshop and start calling themselves that.

Most UI 'thinkers' will literally take a ruler and various 'laws' of UI design and tell you how good an interface is. Depending on the skins or themes the reviewer used, it could very well have been perceived as 'unusable'.

For instance, next week when you change your theme, you will have to 'break it in' all over again. UI functions at the level of sense memory, like riding a bike or swinging a golf club. If you have to think about it, you probably aren't comfortable with it. Skinning often requires repeated 'breaking in' which is enough to make it 'unusable' to many.

So, when I read reviews like the above, it just sounds like the many harsh judgments I have seen concerning skinning in general. The perception is that little or no care goes into the usability of the UI, and that standard metaphors are abandoned for more abstract (if swooby) ones.

Commercial electronics often get attacked for their flashy and counter-intuitive design. Being about the furthest community from 'the brains', and 'hobbyists' to boot, we are gonna be the most harshly judged, I'm afraid. Doesn't mean we should change what we do, nor does it mean we can't learn a bit from them as well.

***

Jafo: There were no e-books, web pr0n, or mp3s in 1961, either, and the laws seem to hold up fine. How would this be different than: "I am providing these mp3s/books/boobies so that people who own the originals won't have to go to the trouble of ripping/scanning them to digital format themselves." You are still distributing work that someone else owns the copyright to.

People who download 'packs' of icons rarely own all the software referenced, so they end up downloading work they have no legal right to posses. People can extract icons from software and make their own shortcuts, just like they can alter other people's skins. It is the distribution that makes it wrong.

Extracting and redistributing an icon entails

* taking something that someone else made
* out of something someone else made
* and then passing it out to other people.

It is uploaded in the name of the 'artist', with no credit to the original artist, and distributed. Even worse, many *alter* said icon to match some other themed set. This is no less a derivative work than a 'Babe' wallpaper. Even resource extraction is of dubious legality these days.

Regardless of our difference in opinion, Jafo, thanks for the work that you do. I know you are not a person that can be accused of being lax about these things.

Successfully updated karma reason!