bigmuscle

Yeah, let‘s imagine how our desktops would look like if every free app would put a watermark in the right bottom corner of the screen... Of course, you are right, I cannot deny it. But as I know, no other free app does it, thus such situation never happens and that's the point Also, as Tripredacus said, when working on the computer, how often do you view the bottom right corner of the desktop? I don't see it most of the time (and I can even say that I have always this watermark displayed in my own build and it does not disturb me in any way).

It cannot be downloaded separately, it is a part of installer only. I goal was to merge it with DWMGlass.dll together but I was not successful yet.

The biggest misunderstanding, which I have been repeating for milliontimes, is that you don't pay for the license. If you don't accept it and you still think that you are paying for license than you simply violate the conditions which you had to accept before donation and, in fact, it is only user's problem. Actually, there are many software which display some copyright statements. We have software where we had to pay several thousands of euros for 1 license and it still display copyright statement and we don't simply care. Why? Because we paid for software usage and not for copyright message removal. And that's why I will always say that this software is free, because you don't have to pay anything to get the promised Aero Glass effect and all other promised features. The software does not contain ANY limitation of its promised functionality. You still don't agree? Then show me some law which says that free software is not allowed to display copyright statement. As I said manytimes, the possibility to remove such statement is only my "thanks" for user's contribution. So, in fact, there is no limitation on the software but only the bonuses. One proverb could be applicable here - I give you a finger and you want to bite me whole hand. But maybe, I should accept your complain and change the policy to what other software does, e.g. SW by Stardock - limit functionality to 30 days only, limit many features to paid license only and request new payment for each major version. Would it be acceptable? I believe that users would complain again.

Send me your e-mail and old machine code to PM and I check it.

This question has already been answered by Kelsenellenelvian. But the real question should be why is there a possibility to regenerate new key. Should it be really allowed? Shouldn't the key amount be fixed to donation amount? I just didn't want to limit users so much, so I added this possibility but I had to do something to avoid abusing. But it is what I said in one of the last posts - regardless what I do, users will still complain "why is there...".

Because he is only a spammer who wants to show us how to violate copyright. I still do not understand the purpose of his weird pictures.

..... I'm sorry, but why when you reinstall the same operating system on the same laptop, change the machine code, and the same key is not suitable? Actually, this should not happen and the key (and machine code) should stay same. Some users already reported this to me in the past but when I asked for more details, it always ended without any more feedback from them so I could not look at it more. I believe it is some very rare driver issue but I cannot analyse it without checking both installations (with different key) on the same system (especially what HDD ID is returned from system).

Thank for splitting, I wanted to ask some mod to do it because I noticed that I cannot do it myself.

Yeah, it is interesting that nobody have not tried to reimplement it yet. I'm afraid that this is the reason why users complain in a vulgar form - no usable crack and no other free possibility so the only way is to shout.

As I said before, any licensing model will never fit to anyone, some model is better, some is worse... locking to MB could be better, maybe, but the change is actually not needed at all, because it is only very small specific sample of users where HDD-lock does not fit. And I can even bet that if lock to MB only, soon or later, there will come some user complaining that he needs to change his MB twice a day.

adacom, I don't call you a liar.. but as I said before, any licensing model will never fit to anyone. I'm only saying that your problem is too plastic - nobody will ever need Aero Glass in such specific situation and if someone does, he is one in a million. Do you think that it makes sense to customize licensing model just due to one user? And about reconsidering the licensing model... as I said, it is no worth, because people, who complain, would never pay anything. They just need some reason to complain. Why don't they try to find different solution, why don't they use e.g. WindowBlinds or similar? Why? Because they need to pay for it. You can even check WB forum, from time to time, someone complains why he must pay... especially why he must pay for WBforWin10 when Win10 is free... There are some people who spread sh*ts about my software, they spread it is junkware, bloatware, it crashes very often, it is unstable, it does not provide real glass effect etc. etc. Do you think that this is only about licensing model and they would buy this software if the model was different? There are people who spread that I do not provide technical support to users, that I do not keys to donators and other shit. Do you think that such users would buy this software if the model was different? No, they would not buy anything. They only need a reason to complain, because they cannot have fully working Aero Glass. They want software for free, they are not interested in ANY licensing model.

