I know I can't give you a complete answer to what you're asking, Jerry, and to be honest, I debated whether to even comment on this thread until I saw the last paragraph of this post:
| Ultimately it comes down to the artists themselves, would they want the extra burden of more icons in their sets, do they see the need strongly enough to contribute? |
I honestly don't think it's a matter of the artists not wanting to skin the application icons. If you look at many of the more complete icon sets around by artists like mormegil, yangge, FOOOD, marvilla, James T, adni18, starone, DuoPixels... the list goes on and I don't want to slight anyone but those are all I can think of off the top of my head... most of them have icons for the various types of application
files which can be identified by their extension. So it seems to me the issue is not likely the artists being unwilling to skin those icons.
I think the problem is more likely a programming issue in that all those applications have the same file extension for the executable file, .exe. I'm not sure of the in's and out's of the system hooks that Icon Packager uses to change all the icons, but I would imagine that could create some very complex coding to change the icons associated with all those individual .exe files.
Complicating things further, you should remember that the icon files for the application are found
within the executable file itself, which I would think brings up several Intellectual Property rights issues that Stardock quite rightly IMHO would not want to tangle with. Especially when you consider that those icons are in many ways each company's/product's sacred cow, the unique symbol which they pay dearly to market and protect.
Again, I'm just making some guesses here, but I wanted to offer another possible explanation. I doubt very much that the problem is really skinners not wanting to produce the icons.
[Message Edited]
