"Real" Windows XP Themes
Tuesday, August 28, 2001 by David Hill | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Although Microsoft has said that they won't document the format of Windows XP's theme files, that should'nt be too difficult. The .theme itself is just an ini file. For Themes with custom graphics, it points to an msstyles file specific to that theme. Luna uses:
C:\WINNT\Resources\Themes\Luna\luna.msstyles on my system
This file is just a resource file. You can view it in VC++ if you open it as resources. It contains a bunch of bitmaps, as well as quite a bit of other text stuff (XML?).
Happy Hacking!
C:\WINNT\Resources\Themes\Luna\luna.msstyles on my system
This file is just a resource file. You can view it in VC++ if you open it as resources. It contains a bunch of bitmaps, as well as quite a bit of other text stuff (XML?).
Happy Hacking!
 |
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
craeonics
Reply #2 Tuesday, August 28, 2001 6:54 PM
Reply #2 Tuesday, August 28, 2001 6:54 PM
Hm, a resource file? I bet I cannot unzip that. It's going to be hell making my own themes then.
Tarkus
Reply #3 Wednesday, August 29, 2001 12:14 AM
Reply #3 Wednesday, August 29, 2001 12:14 AM
I've heard of people really messing up their systems trying to create their own themes, such that everything was black, making it almost impossible to find their way around. So be real careful.
Frogboy
Reply #4 Wednesday, August 29, 2001 10:22 PM
Reply #4 Wednesday, August 29, 2001 10:22 PM
You can't create your own. They're digitally signed by Microsoft.
If you want additional skins on Windows XP, the only option is WindowBlinds XP.
If you want additional skins on Windows XP, the only option is WindowBlinds XP.
paxx
Reply #5 Wednesday, August 29, 2001 10:51 PM
Reply #5 Wednesday, August 29, 2001 10:51 PM
BTW, anybody knows WHY Microsoft doesn't allow people to make their own themes? It just makes no sense to me... I know it's fabulous for Stardock, but I don't get what Microsoft has to gain or lose by it (?)
Tarkus
Reply #6 Wednesday, August 29, 2001 11:13 PM
Reply #6 Wednesday, August 29, 2001 11:13 PM
Could be they want to keep rogue themes from messing up people's systems, causing support headaches.
Could also be they want to be able to sell themes. In fact, they'll be including some (actually, just new color variations) in the upcoming Plus+ pack, though I've heard they'll also be available free for download.
I agree that it's good for Stardock. I think Luna is introducing people to a skinned desktop, and they're going to want more (and not just new colors).
Could also be they want to be able to sell themes. In fact, they'll be including some (actually, just new color variations) in the upcoming Plus+ pack, though I've heard they'll also be available free for download.
I agree that it's good for Stardock. I think Luna is introducing people to a skinned desktop, and they're going to want more (and not just new colors).
Frogboy
Reply #7 Wednesday, August 29, 2001 11:34 PM
Reply #7 Wednesday, August 29, 2001 11:34 PM
It was discussed heavily in the internal beta groups and it came down to 2 reasons:
1) Support. MS doesn't want to have people downloading skins that could hose their machines. A WindowBlinds skin CAN hose your GUI pretty thoroughly if it's not properly done. Even on Win2K. And most people who complain about WindowBlinds being "bloated and slow" are actually talking about the skin. WB skins tend not to be terribly well optimized for performance for various reasons. Imagine how MS would look if people started making skins that slowed down Windows XP.
2) Branding. MS has a vested interest in selling a specific new look to Windows XP. If they let people start making skins, then you run into all sorts of branding reasons.
There is actually a third reason that wasn't discussed -- their "format" wasn't really finished and if someone started trying to create themes with it, they would quickly discover serious problems.
That said, even if they did let people make skins, why bother? WindowBlinds XP essentially translates skins on the fly into XP themes. It has a great editor and has more features and is faster when using the same skin. Our skin language UIS has been developed over 3 years baesd on feedback from thousands of users. And UIS skins work on Win98/ME/2000/NT. In short, why bother making a .msstyle formated skin even if you could? They're no more "native" than .UIS skins on Windows XP.
1) Support. MS doesn't want to have people downloading skins that could hose their machines. A WindowBlinds skin CAN hose your GUI pretty thoroughly if it's not properly done. Even on Win2K. And most people who complain about WindowBlinds being "bloated and slow" are actually talking about the skin. WB skins tend not to be terribly well optimized for performance for various reasons. Imagine how MS would look if people started making skins that slowed down Windows XP.
