Who rules ? TGTSoft or WindowBlinds ?
Saturday, October 12, 2002 by Mukul Varma | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Hi Everybody,
I must admit Wincustomize is the best site around with its cool design and sheer treasure of quality skins,wallpapers etc. Kudos to all the contributors!
Friends,
I've been pondering over for sometime whether to keep WindowBlinds or TGTSoft's ThemeXP on my computer. I tell you the Visual Styles available from ThemeXP.org look better and native on XP than WB Skins. Though WB is great on 9x/2000, on XP, I personally think ThemeXP looks smoother on XP. themes like ForeverBlue Final are really awesome. So what i want to know is that what to use and what not. Though WB and ThemeXP do coexist comfortably, why should I use WindowBlinds or TGTSoft's ThemeXP for that matter? Can you guys spell out the differences and draw a parallel between the two. I'd love to know the facts and the public opinion.
God Bless You !
Carry on The Good Work!
Wincustomize Fan,
[email protected]
I must admit Wincustomize is the best site around with its cool design and sheer treasure of quality skins,wallpapers etc. Kudos to all the contributors!
Friends,
I've been pondering over for sometime whether to keep WindowBlinds or TGTSoft's ThemeXP on my computer. I tell you the Visual Styles available from ThemeXP.org look better and native on XP than WB Skins. Though WB is great on 9x/2000, on XP, I personally think ThemeXP looks smoother on XP. themes like ForeverBlue Final are really awesome. So what i want to know is that what to use and what not. Though WB and ThemeXP do coexist comfortably, why should I use WindowBlinds or TGTSoft's ThemeXP for that matter? Can you guys spell out the differences and draw a parallel between the two. I'd love to know the facts and the public opinion.
God Bless You !
Carry on The Good Work!
Wincustomize Fan,
[email protected]
 |
|
Page 2 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Suddenly_Dead
Reply #22 Sunday, October 20, 2002 11:31 PM
Reply #22 Sunday, October 20, 2002 11:31 PM
I gotta admit, risk7, those visual styles are the sweetest things i've ever seen, but, they're just normal old boxes. Windowblinds allows you to do much more, no saying that tthe 'more' is used in every skin. Some skins for windowblinds are just slapped together (go into the winstyles section on this page.. i hate half those skins) but still, i prefer it for all the nice things it CAN do and that good skin makers frequently DO do. Then again, what am I saying?
(I don't liek desktop x, it's not as easy to use as explorer and crashes
)
(I don't liek desktop x, it's not as easy to use as explorer and crashes
)
Frogboy
Reply #23 Monday, October 21, 2002 2:00 AM
Reply #23 Monday, October 21, 2002 2:00 AM
Milk (the skin) has been on WC for months. And the buttons are on the correct side.
Frogboy
Reply #24 Tuesday, October 22, 2002 2:11 AM
Reply #24 Tuesday, October 22, 2002 2:11 AM
Incidentally, one of the issues many people, myself included, have with TGTsoft is their borderline dishonest marketing.
Some people have complained about how "aggressive" Stardock is at marketing but at least we are truthful or at the very least our claims follow the spirit of the law as well as the letter and not just the letter.
For instance, consider TGTsoft's claims about Style XP vs "non Microsoft skinning software" (i.e. WindowBlinds):
Claim: “Zero Footprint Operation”
TGTsoft claims that zero foot print means that because it uses XP’s bundled skinning system that it uses no resources. If that is the case, then WindowBlinds uses less than zero resources. XP’s bundled engine requires memory and system resources to load, draw and maintain visual styles. So does WindowBlinds. However, WindowBlinds uses less memory and resources than the bundled XP skinning system.
Claim: Explorer Views are Skinnable.
This has nothing to do with Style XP. If the skin author includes a shellstyle.dll with their theme, Windows XP will use it. This is the same as WindowBlinds (WB skin authors don't make it a habit to pass around shellstyle.dll's since WB skins install automatically and hence this would require the user to mess around with replacing shellstyle.dll). However, WindowBlinds 4 will offer an integrated, seamless way for users to skin the explorer views. No need to include a copyrighted shellstyle.dll with ones visual style.
Claim: 100% Application compatibility.
This is just plain false. Windows XP visual styles do not work on the majority of existing software fully. Delphi apps, many visual basic apps and many MFC written programs either have to be excluded or only have their title bars and borders modified. The rest look like plain Windows 95. WindowBlinds, by contrast, has much greater compatibility due to the greater amount of time it’s been in testing. Bottom line, if you want your programs to look consistent, WindowBlinds is the only option.
Claim: Integrated into theme files.
TGTsoft means by this that .msstyles files are supported by Microsoft’s .theme format. That is true. However, .msstyles files are not supported by .suite or .xptheme files which are a superset of .theme in functionality. Formats are only as useful as their level of distribution. Consider how silly this claim really is: What is a .theme file really? It's a skin, a wallpaper, maybe some icons, maybe some cursors and maybe some sound. What can a WindowBlinds skin do on its own? A WindowBlinds visual style can contain a wallpaper, an icon package, cursors, sound effects. TGTsoft tries to make a weakness sound like a strength (.msstyles are just the visual style where as a WindowBlinds visual style can do what's in a .theme already).
Claim: Multiple language support.
This is an odd claim as virtually any program can make this claim (such as WindowBlinds which is very popular in Japan).
Claim: No hooking of SetWindowsHookEx
This is a misleading claim that is borderline fraudulent. The Windows XP visual style engine hooks the system similarly to WindowBlinds (despite TGTsoft’s claims to the contrary). Every process gets uxtheme.dll attached to it as a result. This claim gives the impression that TGTsoft is not familiar with how the Windows XP style engine functions.
Claim: Multiple DPI sizes
WindowBlinds also supports multiple DPI sizes.
Claim: Integrated into themeing APIs
WindowBlinds 4 is scheduled to fully support these themeing APIs. Incidentally, the number of programs that directly call these new APIs can be counted on one hand. For a program that utilizes a skinning engine that fails to skin 90% of existing programs fully, this claim seems pretty dubious.
Some people have complained about how "aggressive" Stardock is at marketing but at least we are truthful or at the very least our claims follow the spirit of the law as well as the letter and not just the letter.
For instance, consider TGTsoft's claims about Style XP vs "non Microsoft skinning software" (i.e. WindowBlinds):
Claim: “Zero Footprint Operation”
TGTsoft claims that zero foot print means that because it uses XP’s bundled skinning system that it uses no resources. If that is the case, then WindowBlinds uses less than zero resources. XP’s bundled engine requires memory and system resources to load, draw and maintain visual styles. So does WindowBlinds. However, WindowBlinds uses less memory and resources than the bundled XP skinning system.
Claim: Explorer Views are Skinnable.
This has nothing to do with Style XP. If the skin author includes a shellstyle.dll with their theme, Windows XP will use it. This is the same as WindowBlinds (WB skin authors don't make it a habit to pass around shellstyle.dll's since WB skins install automatically and hence this would require the user to mess around with replacing shellstyle.dll). However, WindowBlinds 4 will offer an integrated, seamless way for users to skin the explorer views. No need to include a copyrighted shellstyle.dll with ones visual style.
Claim: 100% Application compatibility.
This is just plain false. Windows XP visual styles do not work on the majority of existing software fully. Delphi apps, many visual basic apps and many MFC written programs either have to be excluded or only have their title bars and borders modified. The rest look like plain Windows 95. WindowBlinds, by contrast, has much greater compatibility due to the greater amount of time it’s been in testing. Bottom line, if you want your programs to look consistent, WindowBlinds is the only option.
Claim: Integrated into theme files.
TGTsoft means by this that .msstyles files are supported by Microsoft’s .theme format. That is true. However, .msstyles files are not supported by .suite or .xptheme files which are a superset of .theme in functionality. Formats are only as useful as their level of distribution. Consider how silly this claim really is: What is a .theme file really? It's a skin, a wallpaper, maybe some icons, maybe some cursors and maybe some sound. What can a WindowBlinds skin do on its own? A WindowBlinds visual style can contain a wallpaper, an icon package, cursors, sound effects. TGTsoft tries to make a weakness sound like a strength (.msstyles are just the visual style where as a WindowBlinds visual style can do what's in a .theme already).
Claim: Multiple language support.
This is an odd claim as virtually any program can make this claim (such as WindowBlinds which is very popular in Japan).
Claim: No hooking of SetWindowsHookEx
This is a misleading claim that is borderline fraudulent. The Windows XP visual style engine hooks the system similarly to WindowBlinds (despite TGTsoft’s claims to the contrary). Every process gets uxtheme.dll attached to it as a result. This claim gives the impression that TGTsoft is not familiar with how the Windows XP style engine functions.
Claim: Multiple DPI sizes
WindowBlinds also supports multiple DPI sizes.
Claim: Integrated into themeing APIs
WindowBlinds 4 is scheduled to fully support these themeing APIs. Incidentally, the number of programs that directly call these new APIs can be counted on one hand. For a program that utilizes a skinning engine that fails to skin 90% of existing programs fully, this claim seems pretty dubious.
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 Sunday, October 20, 2002 2:54 AM
http://www.studio-28.tk/
Infact if weren't it for "Milk", being a port or not... I wouldn't use stylexp. Most of the greatest things come from a mac. Ports need too be done. I can back it up with a screen shot too. Window blinds only had one true theme I like and it was something called dark reign I belive.
Also, I love desktop x... but it seems developers don't want too push the edge. It's basically boring. I only use it to get different Icon sizes not available on windows like 96x96 etc. Maybe someday someone will use there imagination and make a desktop enhancement that utilizes more GPU off of our 200-300 dollar vid cards and make some GL Objects utilizing Aplpha channels. On mouse over you could have particle effects generated by Illusion... but dont go using your imaginations:) Maybe licence or hell build your own Shader generator software. Such as Quake III or Unreal uses. Most of the applications offered tax the hell out of cpu.. none resource any part of my graphics card. Who wouldn't want particles on the desktop in openGL?