If there is no difference, then why are there different styles named xxxXP and xxxVista?
far as I know.. as named by the skinner.. no different than xxxx and xxxxCompact
there is no .xpwba or .vistawba
.wba is just a renamed zip
a .zip can have lots of parts
WB does it's best to apply those parts based on your selection of skin/substyle
as VStyler said:
If the skin has been properly made the correct OS's substyle will apply at default, if it has not.. it will not.
This is a a skin author issue, not a WB issue, although it would be nice if WB could identify and correct.
Not a huge deal, just load the correct one when you notice it has loaded wrong.
even if the skin is properly made and loads correctly the vista substyle if you're running vista, WB will stll let you apply the xp substyle (if there is one) or vice versa
And why do [at least] three Vista styles not work [systray empty in single row] in my XP system?
if you are referring to a vista substlye (one designed for vista) as opposed to 'vista style' (a style emulating vista) it's probably because xp ain't vista thus the vista parts that can't apply mess it up
if i apply a vista substyle to my xp, it messes up the start panel
and for:
Shouldn't WB be smart enough as to allow only the selection of styles which will work with the current OS?
WB can only be 'smart enough' if it's coded to do so. Since it doesn't, I'm guessing it wasn't. I'm betting on the offchance Neil probably thinks we're smart enough not to select an substyle for an OS we ain't running (unless we're just curious to see what will happen)