2) Branding. MS has a vested interest in selling a specific new look to Windows XP. If they let people start making skins, then you run into all sorts of branding reasons.
There is actually a third reason that wasn't discussed -- their "format" wasn't really finished and if someone started trying to create themes with it, they would quickly discover serious problems.
That said, even if they did let people make skins, why bother? WindowBlinds XP essentially translates skins on the fly into XP themes. It has a great editor and has more features and is faster when using the same skin. Our skin language UIS has been developed over 3 years baesd on feedback from thousands of users. And UIS skins work on Win98/ME/2000/NT. In short, why bother making a .msstyle formated skin even if you could? They're no more "native" than .UIS skins on Windows XP.
ess-vid
Reply #8 Thursday, August 30, 2001 2:17 AM
Reply #8 Thursday, August 30, 2001 2:17 AM
"In short, why bother making a .msstyle formated skin even if you could? They're no more "native" than .UIS skins on Windows XP."
So everyone with Windows XP gets a free copy of Windowblinds XP?
So everyone with Windows XP gets a free copy of Windowblinds XP?
Frogboy
Reply #10 Thursday, August 30, 2001 1:37 PM
Reply #10 Thursday, August 30, 2001 1:37 PM
ess-vid, that's the beauty - WindowBlinds 3 on Windows XP will do what you can do on Windows XP for free. Windows XP's stuff already is very crippled.
So the free crippled version of WindowBlinds 3 (WindowBlinds XP) will do more than what you can do on Windows XP.
Windows XP's themes are very limited:
1) They don't fully skin existing programs
2) They can't change colors
3) They don't support any of the WB specific features of course.
In short, Windows XP is basically a super crippled version of WindowBlinds already.
So the free crippled version of WindowBlinds 3 (WindowBlinds XP) will do more than what you can do on Windows XP.
Windows XP's themes are very limited:
1) They don't fully skin existing programs
2) They can't change colors
3) They don't support any of the WB specific features of course.
In short, Windows XP is basically a super crippled version of WindowBlinds already.
berzerka
Reply #11 Thursday, August 30, 2001 6:26 PM
Reply #11 Thursday, August 30, 2001 6:26 PM
FrogBoy - most of the stuff of windowblinds is excessive and annoying!
Jafo
Reply #13 Thursday, August 30, 2001 7:59 PM
Reply #13 Thursday, August 30, 2001 7:59 PM
Actually....Windowblinds has too extremely practical functions in particular, which are 'necessities' essential for people who do what is called 'Extreme Customizing', that is, People who replace the Windows shell completely by adopting an alternative.
The locking on top function, and the roll-up.
Even if you were stuck with the same old predictable WindBlows default window graphics [which you aren't, of course] it is a must-have functionality enhancement.
Having the ability to embed other controls, such as WinAMP or a quick-start drop-down menu just prove its versatility, allowing Skinners to experiment with all kinds of tweaks. I think I managed to be the second person to complete a WinAMP-controlling one....it was really clever and, like many other enhancements provided by, and for skinners, gave us more scope for diversity.
I would imagine that the three most well-known skinnable applications on the planet would be, in no special order...
Winamp
ICQ Plus
WindowBlinds
Only one of those would be considered 'indespensible' to people wishing to actually have their Windows Experience skinned...
The locking on top function, and the roll-up.
Even if you were stuck with the same old predictable WindBlows default window graphics [which you aren't, of course] it is a must-have functionality enhancement.
Having the ability to embed other controls, such as WinAMP or a quick-start drop-down menu just prove its versatility, allowing Skinners to experiment with all kinds of tweaks. I think I managed to be the second person to complete a WinAMP-controlling one....it was really clever and, like many other enhancements provided by, and for skinners, gave us more scope for diversity.
I would imagine that the three most well-known skinnable applications on the planet would be, in no special order...
Winamp
ICQ Plus
WindowBlinds
Only one of those would be considered 'indespensible' to people wishing to actually have their Windows Experience skinned...
ess-vid
Reply #15 Thursday, August 30, 2001 9:58 PM
Reply #15 Thursday, August 30, 2001 9:58 PM
And for only one easy payment of $19.95, you too can use this amazing and fantastic invention! Tell your friends, they'll thank you for it! (Hurry, supplies are limited)
Welcome to WinCustomercial. Prepare to be spammed.
Welcome to WinCustomercial. Prepare to be spammed.
Frogboy
Reply #16 Thursday, August 30, 2001 10:25 PM
Reply #16 Thursday, August 30, 2001 10:25 PM
I basically reposted my response from Usenet actually. I wrote about a dozen posts on this subject today on Microsoft's news server.
