Chad Posted October 11, 2002 Share Posted October 11, 2002 Originally posted by aristotle-dude I have uninstalled WB and Webblinds and use the Jaguar .mstyle by Iceman and I have not found any Mac OS X skins for WB that are anywhere near it. This .mstyles is almost a perfect copy of the real Jag except for the buttons being on the other side. I also use his Yztoolbar Jag theme and mobydock ofcourse. Sorry Frogboy. :) I do still use WindowFX 2.0, Objectbar, Springfolder and Iconpackager though. They are great apps. Honestly, I have not fired up DesktopX after finding Mobydock. I found WB and Webblinds to be too unstable/bloated and they do not change the toolbar icons for explorer or allow you to get rid of the throbber. If someone made a good Jaguar WB skin which used LucidaGrande Type 1 font, I'd consider reinstalling WB. :p Has anyone considered releasing a DSX or brushed WB skin for public consumption? You're kidding right? Please tell me you are kidding. No one has made an OS X skin that even resembles the real deal. Granted there aren't a lot of Aqua skins for WB, but the two that I know (that are updated for winxp) are easily better. I updated disciples Aqua skin. Called AquaXP over on wincustomize. And one by judge. I think it was called OSXP. But anyway, I know mine isn't perfect, but its better than any msstyle. Course it hasn't been updated since March...that's when I bought a Mac. And with the additions to WB since then, the skin definately could be improved. Aqua better on msstyle. That is funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristotle-dude Posted October 11, 2002 Share Posted October 11, 2002 Originally posted by superfula You're kidding right? Please tell me you are kidding. No one has made an OS X skin that even resembles the real deal. Granted there aren't a lot of Aqua skins for WB, but the two that I know (that are updated for winxp) are easily better. I updated disciples Aqua skin. Called AquaXP over on wincustomize. And one by judge. I think it was called OSXP. But anyway, I know mine isn't perfect, but its better than any msstyle. Course it hasn't been updated since March...that's when I bought a Mac. And with the additions to WB since then, the skin definately could be improved. Aqua better on msstyle. That is funny. With all due respect to Judge. He did a fine job but there are a few problems with it: It's not Jaguar (the buttons are different in jaguar) It does not use LucidaGrande or Lucida Grande No shadows As for AquaXP? I could not find it on wincustomize. Was it removed or is it only available for wincustomize subscribers? I already paid for OD, I don't want to have to pay more just for a couple skins. See: http://www.wincustomize.com/skins.asp?libr...=13&SkinID=1001 and: http://members.shaw.ca/aukkonen/mobydock2.jpg finally: I've used the real jaguar and none of the WB skins I've seen use the real LucidaGrande for the window caption and buttons with shadows and WB does not skin the sidepanel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted October 11, 2002 Share Posted October 11, 2002 I know they don't have the new Jaguar buttons. Just a simple edit to the themes. Do a search for my username, superfula, at wincustomize. It comes with the Lucida Grande font in the appropriate places. Jaguar's buttons don't really have shadows. WB does not skin the side panel, but there was a work around posted in the WB forum here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperJediMedia Posted October 11, 2002 Share Posted October 11, 2002 Originally posted by PureEdit MSSTYLES vs. WindowBlinds What do you think is better and why? Me? I like MSSTYLES, they are faster (For me at least), more compatable, and more intergraded into the OS, I just like it more, plus it is FREE :) WB does have nice skins, but all the good ones will be ported to MSSTYLES Soon :) Microsoft themselves Supports WIndowBlinds MORE than the crap TGTsoft put on people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristotle-dude Posted October 11, 2002 Share Posted October 11, 2002 Originally posted by superfula I know they don't have the new Jaguar buttons. Just a simple edit to the themes. Do a search for my username, superfula, at wincustomize. It comes with the Lucida Grande font in the appropriate places. Jaguar's buttons don't really have shadows. WB does not skin the side panel, but there was a work around posted in the WB forum here. Ok I reinstalled WB 3.41 and took a look at your skin. Not bad. Although use of tahoma for the menu is not a good choice. :) I was able to change that via the display properties so no biggy. -As for the use of shadows on the button text - it does not look good (too busy). Try doing an offset of 0,0 with level 1 blur setting and a shadow color of 120,120,120 instead and normal style. Same applies for the other shadows except the titlebar caption text. -doing italics for the mouseover on the taskbar items looks a bit off. -The apple on the startbutton is the wrong color. -no rounded corners when you have to bar at the top of