My problem with TGTSoft
Monday, February 11, 2002 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
When I've spoken to Tony over at TGTSoft in the past, he seems pretty reasonable. But the marketing of Style XP is just incredible misleading. A new interview of TGTSoft was justed posted at deviantART.
http://www.deviantart.com/news.php?id=6643
Here is my response to parts of it:
As Tony pointed out, we have no hostility towards each other, but the misleading statements are what really are the center of Stardock's concerns with TGTSoft.
Consider:
TGTSoft: "Since Style XP uses the native solution to skinning XP, we enjoy multiple benefits. The most important ones are no extra memory consumed, no extra CPU, and 100% application compatibility."
This is simply incorrect. As Microsoft has pointed publicly here at deviantART (Dan Shapiro himself, project manager of visual styles at Microsoft) that visual styiles are NOT compatible. Only the 3 visual styles included with XP were compatible enough (not 100% compatible, XP includes an immense exclusion list) to ship. Visual styles had so many compatibility problems that it led Microsoft to make them digitally signed. The fact is that Style XP breaks that digital signing protection and hence introduces the incompatibility that Microsoft spoke to. So to sy 100% compatibility is completely unfactual.
Secondly, visual styles use considerable memory. What does "no 'extra' memory" mean? It certainly uses more memory than using classic. And in fact, if you're using a visual style, the DLL uxtheme.dll gets attached to *every* process you run. Download a module viewer and see for yourself. Everytime you load up anything whether it be a game or notepad, if you're using a visual style, it has to load up uxtheme.dll every single time and attach that to the process. That's definitely using more memory. And by default, Style XP uses over 13 megs of memory on top of this (this can be turned off by it is on by default).
And finally, no extra CPU? I'm not sure what that means either. Since his statement was in response to why would someone use Style XP instead of WindowBlinds this would seem to imply that WindowBlinds uses extra CPU. It uses no more or less than visual styles do.
He goes on to say:
"Additional benefits include support for shellstyle.dll (skinning the left help window on Explorer)"
WindowBlinds 3.2 supports this as well without having to hack the shellstyle.dll.
"support for multiple font sizes, and support for multiple display resolutions (150dpi)."
So does WindowBlinds and this has nothing to do with Style XP. It would be like claiming that Style XP supports multiple monitors or something. XP is doing all the work.
And more:
TGTSoft: "Further, the new XP Theme APIs are supported completely. If you press the "Test" button in StyleBuilder you can see that all the parts draw correctly. This is not the case with some alternative solutions. "
Style XP doesn't support any APIs and in fact, all it effectively does is disable one of the APIs. Visual styles have nothing to do with Style XP. And again, since he's answering why use Style XP over WindowBlinds, it implies that WindowBlinds doesn't support these APIs which is most certainly does.
Now before someone reads what i've written and sees it as a "bash TGSoft" response, please bear in mind that I hold know ill will towards TGTSoft. My issue and Stardock's issue with TGTSoft is the misleading nature of their marketing.
Style XP does not do what they say and imply it does. All beta 7 does is use a mini-driver to patch out in memory the digital signing protection in Windows XP. This in turn allows you to download and use non-Microsoft signed visual styles on Windows XP. Put another way, it just makes it possible for other visual styles to show up in the appearance dialog. That's all. The latest betas come with a rather large sized visual style loader but it initself does nothing.
Hopefully some people can see why we, as developers who have worked over the past 3 years creating an actual skinning program, would object to someone who has created something that does the same thing as a 1K hex edit trying to make the two sound remotely equivalent.
Let me use an analogy, if someone wrote a patch that enabled scrollbar skinning in the shareware version of WindowBlinds, I think most people would agree that it would be inappropriate to claim that the patch is what is doing the scrollbar skinning. This is the same sort of thing here.
http://www.deviantart.com/news.php?id=6643
Here is my response to parts of it:
As Tony pointed out, we have no hostility towards each other, but the misleading statements are what really are the center of Stardock's concerns with TGTSoft.
Consider:
TGTSoft: "Since Style XP uses the native solution to skinning XP, we enjoy multiple benefits. The most important ones are no extra memory consumed, no extra CPU, and 100% application compatibility."
This is simply incorrect. As Microsoft has pointed publicly here at deviantART (Dan Shapiro himself, project manager of visual styles at Microsoft) that visual styiles are NOT compatible. Only the 3 visual styles included with XP were compatible enough (not 100% compatible, XP includes an immense exclusion list) to ship. Visual styles had so many compatibility problems that it led Microsoft to make them digitally signed. The fact is that Style XP breaks that digital signing protection and hence introduces the incompatibility that Microsoft spoke to. So to sy 100% compatibility is completely unfactual.
