LITTLEBLACKDOG.COM

Posted: Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:03 pm Post subject:

In your case try http://www.littleblackdog.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=7

Stray Dog Joined: 24 Jul 2006 Posts: 4

Thank you very much.

When a good Logo can be made, it upload.

Stray Dog Joined: 03 Apr 2005 Posts: 5

Anyone happens to have charisma_carpenter.bmp somewhere, I kinda broke one of my servers so I currently can't access it Embarassed

Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:03 am Post subject:

I received a posting in the article submissions queue on LWD. It really belongs in here. Please note that I am not the author of the following, just the messenger.

Fraterchaos wrote:

A Bug in Reshack

Ok, I know this is probably not the right place to post this, but I already created an account here, and when I try to post on the forums it wants me to create YET ANOTHER ACCOUNT!!! I have so many accounts on so many forums and web sites I can't remember 1/10th of them, so I'm NOT creating anohter one.

Anyway, here's the dirt: The "Change the Boot Logo article instructions do NOT work in Windows2000 Pro SP4! I tried it at least three times and all I get is a boot logo screen with a bunch of garbage pixels. And DO NOT tell me I didn't do it right. I copied the original win2k boot screen, opened it in Photoshop 5 and altered it, saved it and when I tried to replace it in the Kernel copy, it said it was an invalid BMP, but it still showed up properly and seemed to be working, UNTIL I restarted my computer.

I also tried using one of the logo screens downloaded from this site (which doesn't work "as is" anyway because when you DL them they come out as .PNG images and have to be converted...) even those images will NOT work on my computer with SP4.

So if anyone knows how to make the new boot logo work under win2k SP4, please write me at [address withheld by editor] and let me know.

And once again, (and this is NOT an apology, merely an expalnation) I posted this here because I am SICK TO DEATH of registering on a website only to find I have to register a second time just to use the forums on that site. You wanna delete my account and ban me from your site for posting this in the wrong place, feel free. But everyone I know will find out about it, and I doubt any of them will ever visit here if you do, and I know ALOT of people.

Also, I think its STUPID to have users register to use the site, and make them register a second time to use the forums. Not only stupid, but ignorant and inconsiderate as well. Tells me you don't give a d*mn about the people that visit here...

Since I'll likely be banned for saying all that, I'll say goodbye now. Unless I get an email telling me somebody has fixed the reshack prog to work with SP4, I really won't have any reason to return to this site anyway...

If someone wants to help this person, PM me for the address to send. I won't compound the guy's frustration by allowing our sites to be a possible source of mail address harvesting.

Oh, and a note about registration. If it were not for spammers, we wouldn't need registrations. If it weren't for the fact that LWD and LBD are two separate domains on two separate hosts, we'd have a single registration. We're hardly the only websites that require it.

Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:29 am Post subject:

Even if I could I would not help such an arrogant and impolite prick.

/Akely

Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:55 am Post subject:

Akely wrote:
Even if I could I would not help such an arrogant and impolite prick.

/Akely

Now, now. Let's be professional. Obviously he's frustrated. And doing a spot of research on him (he seems to be big over on Yahoo boards) he's maybe more blunt than we're used to. So I think we should cut him some slack.

Not that he's probably watching here. But I believe in good karma myself.

And if he IS watching, he should be able to look here and figure out if he's got it working.

I do not believe there is a bug in ResHack.

Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:18 am Post subject:

EdisonRex wrote:
And if he IS watching, he should be able to look here and figure out if he's got it working.

I do not believe there is a bug in ResHack.

There isn't.

Resource Hacker does not check the inserted image to make sure it conforms to the requirements for a boot logo. Resource Hacker is not merely a "boot logo modification utility"; it's much more capable than that. However, as long as the image conforms to the many-times-repeated requirements (Bitmap format, 640x480 pixels, 16 colours (4 bits per pixel), RLL compression OFF, file size 153,718 bytes) then the image will display as desired, even with Windows 2000 Service Pack 4. I have a Win2K SP4 machine here which displays a very nice Deus Ex picture every time it boots.

If it's not working then it's down to user error.

Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 3:48 pm Post subject:

EdisonRex wrote:
Akely wrote:
Even if I could I would not help such an arrogant and impolite prick.

/Akely

Now, now. Let's be professional.

I kick ass as a profession. Or at least I used to before I started pushing paper... Sad

/Akely

Stray Dog Joined: 08 Jan 2007 Posts: 4

To begin with, I have already explained to Edison about the incorrect post, so hopefully he will understand my reasons, and I'm NOT going to ho into them again.

As for bugs or errors in reshack... you tell me why, if I open reshack, extract the standard win logo boot bitmap from the default kernel file, save it to my hard drive, then try to replace the bitmap with the one I just extracted, it tells me its an invalid bitmap???? You stated it does not even chaeck the bitmap file, so I guess I got some sort of weird version of reshack, because the one I downloaded from LWD DOES check the bitmap when you try to replace it, and EVERY SINGLE ONE I HAVE TRIED GIVES ME THE INVALID BITMAP MESSAGE!

As I said, I even tried replacing the bitmap with the actual original bitmap I just extracted, and it STILL gave me the eroor. At first I assumed that the problem was due to the fact that my win2k install includes the SP4 service pack, which the article on LWD does not mention, only speaking about changes that apply to SP2... but now I hear that reshack is not even supposed to give an "invalid bitmap" message at all, so I KNOW somebody is making a mistake, because it gives me the message on every single bitmap.

I even downloaded bitmaps from LWD, although when saved on my computer they always come out PNGs, and I'm certain that the vast majority of those are not going to work as very few of them are 16 color bitmaps to begin with. How anyone every gets some of those screens to work is beyond my comprehension.

I DID manage to get reshack to install a working logo into the kernel. I first extracted the standard bitmap, opened it in Photoshop 5, extracted its palette, created my own logo screen and then converted it to the windows palette I had extracted from the standard logo. This messed up some of my colors, of course, but not too badly. I saved the file (Yes, I saved it the proper size, with 4 bits per channel (16 color mode) indexed colors, and RLE compression.) I was able to import this into the kernel with reshack, but still got the "invalid bitmap format" message, but the new kernel still loads and displays my new logo properly...

I don't know why reshack is giving me this message. Since you assure me that there is no such message, and that reshack does not even check, I can only assume the program I downloaded has been chaged by someone, so maybe somebody shgould check that the reshack.exe that is being downloaded from LWD is actually the right one (I think I'm joking about that, but since I didn't write reshack, didn't post it to LWD, don't administer LWD and so on, how can I know what's a joke and what isn't?)

All I know for certain is this: Every bitmap I try to use to replace the standard logo gives me the error message in reshack. Even the standard windows logo bitmap, just extracted from the kernel, when trying to use it to replace, it gives me the error. Perhaps you are correct, that its user error, but I don't see how a file your program extracted, and has NOT been changed AT ALL, can then give me an error due to "user error" when using the very same program that extracted the file tries to reinstall the very same file.

As for being arrogant, well, when you have had to register TWICE, on ten or twenty different sites over the course of two weeks, just to get a simple answer to a simple question, and a site then asks you to register TWICE just to ask another simple question, you might get a bit frustrated too. Personally I think its arrogant to judge people the way someone here did.

Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject:

And welcome to our forums, fraterchaos. Please read and stay awhile.

I think this thread itself has all you need to fix your problem. And I'm sorry but it's late in our time zone and Toxin went to bed (he's been sick actually) so if you have to wait for a reply, it's just the way it's going to be.

I invite you to spend the time you'd be waiting, checking out the rest of our forums, now that you've decided to register. You might find that we're not all a bunch of assholes. Wink

and by the way, akely is a great guy when you get to know him, but he's not as patient as me, which is why he doesn't run the site. Besides, he's a swede, and they're hell on skates.

Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:07 pm Post subject: Re: problems with reshack

Toxin wrote:
RLL compression OFF

fraterchaos wrote:
(Yes, I saved it the proper size, with [...] RLE compression.)

Ahem.

What part of "do not use compression" (or words to that effect) is so difficult to understand?

(Apologies for the RLL/RLE mix-up; mea culpa - I guess I should consider myself lucky I didn't say "MFM compression")

fraterchaos wrote:
I was able to import this into the kernel with reshack, but still got the "invalid bitmap format" message, but the new kernel still loads and displays my new logo properly...

If the end result works, then does it matter if there's a spurious error message elsewhere in the process?

fraterchaos wrote:
I don't see how a file your program extracted

'T ain't our program. Angus Johnson joined this community some time ago, in response to the heightened interest in his utility, but the program is entirely his. He no longer supports or develops that tool - the last release was almost 5 years ago - but provides a download for convenience.

Without wanting to get into a "you're wrong", "no, you're wrong" circular argument, it's a bit difficult to see how any problems being experienced are due to anything other than user error. The experience of this community is that the process does work. Many people - myself included - have had repeatable success with it.

This thread includes all the information you could possibly need for troubleshooting any difficulties you may have. Yes, it's a long thread, but if you're doing something as trivial as changing a boot logo then you've certainly got time to read it.

As for the question of converting any downloaded images to the required format (BMP, 640x480, 4bpp, RLE compression OFF, 153,718 bytes), there is a perfectly serviceable free utility called IrfanView which will do what you need without the bloat of a commercial product such as Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro.

Stray Dog Joined: 08 Jan 2007 Posts: 4

In the last post here on this subject, Toxin said something to the effect that "what part of no compression don't you understand?"

I would like to explain something, so people won't consider me stupid. Perhaps Toxin has posted other comments on this topic about not using compression, but NOT since I joined. In fact, nobody has EVER told me directly NOT to use compression until now...

Also, I wouls like to quote DIRECTLY FROM THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE on LWD, which is where I got the instructions I followed...

Step 5. Using any image editor, create a Bitmap image that is 640 x 480 using 16 colors. We've found the easiest way to create an image is to take a copy the current image and open it with Photoshop and then edit the top portion. Set the "mode" to "indexed colors" and set the number of colors to 16. Save the file as a BMP file with RLE Compression enabled and you're all set.

As you can see, it CLEARLY states "Save the file as a.BMP file *with* RLE compression"

So, because I read that, and due to the fact that win95 and win98 BOTH required RLE compression for the logo bitmap, I simply followed directions. And remember, all this happened BEFORE I had even JOINED LBD Forums, so I could not really have been expected to read all the posts on this topic at that time.

I was FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS SUPPLIED BY LWD!!!!!

So, instead of implying that I'm a fool, try correcting the article that any person doing a web search for sites on this topic are likey to go to first ie: the LWD article (And yes, I came to LWD/LBD from a web search in yahoo, and the very first entry lead me directly to the article I just quoted... Perhaps the reason Toxin is having to repeat himself so often is because the article is wrong????

As for reshack not being Toxin's program, I'm sorry I made that mistake. I simply assumed he had some direct connection due to the strength of his response to my first statement that I thought there might be a bug. He replied very forcefully that there was no bug, which made me assume (incorrectly I admit, and I a0pologize) that it must be his creation.

Anyway, I now have it all working, so my sincere thanks to everyone who helped, however circuitous it might have been.

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 9:46 pm Post subject: Re: slight correction

fraterchaos wrote:
Also, I wouls like to quote DIRECTLY FROM THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE on LWD, which is where I got the instructions I followed...

Step 5. Using any image editor, create a Bitmap image that is 640 x 480 using 16 colors. We've found the easiest way to create an image is to take a copy the current image and open it with Photoshop and then edit the top portion. Set the "mode" to "indexed colors" and set the number of colors to 16. Save the file as a BMP file with RLE Compression enabled and you're all set.

As you can see, it CLEARLY states "Save the file as a.BMP file *with* RLE compression"

Oo-er. He's right, you know. Looks like the article needs to be edited to correct that error. I'd do it, but I get "access denied" when I try.

I'm astounded no-one spotted that before now; it's rather fundamental to getting the thing working. Congratulations (and thanks) to fraterchaos for bringing it up.

Stray Dog Joined: 08 Jan 2007 Posts: 4

Hey no prob.

I was just certain that I'd read somewhere that it was supposed to be RLE, and as I stated, I remembered that win9x used RLE, so, taken together I just went with RLE.. which of course was the whole cause of the trouble.

Anyway, since I was sure I'd read it I went back and checked...

I hope it helps forestall other newbies from making the same mistake!

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:26 am Post subject:

I have fixed the article to say "RLE Compression Disabled".
Thanks for pointing it out.