Kane Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 Honz will never skin again, he quit skinning for good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erik holmer Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 ok, everyone is entitled to their own opinons and all .. but if you use msstyles .. you have **** running in the background using a lot more mem than WB... it's called svchost.exe, you should check it out sometimes .. AMEN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hankyone Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 i have it installed but i dont use it... dunno why... :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangbang023 Veteran Posted April 30, 2004 Veteran Share Posted April 30, 2004 that's a myth. Um no it's not a myth at all. Why the hell does every one of these threads turn into a battle between the 2 technologies. If you think about it, UXtheme is just a dumbed down WB since stardock helped design it. BTW, I am using an msstyle right now, so save the "fanboy" comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memNOC Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 Um no it's not a myth at all. Why the hell does every one of these threads turn into a battle between the 2 technologies. If you think about it, UXtheme is just a dumbed down WB since stardock helped design it. BTW, I am using an msstyle right now, so save the "fanboy" comments. first of all, how can you measure which takes less resources than the other, since the Themes service resides in svchost.exe along with other XP crap? and secondly, why does Windows feel 10x slower with WB4.2 than a regular MSStyle? and btw, i'm using WB right now.. Kewk-HoE is one sweet puppy.. oh and what's with WB unloading when i go to Display Properties?? or sometimes not being able to load a skin (like it loads and then immediatelly unloads, wtf)? and the random crashing in the Configuration utility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+BeLGaRaTh Subscriber¹ Posted April 30, 2004 Subscriber¹ Share Posted April 30, 2004 Yup, thats what I hate about these threads ... Trolls who jump in going on about uxtheme etc is better etc. I personally use uxtheme hack and windowblinds without a problem, and always will. As mentioned by bangbang023, it was StarDock who planted the little seed in microsoft which eventually grew to become uxtheme and the style/skin system that microsoft uses now, in fact they were heavily involved in the development of it AFAIK. @DJ_Souless .. that would be a pity if Honz never returned to skinning, crystal wb4 was awesome, as was the port of dynamine. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangbang023 Veteran Posted April 30, 2004 Veteran Share Posted April 30, 2004 first of all, how can you measure which takes less resources than the other, since the Themes service resides in svchost.exe along with other XP crap? and secondly, why does Windows feel 10x slower with WB4.2 than a regular MSStyle?and btw, i'm using WB right now.. Kewk-HoE is one sweet puppy.. oh and what's with WB unloading when i go to Display Properties?? or sometimes not being able to load a skin (like it loads and then immediatelly unloads, wtf)? and the random crashing in the Configuration utility? The crashes are definitely something with poor configuration on your system, because I have had no problems what so ever with "unskinning" or crashing. As far as the slowdowns you are experiening, it could be an unoptimized skin or it could be you don't have something set up properly in the configuration. One thing to consider is, when using WB, to disable the theme service in XP. That helps alot, believe it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Downin Posted April 30, 2004 Author Share Posted April 30, 2004 This thread has aquired a life of its own... I will never cease to be amazed about the rabid fan-boyish trolling that seems to creep up no matter what the subject or contents... :no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 This thread has aquired a life of its own... I will never cease to be amazed about the rabid fan-boyish trolling that seems to creep up no matter what the subject or contents... :no: welcome to "the life on this planet" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memNOC Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 One thing to consider is, when using WB, to disable the theme service in XP. That helps alot, believe it or not. of course.. always did.. anyways, back to hacked dlls for me.. i just noticed WB fails to skin some programs and dialog boxes (some login/password boxes in IE).. and i'm not planning on setting individual configs for each program.. (check the SS.. win3.1 anyone?) btw, you'd think after that many years of ground-breaking design Stardock would actually follow Fitts' law.. what's the deal with having to LOOK for the X button on the titlebars and watch where i click? years of computing taught me that launching my hand in the upper-right direction and clicking = closing windows.. this is really frustrating, and one of the main reasons, actually, i despise Apple's OS'.. but that's another issue.... :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangbang023 Veteran Posted April 30, 2004 Veteran Share Posted April 30, 2004 How is the position of the "X" WB's fault? It is purely up to the skinner and no one else. Also, you are using SP2 (as far as I can tell from the Firewall SS), so how about you wait for them to release an update that fills in the small unsupported areas in SP2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redestium Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 of course.. always did..anyways, back to hacked dlls for me.. i just noticed WB fails to skin some programs and dialog boxes (some login/password boxes in IE).. and i'm not planning on setting individual configs for each program.. (check the SS.. win3.1 anyone?) btw, you'd think after that many years of ground-breaking design Stardock would actually follow Fitts' law.. what's the deal with having to LOOK for the X button on the titlebars and watch where i click? years of computing taught me that launching my hand in the upper-right direction and clicking = closing windows.. this is really frustrating, and one of the main reasons, actually, i despise Apple's OS'.. but that's another issue.... :whistle: I've seen that happen too, it's very strange since they can be skinned via Luna for example. :wacko: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memNOC Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 How is the position of the "X" WB's fault? It is purely up to the skinner and no one else. Also, you are using SP2 (as far as I can tell from the Firewall SS), so how about you wait for them to release an update that fills in the small unsupported areas in SP2. nope. SP1.. no updates, or anything.. what you see there is Outpost in all it's glory.. and regardless of the X position, there should be a general rule in WB that follows Fitts' law.. its like with MSStyles, the X button is many times perfectly centered and just how the skinner wants it to be, yet every skin closes windows in the most upper-right pixel.. you can't imagine how much time i lose and the sheer frustration of having to find the damn close button.. and i've used many, many WB skins in the past and present and can't remember a single one where i could close windows like with normal Windows UI.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangbang023 Veteran Posted April 30, 2004 Veteran Share Posted April 30, 2004 Dont want to use it? Fine, why should I care? Just don't spread false information about how the memory usage is a myth because it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xer34 Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 Xer34 that's great, it's nice to hear your opinon. Now all of the others here know that you're opinion sucks and we can just ignore everything you say from now on. Its nice to hear your opinion too asshat. I was trying to be nice about it but its always trolls like you who always screw things up. Do us a favor and dont speak anymore. Iguess maybe I should have phrased my reply better so you couldnt bitch at me for having an opinion on something. And AthleticTrainer1981, Im sorry if I came across as bashing it. I know there are plenty of crappy visual styles out there. Sorry if I offended anyone.. cept for chavo of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memNOC Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 Dont want to use it? Fine, why should I care? Just don't spread false information about how the memory usage is a myth because it's not. indeed. way to have a clean discussion, though. :rolleyes: i touched a soft spot in your argument, and you back out? ok. no hard feelings, man, i was just setting some things straight.. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caerma Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 Wb uses uxtheme.dll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangbang023 Veteran Posted April 30, 2004 Veteran Share Posted April 30, 2004 indeed.way to have a clean discussion, though. :rolleyes: i touched a soft spot in your argument, and you back out? ok. no hard feelings, man, i was just setting some things straight.. :) what soft spot? You nit picking about the exact pixel location of buttons and your lack of ability to adjust to something different? I'm not going to waste my time fighting you on your own oddities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drprotos Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 /me don't like WB it slows down pc's a lot, uxtheme feels better because it's not another program allocated in RAM, is just he one u ran first when installed Xp for the first time, just a little modded :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redestium Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 /me don't like WB it slows down pc's a lot, uxtheme feels better because it's not another program allocated in RAM, is just he one u ran first when installed Xp for the first time, just a little modded :D oh boy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memNOC Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 what soft spot? You nit picking about the exact pixel location of buttons and your lack of ability to adjust to something different? I'm not going to waste my time fighting you on your own oddities. yea i agree, perhaps i can't adjust, but just so you know, the exact pixel location thingie is not me "nit picking".. Fitt's law is an actual rulebook that every program designer should work with.. it's proven to reduce stress and improve production in GUIs.. that's why i'm still baffled at Apple's and Stardock's decision (apparently, i don't think they've never heard of this) to not abide this standard of design.. IMO, it should be present in every computer software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Downin Posted April 30, 2004 Author Share Posted April 30, 2004 Dear GOD! I wish thread starters had the ability to lock them... :pinch: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangbang023 Veteran Posted April 30, 2004 Veteran Share Posted April 30, 2004 It IS NOT STARDOCK's problem. They simply gave the skinners more power to control the layout. Just because a set of "rules" says doing something one way makes things better doesn't mean it's actually true for all people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mgorbach Posted April 30, 2004 Share Posted April 30, 2004 bottom line for me's like this: WB CRASHES, iv seen it on my system and many others. Sure it doesent ALWAYS crash, but it has been prooven unstable on multiple systems as far as I know. On the other hand, uxtheme NEVER crashes, it has NO BUGS, and it will skin everything, perfectly, 100% of the time. Yes there are a few good WB skins, but in my opinnion the tiny little imperfects in WB bother me too much, even if it is equal to or faster than uxtheme. It simply doesent work 100% like microsoft's skinning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bangbang023 Veteran Posted April 30, 2004 Veteran Share Posted April 30, 2004 skins everything? Nope. Wrong. Open the command prompt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts