WindowBlinds Lite?
Sunday, August 18, 2002 by Elwin | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Just curiosity more than anything, and I suppose this question should have probably been mailed to Stardock, but anyway... 
Has there ever been thought given to a "lite" version of WB? And when I say lite, I mean a very minimal version of WB. Not a uis1, but a full implementation of WB that ONLY skins the windows themselves. No StartBar, no XP extras, no menus - just the windows themselves.
The reason I ask is simple. For those who use shells, and shell enhancements, there's really no reason for these other parts to be skinned, and no reason to use those resources for something that the user will never see. Whether it's Litestep, Nextstart, Hoverdesk, DX, Objectbar, or any of the many other choices involved, those other parts seem to me to be a waste of resources. I'm not saying that skins should be created just for "WB lite". I see no reason why this possible version shouldn't simply ignore those extra parts.
So, am I missing something obvious in asking this?
Anyone else see any merit in this request?
Or should I just wait for the rocks to start flying?
Has there ever been thought given to a "lite" version of WB? And when I say lite, I mean a very minimal version of WB. Not a uis1, but a full implementation of WB that ONLY skins the windows themselves. No StartBar, no XP extras, no menus - just the windows themselves.
The reason I ask is simple. For those who use shells, and shell enhancements, there's really no reason for these other parts to be skinned, and no reason to use those resources for something that the user will never see. Whether it's Litestep, Nextstart, Hoverdesk, DX, Objectbar, or any of the many other choices involved, those other parts seem to me to be a waste of resources. I'm not saying that skins should be created just for "WB lite". I see no reason why this possible version shouldn't simply ignore those extra parts.
So, am I missing something obvious in asking this?
Anyone else see any merit in this request?
Or should I just wait for the rocks to start flying?
 |
|
Page 2 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Frogboy
Reply #22 Monday, September 2, 2002 8:56 PM
In the screenshot I saw eFX's icon in the system tray.
When it comes to a "lite" version of something there are usually 3 main reasons to request a "lite" version:
1) The lite version would use less ram
2) The lite version would be faster
3) The lite version would load faster
Item #3 doesn't really apply to GUI skinning. On item #1, WindowBlinds uses a fairly trivial amount of ram (how much ram does a scrollbar take? 5K?). And as for the big one - speed, that doesn't really come so much from # of items skinned but techniques used. For instance, compare WindowBlinds 3.4 to say eFX or Chroma or Bluebox.
WindowBlinds 2 was about twice as fast as WindowBlinds 1. WindowBlinds 3 was about twice as fast as WindowBlinds 2. And WindowBlinds 3.4 is quite a bit faster than WindowBlinds 3 (and WindowBlinds 4 on XP may be twice as fast as WindowBlinds 3).
That's the ironic thing about desktop enhancements versus other types of software, they tend to get smaller and faster over time because the success of a GUI skinner is not just what it does but that it has to do what it does without interfering with the primary purpose of the computer.
Reply #22 Monday, September 2, 2002 8:56 PM
In the screenshot I saw eFX's icon in the system tray.When it comes to a "lite" version of something there are usually 3 main reasons to request a "lite" version:
1) The lite version would use less ram
2) The lite version would be faster
3) The lite version would load faster
Item #3 doesn't really apply to GUI skinning. On item #1, WindowBlinds uses a fairly trivial amount of ram (how much ram does a scrollbar take? 5K?). And as for the big one - speed, that doesn't really come so much from # of items skinned but techniques used. For instance, compare WindowBlinds 3.4 to say eFX or Chroma or Bluebox.
WindowBlinds 2 was about twice as fast as WindowBlinds 1. WindowBlinds 3 was about twice as fast as WindowBlinds 2. And WindowBlinds 3.4 is quite a bit faster than WindowBlinds 3 (and WindowBlinds 4 on XP may be twice as fast as WindowBlinds 3).
That's the ironic thing about desktop enhancements versus other types of software, they tend to get smaller and faster over time because the success of a GUI skinner is not just what it does but that it has to do what it does without interfering with the primary purpose of the computer.
GreenReaper
Reply #23 Monday, September 2, 2002 9:43 PM
Reply #23 Monday, September 2, 2002 9:43 PM
3 applies to every window you load, if it has to load anything for it. Some skins load, say, a new copy of notepad almost twice as fast as others.
Frogboy
Reply #24 Monday, September 2, 2002 9:58 PM
Reply #24 Monday, September 2, 2002 9:58 PM
good point. it would be a good thing to have in skinbench.
moshi
Reply #25 Tuesday, September 3, 2002 6:57 AM
Reply #25 Tuesday, September 3, 2002 6:57 AM
correct, i often "fake" screenies to show more mouse-over states. my bad i forgot about the eFX icon.
GreenReaper
Reply #26 Tuesday, September 3, 2002 8:55 PM
Reply #26 Tuesday, September 3, 2002 8:55 PM
SkinBench 0.65 releaed: https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=16011
Features CreateProc test - loads skinbench, displays preview window and exits, measuring startup time. Don't use with WFX loaded as that will skew the timing.
Features CreateProc test - loads skinbench, displays preview window and exits, measuring startup time. Don't use with WFX loaded as that will skew the timing.
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 2 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Monday, September 2, 2002 6:45 PM
ah, at least i tried. maybe i´ll give it another shot when i upgrade my OS (fingers crossed SkinStudio will work then).