the screen. -I'd suggest using a different graphic for the hide/unhide arrow like the USB arrows. Finally, don't assume that the user will have a User icon on the startmenu because domain users don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frogboy Administrators Posted October 12, 2002 Administrators Share Posted October 12, 2002 Incidentally, WindowBlinds 3.41 supports installing fonts automatically for the user. So someone could create a OS X skin with the fonts they want and it would automatically install them. As for OS X skins, I'm running OSX right now. Regarding Mobydock, I like it. But as many here know, we've internally had a basic Mac OS X dock for awhile (a very early build got leaked out accidentally). But unfortunately we can't release that kind of stuff since Apple would be all over us. One thing that I always find amusing is when someone tries to say I'm over at Neowin for marketing reasons. Are those who say that even aware that every topic here displays how many VIEWS a given topic gets? For instance, as I type this, this post has received 1335 views. Many of which are duplicates. Let's be generous and say that 400 different people have viewed this post. Of that 400, probably 100 have WindowBlinds, another 100 will never be interested, 100 don't care and maybe the last 100 might try it. OUt of that 100, 1 might buy it (that's the ratio of downloads to purchases of software). It might even be lower due to the...demographic of the posters. My posts on this topic have required probably an hour of my time total. Is the math clear here? In short, it doesn't make any sense for anyone to "market" anything on a FORUM on a website. It would be a LOT more effective to write content for a mailer or post more news items on sites or a thousand other things. So don't kid yourself, I'm not here marketing. How's this: I don't care if you try WindowBlinds or not. This is a TECHNICAL site. People want to talk about the technical differences on a subject I'm interested in I'm going to post my opinion on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morpheuss Posted October 12, 2002 Share Posted October 12, 2002 Can anyone please tell me why MS released the age of mythology official skin for WB and not msstyles ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercury Posted October 12, 2002 Share Posted October 12, 2002 Possibly because Stardock is a MS partner, and TGTSoft is not? (please correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure many of you will). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazzla Veteran Posted October 12, 2002 Veteran Share Posted October 12, 2002 Originally posted by aristotle-dude Oh dear, that's nasty. Someone should take the time and do a proper skin. That has bits of Jaguar Aqqua and old school Aqua. Fugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tahaumer Posted October 12, 2002 Share Posted October 12, 2002 Superfula I did the search and came up with your theme. Its good, better than the others, but the buttons are nasty, and the longish button that is supposed to be on the top right side of the title bar.. its not how it should have bee. There are other minor mistakes too. In short, the msstyles theme is much better, other than the buttons being on the wrong side.. So does anyone know of an app that switches the buttons to the left side (other than wb and efx)?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted October 12, 2002 Share Posted October 12, 2002 Originally posted by tahaumer Superfula I did the search and came up with your theme. Its good, better than the others, but the buttons are nasty, and the longish button that is supposed to be on the top right side of the title bar.. its not how it should have bee. There are other minor mistakes too. In short, the msstyles theme is much better, other than the buttons being on the wrong side.. So does anyone know of an app that switches the buttons to the left side (other than wb and efx)?? So first you said it was better than the others, then you say the msstyle theme is better. I can't believe people actually like that msstyle theme. It's pretty bad. I don't mind if people don't like what I did, but saying its worse than msstyles is just plain crazy. I think the buttons are pretty good. After using OSX for a while I can see some improvement, but compared to any msstyle, aquaxp's buttons are much better. And yes I know the unfold/fold button is wrong. I made it how I like it. If I wanted to make a better one with nicer buttons etc I could. The reason why I made it XP compatible was because there wasn't any at the time. It was for me more than anything. But of course no pc anymore, so I really don't have an incentive to improve upon it unless a lot of people want me to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristotle-dude Posted October 12, 2002 Share Posted October 12, 2002 Originally posted by Dazzla Oh dear, that's nasty. Someone should take the time and do a proper skin. That has bits of Jaguar Aqqua and old school