Windowblinds or Style XP » Forum Post by 1MB

kona0197

Join Date 02/2003

+86

WB has alot more options for tweaking a skin than Style XP.

Successfully updated karma reason!

kona0197

Join Date 02/2003

+86

Oh and WB uses less memory to run than Style XP.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Stupid question.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I.R. Brainiac

Join Date 05/2003

+281

I think I speak for a lot of skinners here when I say"well...you cant get one of my skins at style xp"

Successfully updated karma reason!

StyleXP goes about it all wrong anyway, it uses a modifield dll file. Windowblinds does not affect your system adversely in any way.
Plus an added benefit now is the recent addition into SkinStudio Professional that can import stylexp themes and export them as WB compatible skins. So just one more reason to stick with what works.... windowblinds.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Jafo

Join Date 03/2001

+1846

The main practical difference for the casual user is that Windowblinds can do more to modify the Windows GUI and such is more appealing to those who actually want something different.

For the skinner, also, because WB can do more it gives the designer greater scope with creativity.

The result is that although there may be 'great' skins available for StyleXP there will always be 'greater'or at least more interesting and original designs available with Windowblinds.

That's abpout as impartial as anyone can get, considering you're in the home of the WB skinner...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Jafo

Join Date 03/2001

+1846

Or 'about', even.... Spell checker

Successfully updated karma reason!

Let's not forget the fact that if you also get Skinstudio, with a little (okay, sometimes quite a bit,) of tweaking, you can get those msstyle skins working in Windowblinds too.

The -only- advantage I really ever find to an msstyle (I use the hacked dxtheme instead of StyleXP - alongside Windowblinds, of course!) is that it has better control for defining your own fonts in any given skin that you're using - it lets you apply standard Windows font settings rather than the global font-override that Windowblinds uses (Hint hint, Stardock! ^_~)

In contrast though, Windowblinds gives greater creative control (Don't like the buttons over there? No problem.), skins more elements, and, the best best BEST feature is the custom colour support for skins!

Recolouring skins on the fly is /more/ than a little sweet.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2419

My suggestion: Use uxtheme.dll patch if you're comfortable patcinhign a system DLL and then use WindowBlinds and then you can have both.

Style XP doesn't actually do anything. It just patches uxtheme.dll in a slicker way and charges for it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

TGTSoft sells StyleXP for $20, think about that...they are literally selling you a modified version of Microsoft's Skin Engine. Imagine if you created some skin, I modified it and then uploaded it, that would piss anyone off. Microsoft just doesn't even care about StyleXP enough to even bother telling them to 'cease & desist', that alone should tell you which one is worth using.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Different skins. Just use both.

Besides this memory issue which I don't fully understand, windowblinds makes my computer slower when opening windows. The only wb skin with about the same speed when opening up windows as the default classic skin for XP is Blackcomb or skins very minimalistic.

So i've heard Windowblinds uses less memory compared to Style XP but when I run them Style XP runs faster because the skins are very simple most of the time. So am I using more memory to run faster when using Style XP or is this memory issue not related to the speed?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2419

I cannot think of any justification whatsoever to use Style XP.

It's purely a matter of "value add". Style XP adds no perceptable value. In my view, it's borderline fraud.

If you want to run msstyles, just download a uxtheme patch. It's free and then you can spend that $20 on WindowBilnds and run both.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Black Xero

Join Date 10/2001

+21

AND THE MOST IMPORTANT......THEY patch .msstyles, but i didn't any clue at their site that MS has permitted them 2 patch XP theme file....A bit illegal

Successfully updated karma reason!

Black Xero

Join Date 10/2001

+21

isn't it

Successfully updated karma reason!

Plus the new WindowBlinds in beta has the capability to skin IE/Explorer toolbars and icons. There are already some skins being updated with those features. (I remember when WB skins were fairly simple, now WB can skin so much skinners have much more work to do but the results can be rather awesome.)

Anyway, some folks here do use the patch and WindowBlinds, but now that SkinStudio Pro (which Object Desktop users get as a part of the suite of apps) allows for conversion of msstyle themes to WB with a small bit of effort, that offers another option. There are some nice msstyles out there.

I believe StyleXP the app also has logons and bootscreens, also using cracks of MS files. But Stardock has the free LogonXP app and now an alpha for a free bootscreen app, so one needn't pay for those to get the functionalities. Looking at it from these perspectives, WB appears to me the best bargain for the bucks. JMO.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I use both and I have to tell ya - comparing WB to Style XP is sort of like trying to compare a Voltwagen Beetle to a Lincoln Towncar-- with WB you get all the luxuries, bells, and whistles- and with Style Xp you get $20 poorer. - -and before all of you jump on me, I own both a Voltswagen Beetle and Lincoln Towncar- -so there- -

[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]

Successfully updated karma reason!

me personally, I do not care about the memory. it has been shown numerous times that WB and SXP can use more or less depending on the system and the skin.

the bottom line on that is if your system is taking a servere hit on either of them then more likely than not, your system is old or messed up.

so really memory is not a real issue. WB does very well more times than not and SXP runs the same existing XP engine (of which WB has the upper hand because it is possible for it to run less memory than the XP engine

its really about how much you can tweak it. WB has more tweaks, more options, more designs, plug-ins and is also very well integrated with other programs like Skin Studio.

I could be wrong (but you know I am right)

Successfully updated karma reason!

I use both Windowblinds and a uxtheme patch. I tried StyleXP and it just simply isn't a good product.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Digital_k said it best - well, along with myself, and Frogboy - and many others. windowblinds + hacked uxtheme.dll is the way to go.

There are even multiple easy to use uxtheme patchers out there that make the install MUCH easier. (I don't recommend doing like I did with my desktop and simply turning off WFP and leaving it off. I make regular backups with ghost, so I don't mind if I kill something.)

(Yeah, yeah - basically this post is so I can type UXTHEME.DLL correctly. Geesh, can't believe I mispelled it earlier.)

Successfully updated karma reason!

since it is a patch, isn't it available for free somewhere on the net?

I thought I read that somewhere and thought it very funny.

in one case your buying a $20 patch that might or might not be authorized by MS

and in another case, there probably is a patch dll file you might find it somewhere on the net for free and it will do the same thing.

hilarious....

Successfully updated karma reason!

I have to add this, however unpopular it might be. WB is great for all of the reasons mentioned above. I'm a registered user, and I use it intermittently. Why not all the time? Because despite all the talk about it's total compatibility with the Windows XP OS, I still run into apps that don't work right (even using UIS1 skins), or aren't skinned correctly. The most recent example is AOL9 (no, I don't care to start a debate about the merits of AOL). So far, I have found no WB skin that will skin the some of the windows that open *within* the main AOL 9 interface window. Did AOL's programmers do something odd? Perhaps. But, every XP visual style works perfectly. My point is, that despite the tremendous progress that WB has made with respect to compatibility, when running WB, *eventually* you will be scratching your head wondering why an app won't work, or won't skin. So, IMO, if you want or need the ultimate in compatibility, use the patched uxtheme.dll. If you want the extra stuff (and there's lots of it) that WB can do for you, use WB, but be prepared to tweak, create exceptions, try different skins, exclude, etc. I really wish WB *would* work without a hitch on *every* app, but so far, I haven't found that to be the case.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You can get the uxtheme patch here, it has directions for both SP1 and non SP1 XP users : http://corecomm.themes.tucows.com/preview/310804.html

Successfully updated karma reason!

Jafo

Join Date 03/2001

+1846

geekboy2000 that'd be because styleXP doesn't do much that's actually clever....it's the same as not skinning at all.....just like sticking to the default shell.....no thrills unless you dump Explorer and get a bit more creative....

Successfully updated karma reason!

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2419

Let me us an analogy:

Would you pay for a program that let you choose your wallpapers?

Let's say it wasn't "obvious" how to change the wallpaper in Windows. How woudl you feel about a company that made a program that simply brought up a list of wallpapers to choose from and charged $20 for it? How would you feel if they claimed that THEY were what made Windows able to have wallpapers?

That is essentially what Style XP is. Patching uxtheme.dll is free. There are hundreds of places you can do that. I find it amazing that *anyone* would actually spend money on Style XP.

Successfully updated karma reason!

One could also go into the actual interface of StyleXP. *shudders*

I find it a hideous excuse for an interface. In screenshots it looks fine and dandy - but something about actually /using/ it just rubs me the wrong way. I didn't let it stay on my HD for more than a couple days, so I can't tell you /what/ it is exactly.

I always found it interesting that in addition to peddling StyleXP on their site - they /also/ offer a free uxtheme patch of their own (though it's without all of the 'features' of StyleXP!) on their website.

Successfully updated karma reason!