May be I'm a fool but I can't understand about what compatible with Windows-7 you are talking? I've tested DX 3.5 on Win-7 x64 and it worked for me almost without errors.

Then I've returned back to x86 and continue its using till now without any fatal errors. I'm seeing only the old, known bugs which I can bypass around 2 years (from the beginning of using Vista).

Why DX 4 beta lost its compatibility with Win-7 and has stopped working? May be this is a first result of future stripping? If - yes, this is a wrong way I'm thinking...

All the plugins available since 2007 have been mine and I've tried to keep them updated (with new versions scheduled for the next few weeks). Source code for most them is also available, but I haven't had much feedback about it (I got a few patches and feature requests for ObjectDock plugins though).

Sysstats source is available too, but nobody picked up the tab and so it doesn't have any maintainer currently. I'm not particularly interested in that kind of plugin (and working alone on it with no feedback is not exactly sexy). If Brad decides to open-source the existing Stardock plugins and commits to developping the DX core for some more time, that might change.

I don't think many people have been writing DX plugins in the last few years (actually I think I'm the only one, but I might be wrong). I can see that plan working (if you decide to go ahead and continue developping DX), as long as you're OK with there only being a handful of people contributing towards it (a few plugin writers and a dozen script developers). I already tried to add some missing functions with my DXSystemEx plugin (merging most of my old plugins in the process) and there is probably a lot more to do there.

It seems there are more people interested in doing Docklet development (unfortunately, a lot of them
"left" Wincustomize/Stardock to go to other sites). Having docklets as "full" desktopX objects might be a way to get some new stuff going (I wrote a plugin for that, but it's not as well integrated as it could be - the source code for that plugin should land on my tree on google code soon).

As long as you make things a little bit easier for plugin/script developpers, I think you can count on a (very ) small community to continue developping widgets. 

Things that will be nice to have (some I already sent to Curtis):

• Fix the widget launcher so that it doesn't eat its command line arguments (and I can stop binary patching it to make it work properly) => should allow full Win7 taskbar integration
• Add full script debugger support (you can even drop the old inside-editor debug functionality and rely on VS or the MS script debugger)
• Expose more of the internal object model to plugins (so that you can manipulate objects easily from plugins, add new object types, etc.)
• Add special Docklet object type to load Docklets (if not doing the previous one)
• Building on that, allow .Net plugins (a lot of that work is already "done", with scripting plugins being COM objects). It's not as nice as full scripting in any .Net language, but it will already make it much more easy to add new functionnality to DX (and there are a lot more C# or VB.NET programmers out there than C++ ones)
• Make external scripts easier to use (adding them to the widget on export, etc.)
• Make script components easier to use (registering them automatically, handling events, etc.)
• Add a command line utility to export dxpacks as widgets

Some of those things are relatively "easy" to add (and unintrusive).

It was supposed to be. There was something lost between my directives on DesktopX 4 and what was actually released in the first two betas.  It happens.

Well, let me candid here: From here on out, the DesktopX 4 betas would be handled by Alberto, myself, and Nakor (the same team that did DesktopX 1, 2, and 3.0).  But I don't have the patience to deal with whining. Am I being clear here, Vlad?  If the beta reports are full of you and Phoon having useless whining then we're done. 

We have a lot of other things that we could spend our time on and as-is, DesktopX 4 would happen only because Alberto, Nakor and I would be working on it during over-time hours and I'm not willing to put up with bitching and moaning.

The first beta of DesktopX 4 was a mess. We agree. It was an installation issue not a program issue. Deal with it. Move on. 

If you want to see the kind of feedback and info we're looking for, look at LittleBoy's feedback.  It's people like LittleBoy that make this worth it.  

But if I see another whiney bitchey post from veteran users, then we're done. Any normal business would have canceled this long ago.  The only justification to do it is for the community.  It's a labor of love.  Do you understand?

Brad, with all given respect for You, but what You seem to fail to understand sometimes is that we care because of love, too. Otherwise we wouldn't care at all. Sure, sometimes it sounds very bitter, but please try to see with the eyes of a long time follower also and how some things might look through these without proper information or insider knowledge.

That's my wish for Christmas.

I understand fully, Brad. I wish I had the technical knowledge that littleboy has so I could be of more help. I seem to be the most avid DX skinner out there, but I have no technical background. 