Who are others? Those who would not buy anything and they agree only because there cannot find any crack? Or those who create false problems like changing their HDD twice a day? I actually cannot understand why someone cares about my software when he does not agree with the licensing model. If I do not accept license of some software, I simply do not use it.

you see it as spam - i see it as comment - you think your licencing model is correct i disagree - its your software so your choice - that does not mean everyone has to agree with you as to my post being untrue - how do you come to that - it does not agree with you but you have no exclusivity on the thuth This is not about expressing opinion anymore, you already put your opinion, I put mine. And I already put my opinion many times and you still write the same thing here still around.

What is the point of your post? Why do you put it here still around and around? What do you want to achieve - to fill this forum with spam? Could you understand that these people are not interested in paying/buying/whatever at all? As I said many times, they only need a reason to complain and it is not my licensing model. If I change it, they will find another reason to complain. They just need to show us how clever they are that they are able to "crack" my software. The biggest problem for them is that there is no real usable crack available. And you can notice it - when someone releases some partial-crack, everything gets calmed and there is silence, then MS releases new updates which break "cracked" version, they start complaining again because their crack does not work anymore. And I only laugh at them. But please, stop spamming this forum with useless untrue posts.

Well I understand why I inform you, bigmuscle of improper functionality with every test build. It is because I care, and perhaps it will help you to develop AeroGlass for th2 when it is released. I do not expect it to work properly with each, and every test build. I am happy when it does. And what are you expecting from me? That I will completely reimplement it for every new test build?

Yeah, I really do not understand why people install some beta versions of OS and then are surprised that something does not work there and they have a need to inform us about improper functionality with every new test build. Especially, when I said many times that I don't develop Aero Glass for the testing OS versions.

It actually works correctly, but it seems that old themes are not compatible - some theme visuals have already been remapped so it would not work in any case.

Aero Glass does not display any error message if you are not running on unsupported OS.

You don't want us to redirect you to the guide, but according to your post, error message, talking about appinit_Dlls etc., it is obvious that you did not read that guide at all.

Of course, I'm aware that the current model cannot fit anyone but any model never will. At the beginning, I didn't expect so great interest in my piece of software, so I didn't want to spend time with developing some complex licensing model and I just used simple code (which I had already developed and tested before) to have at least some benefits for individual donations. Because users were complaining that it is not so good to have a key locked to HW, I did a helpful step and have allowed to deactivate and generate a new key once a time. I believe that this must fit to the majority users and it is shown that only a few users criticize this. Sure, I could change this model completely but why to do it, when these rare situations are just artificial? Such users do not need the special license at all and they only use their plastic situation to criticize... just ask - how many users will ever need to change HDD/SSD twice a day and will require Aero Glass license just to test disk functionality? Also, there is some criticism about forcing donations and guessing the minimum amount. So, nobody forces anyone to donate, nobody forces anyone to use my software - if you don't like my model then simply do not use my software, nobody is forcing you. Also, guessing the minimum amount is not true - as I said many times - if you don't limit your donation to extreme small value (e.g. 0.001 €), you will get a key for any value. And if still talking about guessing then you should probably look at my website and you can see that there are value hints. So, no guessing but exact values are provided. And the last thing, the most criticism is in a form "I would buy this software but I don't like its licensing model so I will rather use a crack". So I am asking - if such user is really interested in buying my software why don't he contact me directly but he rather spends his time with waiting for and searching for a crack and then criticising (mostly in vulgar form) ? My answer - such user is not interested in buying at all, he would crack it regardless the licensing model and he just need some excuse why he uses the crack... and also my opinion is that the real reason for complaining is that there is still no usable crack for my software.

I probably don't understand this situation because it makes no sense to me. Why is there a need for Aero Glass if those disks in laptop are used for testing only?

Hard drive changing is just a fake problem. Nobody needs to change his SSD/HDD every day and still around. Someone may want to replace his old disk with new one but this happens once, maximally twice - and that's why everyone gets at least two keys from me. If someone needs to change disk more often then he cannot wonder that limiting his donation to small value will not give him million privileges.

does it generate minidump file?

It is the same situation as with blurring some window background - DWM is responsible for rendering only, so it must be instructed by external subject with functions DwmEnableBlurBehindWindow. There is a function DwmSetWindowAttribute which can be used to remove some window from DWM rendering. So if someone wants to use it (e.g. for compatibility reasons) then he must call this function externally.