While you might consider it shameless marketing, there is nothing untrue in my statements.
Why would anyone want to use .msstyles when they can use WindowBlinds 3?
The "free" version of WB3 will do what XP does. Since .msstyles are cripped as is (they don't skin your existing apps except for the title bar and sometimes the scrollbar), we can easily have that in the free version. And people who want their windows completely skinned and be able to change colors on the fly and all the other goodies can purchase it.
So I ask, why would anyone want to mess with .msstyles even if they weren't digitally signed?
While you might consider it shameless marketing, there is nothing untrue in my statements.
Why would anyone want to use .msstyles when they can use WindowBlinds 3?
The "free" version of WB3 will do what XP does. Since .msstyles are cripped as is (they don't skin your existing apps except for the title bar and sometimes the scrollbar), we can easily have that in the free version. And people who want their windows completely skinned and be able to change colors on the fly and all the other goodies can purchase it.
So I ask, why would anyone want to mess with .msstyles even if they weren't digitally signed?
Jafo
Reply #17 Thursday, August 30, 2001 10:46 PM
Reply #17 Thursday, August 30, 2001 10:46 PM
Qualification/clarification here.
My comments in support of WindowBlinds are NOT a 'paid political broadcast'.
I am an individual with a brain and an opinion of my own, and that was it.
Irrespective of whether I'm a Wizop on WinCusto or not, I happen to like the proggy and have done so since I first came across it years ago...version 0.something....
[must check the spelling of 'wizop']...
My comments in support of WindowBlinds are NOT a 'paid political broadcast'.
I am an individual with a brain and an opinion of my own, and that was it.
Irrespective of whether I'm a Wizop on WinCusto or not, I happen to like the proggy and have done so since I first came across it years ago...version 0.something....
[must check the spelling of 'wizop']...
Phar0e
Reply #18 Thursday, August 30, 2001 11:56 PM
Reply #18 Thursday, August 30, 2001 11:56 PM
Well, I suppose if extolling the virtues of a superior piece of software make some folks uncomfortable.....they could always look for somewhere more comfortable.
But they might want to be careful
"A" They might not be missed.
"B" They might not be that welcome elsewhere.
Words from not-even-close-to-a-wizop
But they might want to be careful
"A" They might not be missed.
"B" They might not be that welcome elsewhere.
Words from not-even-close-to-a-wizop
l0c
Reply #19 Friday, August 31, 2001 12:00 AM
Reply #19 Friday, August 31, 2001 12:00 AM
Ok, look to answer your question very simply, it's because just as Neil enjoyed developing WB and "hacking" the Windows GUI, people will also want to do the same. Using WB just wouldn't be as "fun" in certain cases. Are you forgetting your roots Mr. Brad? 
ess-vid
Reply #20 Friday, August 31, 2001 1:23 AM
Reply #20 Friday, August 31, 2001 1:23 AM
It's shameless marketing because this thread is about Visual Styles, not WindowBlinds. Do you honestly expect me to believe that you couldn't have possibly discussed the problems in Visual Styles without flaunting your own product?
Look long and hard at this thread, Brad. Look at your posts. You aren't discussing problems, you're saying "why not use my product?!" over and over again. We don't forget that you run Stardock, you know. When you act like this all you do is make yourself and WC look bad (something I don't like happening).
Brad, I love you to death, man, and I know you don't mean any ill will. And WindowBlinds is indeed a fine product. HOWEVER, you can't forget who you are. You can't say how good WB is out of the blue "like just another member" because it's a conflict of interest. A lot of people will see something like this and think "WC is just a site for Stardock to spam people with their products, it sucks"... and I don't think either of us want this, not anymore than it happens on its own.
Look long and hard at this thread, Brad. Look at your posts. You aren't discussing problems, you're saying "why not use my product?!" over and over again. We don't forget that you run Stardock, you know. When you act like this all you do is make yourself and WC look bad (something I don't like happening).
Brad, I love you to death, man, and I know you don't mean any ill will. And WindowBlinds is indeed a fine product. HOWEVER, you can't forget who you are. You can't say how good WB is out of the blue "like just another member" because it's a conflict of interest. A lot of people will see something like this and think "WC is just a site for Stardock to spam people with their products, it sucks"... and I don't think either of us want this, not anymore than it happens on its own.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Tuesday, August 28, 2001 6:49 PM
The .XML stuff was just a rumor, there is no XML in a .mssystles file.