Aqua. Fugly. Hey, it's better than any WB skin at the moment. I'm typing this on my Apple eMac with Jaguar 10.2.1 right now. The only things that I see wrong with the .mstyle compared to the real thing are: -Tab font too small -caption buttons on wrong side -check buttons too small (although larger ones could cause compatibility issue with programs). - arrows on combo boxes are too big. WB does not skin the follow whereas .mstyles do: -Common tasks bar -internet explorer scrollbar -scroll bar on address field in IE and explorer -sliders both horizontal and vertical - the background of explorer and IE where no buttons are present. WB does skin the follow whereas .mstyles does not: -Menu backgrounds -allows you to move caption buttons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercury Posted October 12, 2002 Share Posted October 12, 2002 You know, it's kind of funny that the only way that you can compare StyleXp to WB, is an OSX skin. If you want a true Maclike look, buy a Mac. :) Anyways, WB has StyleXP (i refuse to call it a MSstyle, because it's not. If it was, it would be fully supported by Microsoft). Microsoft did not, and probably will not, support any third party hacks to it's skinning engine. That said, use what you like, and be done with it. This is beginning to turn into a Mac vs PCs like debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureEdit Posted October 12, 2002 Author Share Posted October 12, 2002 Well, that is the real file name, and I DONT and will NOT use that styleXP crap on my computer :) On this system, WB doesnt work well enough to use (to slow), but on my old computer, it works great (I dont know why, but I think it is my Video Card), But I will use all these great WB skins on my old computer :) Blocked for WB is great ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frogboy Administrators Posted October 13, 2002 Administrators Share Posted October 13, 2002 I guess tastes just plain differ. The OSX skin for WindowBlinds, for intsance not only has several sub styles to choose frm but has sound effects for clicking on the buttons, a roll-up and when you mouse over any of the title bar buttons, all of the title bar mouse-over's show up (like on a real Mac). Also, the borders (at least on my machine) on the Aqua Jaguar msstyle are too big where as on the WB OSX visual style they are only 1 pixel like on the real OS X. None of the OS X ports I've seen (other than the very very early Dangeruss ones) have been as sharp as they could be since they seem (and I could be wrong) to just borrow from screenshots rather than being originally rendered (whichi s what Dangeruss did). So you lose some crispness. Even still Dazla's and Superfula's look pretty darn good. I don't see any problem with the buttons. Maybe someone's runnign with large fonts on or something. The title bar buttons, like SuperFula observed are at least correct on the WB ones whereas on the msstyles the title bar buttons are very jaggy. I have to wonder if aristotle is using Jaguar. I'll take his word for it but how can one miss the fact that WB handles the title bar button mouse-over's correctly on the OSX one or the fat borders on the msstyles or the lack of fold/unfold button. I can say that Aristotle is not using WindowBlinds presently or at least not the full version since WB does do scrollbars (see screenshot). WB 4 will be out in a few months and it'll handle the rest of the remaining elements. That said, technically speaking WindowBlinds can certainly do a lot closer approximation to OS X Jaguar than msstyles can do. But like Mercury said, if someone is that into OS X, get a Mac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiGhTfast Posted October 13, 2002 Share Posted October 13, 2002 prefer msstyles, its free and works just as good why bother with anything else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercury Posted October 13, 2002 Share Posted October 13, 2002 What's the main reason you use it? Because it's free, or because it works just as good? I'm pretty sure I know the reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cuzzo Posted October 13, 2002 Share Posted October 13, 2002 I prefer Stardocks software. I can get a OS X like bar with Objectbar and a OS X like skin for the rest of the os with Windowblinds. They also skin more parts of the os. Thanx Frogboy and Stardock for making ugly windows nice looking and much more fun to use. And to all people complaining about Stardock software slowing your computer down,here are my spec: Gateway2000 P2 400Mhz MMX 384 MB Ram 100Mhz 4 MB Nvidia 128 card(only 1024x768 with 32bit)!!! 8 Gb Hd This is a (1998)!!! computer and i have no problems at all!!! Cuzzo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PureEdit Posted October 13, 2002 Author Share Posted October 13, 2002 Originally posted by Cuzzo I prefer Stardocks software. I can get a OS X like bar with Objectbar and a OS X like skin for the rest of the os with Windowblinds. They also skin more parts of the os. Thanx Frogboy and Stardock for making ugly windows nice looking and much more fun to use. And to all people complaining about Stardock software slowing your computer down,here are my spec: Gateway2000 P2 400Mhz MMX 384 MB Ram 100Mhz 4 MB Nvidia 128 card(only 1024x768 with 32bit)!!! 