Brad,

I would love to see a list of goals for 4.0 and what would be on SD's plate vs whats on ours. 
It would help everyone focus on the positive side of things, like where you see DX going, or not going. 

Also, What we should be testing, at each release, so we are not bringing up things that are not yet implemented. 

Are we to start on the current beta or wait? 

If you are looking for ideas on what "we" the community are after there are multiple DX threads out there where we have all discussed what we need/want/wish for.  I think that was how this all got started when Zu asked all of us to give him ideas on DX 4.0  here: https://forums.wincustomize.com/345094

I personally know 0 about building a plug-in or dll, as the only real programming i have ever done is in vbscript/asp/vb, so im useless in that line.  But im willing to test things that people have ready for testing, but i guess i need to know what to test first.

I think i know Vad fairly well, and i think he is just very very frustrated with multiple years of trying to get some of the basic items of DX fixed, and sometimes, since English is not his primary language, it does not come out the way he is meaning things. And like c242 said we wouldnt be so intense if we didnt care.  Let me state that i think DX is without a doubt the most under-used, under-appriciated, and under-hyped product stardock has.   I know that personally i had very large hopes for DX and its potential.  I think there is a small but very loyal DX community here, and not to be disrespectfull in anyway, but Vad has done things with DX that to me are just beyond amazing, he brings a knoledge of this product that i dont think anyone has (at SD or anywhere) and his input is VERY much needed to make DX 4 something that SD and all of us can be proud of.

I also agree with the others here that most of our "whining" was becuase no one was responding.  Now that we know whats going on its a different story.  None of us want to see DX die, we want to see it become even better, we want to work WITH SD on this. 

I would also say that respect goes both ways, respect for our concerns and complaints, and for the Hundreds if not thousands of hours that some of us have put into DX over the years.  Again, we all want DX to succede, or else we would have moved on to something else. We do appriciate the time and effort it will take (and has taken) and it means a lot to me personally that you care enough to keep us posted and to be honest with us.

And lastly (and i pormise im done talking).

Merry Christmas to everyone at WC and SD.

Let me be candid then too.

What the fuck! I gave you legit issues in post #3 of this forum and explained what I did to see the issues, and watched it (and everyone elses comments) be ignored.
Several of us have told you that we felt SD just didn't give a shit because of lack of response. All has been (I thought) so much better since you stepped in and showed us you actually cared.

I asked legit questions concerning why the plugins supplied dont work. You clarified why. My issues were legit, to me, and some others. If it took calling the beta garbage to get someone's attention then so be it. If SD had been paying attention to us in the first place then that wouldn't have happened.

Frankly, that knife in the face you just threw really hurt and was uncalled for.

I'll not provide any more feedback on the betas.

Ok. I'll keep an eye on it.

Now, question is: to ensure bugs are recorded, should I submit new bug reports for DX4 for things that has been broken since DX3.x? Start over clean with the reports after testing against DX4? And if so, when would it be meaning ful to do so? (Just so that I don't jump the gun here.)

For the benefit of the skinners:

In Windows 7 if you try to create an Object Type of Folder Shortcut, My Computer is not listed. (see reply #3 for more details).

I've found a way around this.

Create an Object Type of File Shortcut. In the path put the following in:

C:\Users\Default\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Accessories\System Tools\Computer.lnk

This will do it.

Addition:

Trying to create a Control Panel Folder Shortcut works, but always puts the view in small icon view. To have it in category view all the time create a File shortcut to:

C:\Users\Default\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Accessories\System Tools\Control Panel.lnk

This is present in Vista as well, isn't it? I thought it was a 3.5 bug.

That object does not use any scripts. But oddly enough when i delete it I am asked to delete related objects too. There are no related objects to that. It is a simple Folder Shortcut that you select from the drop down. Designed on Windows XP no doubt. My Computer is not valid on Vista and 7 as it is simply titled "Computer" instead of "My Computer".

In any regard, these types of functions never required scripts before. If DesktopX is going to have to rely totally on scripting for simple objects then its current customer base will shrink quite a bit. As a programming app it is a wonderfully unique tool however and opens up avenues for a different customer base.

And... Thanks for the script example. Very handy!

You're right. Hmmm....I can't remember where I got that script, I thought it was that object. Thanks for the correction!