Secondly, visual styles use considerable memory. What does "no 'extra' memory" mean? It certainly uses more memory than using classic. And in fact, if you're using a visual style, the DLL uxtheme.dll gets attached to *every* process you run. Download a module viewer and see for yourself. Everytime you load up anything whether it be a game or notepad, if you're using a visual style, it has to load up uxtheme.dll every single time and attach that to the process. That's definitely using more memory. And by default, Style XP uses over 13 megs of memory on top of this (this can be turned off by it is on by default).
And finally, no extra CPU? I'm not sure what that means either. Since his statement was in response to why would someone use Style XP instead of WindowBlinds this would seem to imply that WindowBlinds uses extra CPU. It uses no more or less than visual styles do.
He goes on to say:
"Additional benefits include support for shellstyle.dll (skinning the left help window on Explorer)"
WindowBlinds 3.2 supports this as well without having to hack the shellstyle.dll.
"support for multiple font sizes, and support for multiple display resolutions (150dpi)."
So does WindowBlinds and this has nothing to do with Style XP. It would be like claiming that Style XP supports multiple monitors or something. XP is doing all the work.
And more:
TGTSoft: "Further, the new XP Theme APIs are supported completely. If you press the "Test" button in StyleBuilder you can see that all the parts draw correctly. This is not the case with some alternative solutions. "
Style XP doesn't support any APIs and in fact, all it effectively does is disable one of the APIs. Visual styles have nothing to do with Style XP. And again, since he's answering why use Style XP over WindowBlinds, it implies that WindowBlinds doesn't support these APIs which is most certainly does.
Now before someone reads what i've written and sees it as a "bash TGSoft" response, please bear in mind that I hold know ill will towards TGTSoft. My issue and Stardock's issue with TGTSoft is the misleading nature of their marketing.
Style XP does not do what they say and imply it does. All beta 7 does is use a mini-driver to patch out in memory the digital signing protection in Windows XP. This in turn allows you to download and use non-Microsoft signed visual styles on Windows XP. Put another way, it just makes it possible for other visual styles to show up in the appearance dialog. That's all. The latest betas come with a rather large sized visual style loader but it initself does nothing.
Hopefully some people can see why we, as developers who have worked over the past 3 years creating an actual skinning program, would object to someone who has created something that does the same thing as a 1K hex edit trying to make the two sound remotely equivalent.
Let me use an analogy, if someone wrote a patch that enabled scrollbar skinning in the shareware version of WindowBlinds, I think most people would agree that it would be inappropriate to claim that the patch is what is doing the scrollbar skinning. This is the same sort of thing here.
 |
|
Page 3 of 4 | |
|
|---|
grayhaze
Reply #42 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 12:31 PM
Reply #42 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 12:31 PM
Nicely side-stepped there Brad. 
I'll go with paxx on this one though and just keep quiet now I've had my say.
And yes paxx, I think those judges should be shot too...
I'll go with paxx on this one though and just keep quiet now I've had my say.
And yes paxx, I think those judges should be shot too...
grayhaze
Reply #43 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 12:33 PM
Reply #43 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 12:33 PM
Oh, and for the record, I do agree with you on your original point Brad about TGTSoft making false claims. However, I don't think the '100% compatible' thing is really the point you should be stepping on as the other claims are far more absurd.
feline
Reply #44 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 12:45 PM
Reply #44 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 12:45 PM
quite often the point of what you can see and tell from task manager in XP comes up.
taking win2k task manager as an example (since i have win2k at home, not XP) taskmanager isnt always as easy to understand as you might think.
when my machine finishes booting to the logon screen (takes over 5 minutes - due to antivirus program) it is often quite slugish at first.
so, wanting to know why my machine is so slow at first i have often looked at task managed to see where all the cpu usage has gone.
the process that is always listed as eating up all the cpu is the "system idle process". recently someone at work suggested i was being a total idiot for thinking this was using power, since they said this was a measure of free resorces.
i dont know what it is, but since windows does a LOT of stuff in the background, and i have recently done a course on Java which went into great detail about garbage collection, it seemed quite reasonable to conclude that this was an equivelant process in windows, eating up resorces.
so, i may have reached completely logical conclusions that are still totaly wrong. and i am looking at the simple question of where is all my cpu power going.
in comparison guessing which skinning process is taking the most power for someone who isnt a windows programmer is likely to be quite hard to tell. this is compounded because it seems XP's skinning engine isnt called "skinning engine" in the process list.
so this leads me to the point where i am going to have to rely upon someone else to tell me what is going on here.
this leads to the point that the information the program makers are providing to the users should be as acurate and informative as possible. right back to Frogboy's point. but at least i can point to how i got here!
feline thinks all outclassed programs should be marketed as such
"buy our program, it costs as much as the alternate, and it does less"
taking win2k task manager as an example (since i have win2k at home, not XP) taskmanager isnt always as easy to understand as you might think.
when my machine finishes booting to the logon screen (takes over 5 minutes - due to antivirus program) it is often quite slugish at first.
so, wanting to know why my machine is so slow at first i have often looked at task managed to see where all the cpu usage has gone.
the process that is always listed as eating up all the cpu is the "system idle process". recently someone at work suggested i was being a total idiot for thinking this was using power, since they said this was a measure of free resorces.
i dont know what it is, but since windows does a LOT of stuff in the background, and i have recently done a course on Java which went into great detail about garbage collection, it seemed quite reasonable to conclude that this was an equivelant process in windows, eating up resorces.
so, i may have reached completely logical conclusions that are still totaly wrong. and i am looking at the simple question of where is all my cpu power going.
in comparison guessing which skinning process is taking the most power for someone who isnt a windows programmer is likely to be quite hard to tell. this is compounded because it seems XP's skinning engine isnt called "skinning engine" in the process list.
so this leads me to the point where i am going to have to rely upon someone else to tell me what is going on here.
this leads to the point that the information the program makers are providing to the users should be as acurate and informative as possible. right back to Frogboy's point. but at least i can point to how i got here!
feline thinks all outclassed programs should be marketed as such
"buy our program, it costs as much as the alternate, and it does less"
feline
Reply #45 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 12:47 PM
Reply #45 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 12:47 PM
paxx - I still think figure skating judges should be shot...
feline wonders who is going to be cumforting all the distressed figure skaters?
feline wonders who is going to be cumforting all the distressed figure skaters?
Frogboy
Reply #46 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 1:03 PM
Reply #46 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 1:03 PM
Grayhaze/Paxx - Let me make sure that we are communicating on the same thing. The point I gather you are trying to make is that what TGTSoft is doing is no different than us putting visual styles in our metatags.
IF that is your point, I don't think most people would agree with that. But maybe I'm not understanding your points.
Whether having a section called WinXP is confusing or not is a different issue. If a user uploads to just the WindowBlind section and specifies that it supports XP, it is automatically added to the WinXP section (I personally do not like that you cna upload directly to the WInXP section). When Stardock starts putting false claims on its home page like "100% compatibility" then there's room for comparison. A discussion is a two way street. I have tried to lay out in reasonable detail my points in this friendly debate.
IF that is your point, I don't think most people would agree with that. But maybe I'm not understanding your points.
Whether having a section called WinXP is confusing or not is a different issue. If a user uploads to just the WindowBlind section and specifies that it supports XP, it is automatically added to the WinXP section (I personally do not like that you cna upload directly to the WInXP section). When Stardock starts putting false claims on its home page like "100% compatibility" then there's room for comparison. A discussion is a two way street. I have tried to lay out in reasonable detail my points in this friendly debate.
Integer
Reply #47 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 1:16 PM
Reply #47 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 1:16 PM
A wise man once said (not too long ago) "There are as many truths in this world as there are people..."
I'd like to append this with "but sometimes there are MORE truths than people, dependant on who's garden you are in"
What price good old honesty - from all gardens?.....
I'd like to append this with "but sometimes there are MORE truths than people, dependant on who's garden you are in"
What price good old honesty - from all gardens?.....
Frogboy
Reply #48 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 1:54 PM
Reply #48 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 1:54 PM
Another wise man once said "Beware of moral relativism. It is the slippery slope that wuld lead us to the collapse of society."
Instead of trying to worry about "truths" let's start with facts. Facts are not dependent on point of view.
Instead of trying to worry about "truths" let's start with facts. Facts are not dependent on point of view.
paxx
Reply #49 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 1:59 PM
Reply #49 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 1:59 PM
I said I'm done with this thread, and I am.
We could sit here and argue for weeks, Brad, without coming to any sort of agreement. The facts have been exposed and they remain. The interpretation of those facts is where opinions differ.
We could sit here and argue for weeks, Brad, without coming to any sort of agreement. The facts have been exposed and they remain. The interpretation of those facts is where opinions differ.
craeonics
Reply #50 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 2:19 PM
Reply #50 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 2:19 PM
craeonics can talk mystical too:
Ride the waves of XP, but be aware that you are not the one making the waves.
Ride the waves of XP, but be aware that you are not the one making the waves.
Frogboy
Reply #51 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 5:09 PM
Reply #51 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 5:09 PM
Well Paxx, we will resolve this as we have resolved all our debates in the past. With an arm-pit duck noise contest. You should preserve what dignity you have left, you know you cannot make duck noises with your armpit as well as I can. Do you not agree it better to concede the point now?
mephisto corugant
Reply #52 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 8:50 PM
Reply #52 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 8:50 PM
is this thread locked or something?
anyways, just wanna get my main gripe in here (as it's been since windowblinds 3 came out, and brad you know this) it's the referring to windowblinds as fully skinning windows xp.
sure, theoretically it can, but, the skin definitions and such need to be updated to reflect that (i know, i know, next build, but still...it's hard to wait when windowblinds is playing catchup in amount of things skinned yet still has stuff like hyperpaint to make it worth your while, you know?)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=windows+xp+visual+styles
that link's just for paxx and grayhaze
anyways, just wanna get my main gripe in here (as it's been since windowblinds 3 came out, and brad you know this) it's the referring to windowblinds as fully skinning windows xp.
sure, theoretically it can, but, the skin definitions and such need to be updated to reflect that (i know, i know, next build, but still...it's hard to wait when windowblinds is playing catchup in amount of things skinned yet still has stuff like hyperpaint to make it worth your while, you know?)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=windows+xp+visual+styles
that link's just for paxx and grayhaze
Frogboy
Reply #53 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 9:57 PM
Reply #53 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 9:57 PM
When is XP going to skin menus? The betas did, but they took it out.
We should create a new thread about msstyles vs. WB skins if we want to compare the two.
But remember, on a typical system, WB is going to skin a lot more of it than XP alone will.
We should create a new thread about msstyles vs. WB skins if we want to compare the two.
But remember, on a typical system, WB is going to skin a lot more of it than XP alone will.
T-Man
Reply #54 Thursday, February 14, 2002 12:27 AM
Reply #54 Thursday, February 14, 2002 12:27 AM
""MSSTYLES" in the META tags, but just "XP Visual Styles". Ahem... wrong. Take a look at the key words: "XP Visual Styles,XP Themes, msstyles, XP Styles, ThemeXP, msstyles (...)" It's even saying it twice..."
Just to clarify. I'm the one who controls the titles and metatags. Part of my job is to drive traffic to the site. And thats what I am doing.
Just to clarify. I'm the one who controls the titles and metatags. Part of my job is to drive traffic to the site. And thats what I am doing.
Frogboy
Reply #55 Thursday, February 14, 2002 12:36 AM
Reply #55 Thursday, February 14, 2002 12:36 AM
I don't think they are arguing that adding those meta-tags harms traffic levels.
I think Paxx's point is that by having those meta tags that it "misleads" users into thinking this is a site in which one would get the things in the metatags.
The problem with that argument is that metatags (and this is a pretty well known fact) were created to help search engines find sites and RELATED sites to a query. Hence my example if I type in "frog" into a search engine, my query will return links to pages about toads and other amphibians because they are related items.
I don't think anyone would argue that .msstyle visual styles are not related to .uis visual styles (or .msstyle skins vs. .uis skins if you're sensitive to terminology).
Therefore, it's appropriate to have msstyles and any other things that are related to what this site carries.
By contrast, adding "sex sex sex" into the meta tags would not be appropriate because they two aren't related (as much as I might wish they were!).
And as I've said, there is no comparison between a meta-tag on a website with a product making demonstrably false claims. And it is that sort of moral equivalence argument that "pushes my buttons" (not what Doreen said - I love to debate and discuss things with people who don't agree with me, but I really don't like moral equivalence as an argument or the even more wishy-washy IMO moral relativism arguments - claiming something you sell does something that it does not is WRONG. Period).
I think Paxx's point is that by having those meta tags that it "misleads" users into thinking this is a site in which one would get the things in the metatags.
The problem with that argument is that metatags (and this is a pretty well known fact) were created to help search engines find sites and RELATED sites to a query. Hence my example if I type in "frog" into a search engine, my query will return links to pages about toads and other amphibians because they are related items.
I don't think anyone would argue that .msstyle visual styles are not related to .uis visual styles (or .msstyle skins vs. .uis skins if you're sensitive to terminology).
Therefore, it's appropriate to have msstyles and any other things that are related to what this site carries.
By contrast, adding "sex sex sex" into the meta tags would not be appropriate because they two aren't related (as much as I might wish they were!).
And as I've said, there is no comparison between a meta-tag on a website with a product making demonstrably false claims. And it is that sort of moral equivalence argument that "pushes my buttons" (not what Doreen said - I love to debate and discuss things with people who don't agree with me, but I really don't like moral equivalence as an argument or the even more wishy-washy IMO moral relativism arguments - claiming something you sell does something that it does not is WRONG. Period).
Jafo
Reply #57 Thursday, February 14, 2002 1:21 AM
Reply #57 Thursday, February 14, 2002 1:21 AM
On the other 'problem'....at least Ice Skating is better than Synchronized Drowning...
paxx
Reply #58 Thursday, February 14, 2002 6:35 AM
Reply #58 Thursday, February 14, 2002 6:35 AM
paxx goes and check if Pepsi has "Coke" in there META tags.
Nope they don't. Too bad they aren't aware of this "pretty well known fact".
Man! I got dragged into this again!
paxx places my hand under my armpit: OK lets do it! You first!
Nope they don't. Too bad they aren't aware of this "pretty well known fact".
Man! I got dragged into this again!
paxx places my hand under my armpit: OK lets do it! You first!
grayhaze
Reply #59 Thursday, February 14, 2002 7:42 AM
Reply #59 Thursday, February 14, 2002 7:42 AM
Just to clarify the whole meta tags thing. I've been a commercial web designer for over two years now, and quite often I've been asked by a client to add the names of competing web sites or companies to the meta tags of their site to draw traffic to the site. It seems that Brad would have no problem with this, as the sole intention of meta tags is to draw traffic to the site by giving related words in his opinion. However, it's actually not legal to do this. As paxx quite rightly points out, Pepsi aren't allowed to have 'Coke' as one of their meta tags (although in reality they are allowed 'Cola'). Meta tags are for giving alternative wordings for the subject of your site, in the same way you would use a thesaurus to find an alternative way of saying something. They are not for including the names of products and/or trademarks which are not directly related to the site. So for example, if this site carried an actual msstyles section, it would be fine to have msstyle as a meta tag. However, having this in the meta tags at the moment is similar to having 'Coke' in the Pepsi meta tags.
Of course, I'm not saying this particular instance is illegal, but the common opinion of both Brad and T-Man seems to be that as long as something is related to the site, however tenuously, it's fine to put it in the meta tags. As WindowBlinds is endorsed by Microsoft anyway, I'm sure they have no problem with their trademark being in the tags for this site. It's acutally TGTSoft who are doing something illegal if they're using the same tag, as their product is actually condoned by Microsoft, rather than supported.
The real issue here is that it's misleading to bring people to the site who are looking for msstyles, for whatever reason. At present the only sites people should really find through a search engine when entering 'msstyles' are those containing information about the format and what it does.
My, what a lot of words... without a real point. lol
Of course, I'm not saying this particular instance is illegal, but the common opinion of both Brad and T-Man seems to be that as long as something is related to the site, however tenuously, it's fine to put it in the meta tags. As WindowBlinds is endorsed by Microsoft anyway, I'm sure they have no problem with their trademark being in the tags for this site. It's acutally TGTSoft who are doing something illegal if they're using the same tag, as their product is actually condoned by Microsoft, rather than supported.
The real issue here is that it's misleading to bring people to the site who are looking for msstyles, for whatever reason. At present the only sites people should really find through a search engine when entering 'msstyles' are those containing information about the format and what it does.
My, what a lot of words... without a real point. lol
craeonics
Reply #60 Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:06 AM
Reply #60 Thursday, February 14, 2002 9:06 AM
Listen to grayhaze, minus that last sentence.
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 3 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Reply #41 Wednesday, February 13, 2002 12:28 PM
the point being made here that simply inacuate claims are being made seems quite clear cut.
perhaps part of the problem is that the points at issue are technical. i know a fair amount about computers, but a lot of how windows does what it does is alien to me.
i (think i) can follow the arguments and points being made, but expecting the "average" user to find and use a program to examine the running processes is asking a bit much
at the end of the day, as someone who is ignorant of a lot of the finer points i end up forming my views on two simple fronts:
a) what does this program *seem* to do, and do i like the result
since i dont yet have XP most of this is a non issue for me.
however, on the points
a) i am most happy with what WB manages to achieve