8 Gb Hd This is a (1998)!!! computer and i have no problems at all!!! Cuzzo Yeah, my 'old' computer is about the same as that, and WB works GREAT (Much Better then MSSTYLEs) on my 'New' Laptop it works like CRAP, so there is some problem with WB and my Video Card, I would love to get WB working on my laptop, but it just doesnt work right :( I never said WB was slow for everyone, it just was on my computer, and now I know there is a poblem :) Thanks stardock for making a great program, I hope I get this problem resolved ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mercury Posted October 13, 2002 Share Posted October 13, 2002 Cuzzo, I'm with you. However, Stardock has truly spoiled me. I have to keep explaining to the IT department at work that Windowblinds is not some kind that I put on my system (at least that's what they ask when their supervisor is around.) Of course, when it's just the lowly audit guy checking for illegal software and mp3s on the systems, I always get the "How did you do that?" and "Where can I get it?" :) Thanks to Brad, Neil and the rest of the hard workers at Stardock. Keep up the good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristotle-dude Posted October 13, 2002 Share Posted October 13, 2002 Yeah, I have Jaguar see below: I have a subscription to Object Desktop.net, so yeah I have access to the latest and greatest full versions of all of Stardock's apps. It is true that the current version does skin the scroll bars of IE but the url history scrollbar does not skin under WB nor does any of the slider controls (.mstyles does). Of course, nothing beats the real thing. See above. :) I also noticed the window border issue. C'est la vie. In the real OSX, you do not have bubbly buttons on the toolbar of IE or the finder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frogboy Administrators Posted October 13, 2002 Administrators Share Posted October 13, 2002 aristotle - You obviously have a Mac but you don't seem that familiar with what WindowBlinds can and can't do. WindowBlinds has the option to turn off the "bubbly" buttons. It's right in the settings. Just like the IE scrollbar skinning. Add to that msstyles can't put the buttons on the correct side, that it can't have the correct sized borders, that it cna't do the mouse over, no roll-up, etc. Where WindowBlinds has limits (currently) is on the slider control. Other than that though, I just don't see the issue. Here's a screenshot of WindowBlinds + ObjectBar + ObjectDock: Which you could get from Mobydock. It looks pretty darn similar. I haven't seen an msstyle that looks anywhere near as close as OSX. It is just a matter of taste I guess but I just honestly don't see how any of the msstyle OS X ports can be said to look more authentic with the fat borders and the buttons on the wrong side and the missing roll up and the lack of skinned menus and so on. The strength of the Mac is not just in its look, it's how it works which can't be duplicated on Windows. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheese Whiz Posted October 13, 2002 Share Posted October 13, 2002 Stardock has a disjointed, & confusing product line. Frogboy, want to design something *useful* -- try delineating your applications; providing coherent documentation; and, most importantly, creating decent UI's for your *own* software. I'm just thrilled that Neowin.net has cut back on its thrice-weekly front page announcements of each .0x release from Stardock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryokurin Posted October 13, 2002 Share Posted October 13, 2002 Originally posted by dev/null If I'm not mistaken please let me be right :D , Kaliedascope came first, first version of wb was in '99 (right?) and I used Kaliedoscope before that, in ?97 I think edit: typo > Windowblinds was around back then as well. early 97. It wasnt necessarily a stardock product however then but the creator works there now so its all good. I remember using very early betas like beta 6 just to get gradient title bars in windows 95b to make it look like the then known as windows 97. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted October 13, 2002 Share Posted October 13, 2002 I pretty much agree with Brad. I used WB (OD subscriber) from 1999 up until I dumped the pc for Mac this April. Actually I'm still subscribed up till Feb 2003. Unless I build a makeshift pc for some reason, I guess I won't have a need for it anymore. Never really had a problem with any app Stardock put out. But yeah, the OSX themes for WB can be done quite a bit better. I basically used most of the images from disciple and dangeruss' theme, edited some to fit, and made a couple. But with all the newer options put into WB recently, well, msstyle really doesn't compare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts