BootSkin 1.0 is now available for download. BootSkin is a freeware program that allows Windows 2000 and Windows XP users to safely change their Windows boot screens.

While other Windows boot changing programs exist, they have relied on patching the actual Windows XP kernel to change the screen. This can create all kinds of potential problems. BootSkin, by contrast, installs a driver whose only job is to display the boot screen. This allows users to change their boot screens without messing with any system files and keeps the size of boot screen download small (less than 20K typically) since only the actual graphic has to be downloaded.

There are hundreds of replacement boot screens available for BootSkin on websites such as WinCustomize.com. BootSkin's home page is www.bootskin.com
Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jan 26, 2004
Old News
on Jan 26, 2004
So's your attitude, Ender.

Sounds good! I like using the BootSkins. Good work, people!
on Jan 27, 2004
Is this newer than the ver 1.0rc2? Maybe that's what Ender was referring to? I dl'ed the rc2 on Jan. 8th.
on Jan 27, 2004
What was changed? Added? Ect.
on Jan 27, 2004
Question - Why does the bootscreens with Bootskin not look as good as the boot screens that patch the kernel?
I have used other programs to change my bootscreen before and have liked how nice and clean the images look. Every bootskin I have tried using looks really bad in comparison. Can somebody elaborate?
on Jan 27, 2004
If you ask me it has a long way to go...
on Jan 27, 2004
Yes, it does have a long way to go before it can reach the stages that the kernel patching apps have. However, you need to remmember one very important thing as far as image quality. It's nearly imppossible to easily and smoothly convert a 16 million colour image to a 16 colour image. Before you ask "why are the pictures so bad looking as a boot?" you need to ask "what quality is the image coming from?"

and as far as wether it is an update or not, according to http://www.bootskin.com it's a new version that has been made available for download on the 26th of January.
on Jan 27, 2004
What's the difference? I just see a 16 colour image. What else can be better in one program to another

on Jan 27, 2004

Anyone saying there's an image quality difference between the two is imagining things. There can't be an image qulaity difference. Both are 16 color bitmaps.


I've used both for a long while and I've ported some as well. They look pixel for pixel identical.


Having a 16 color 640x480 bitmap embedded in the Windows kernel will look the same as the same 16 color 640x480 bitmap put somewhere else.

on Jan 27, 2004
Is there a Changelog anywhere? It would be helpfull to see if it's worth upgrading.
on Jan 27, 2004
Probably just a few bugfixes...
on Jan 27, 2004
I agree with karb0n. Changelogs are very useful in knowing whether or not it's worth upgrading and knowing whether or not you want the changes and features that the upgrade includes. I know this probably isn't the best place to say this, but I'll say it here anyway.

Other than that, I still love bootskin
on Jan 28, 2004
@ Frogboy- I do agree with you on the a 16 color image SHOULD look the same whetehr in the kernel or an external bitmap, but I do disagree with you on the image quality looking as good in bootskin as it does with patching. Some of the bootscreens that have been made by an author named "swissboy" are famous within the kernel patching programs, maybe he should be asked to develop a bootskin to see if he can get the same quality as the patching technique.
on Jan 28, 2004
Wauslee. If you look around in the Bootskin section you will notice that he ported some of his skins to the Bootskin format.
on Jan 28, 2004

Swissboy Bootskins look identical to Swissboy boot screens that patch the kernel.


And there are a LOT of them here. I.e. dozens.

2 Pages1 2