Anyone else think WindowFX should be merged into Windowblinds?
Saturday, May 15, 2004 by murassmeblade | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Ive noticed that WindowFX while an amazing app doesnt get the attention it deserves.
there isnt that much content for it even tho its been around forever.
it has options to use shadows defined by wb skins but are there even any that use that?
i personally think if the code was merged into WB it would survive much better and possibly the functions and features it has to offer could be ebtter put to use.
comments and discussion would great but please no flamming, its jsut an idea i have and a personal opinion
there isnt that much content for it even tho its been around forever.
it has options to use shadows defined by wb skins but are there even any that use that?
i personally think if the code was merged into WB it would survive much better and possibly the functions and features it has to offer could be ebtter put to use.
comments and discussion would great but please no flamming, its jsut an idea i have and a personal opinion
 |
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
kona0197
Reply #3 Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:05 AM
Reply #3 Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:05 AM
I have had some bad experinences with FX. If it happens, so be it but I will just have to get use to it I guess. 
murassmeblade
Reply #4 Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:39 AM
Reply #4 Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:39 AM
lol this is jsut a discussion about an idea, maybe if i was a stardock programmer i would understand your last statement.
Kona, why exactly do you thinks its a bad idea?
China, I to think it could be easily done, and its not like the options/features of WindowFX need be on by default if the code was merged into Windowblinds.
It would just be another section in the WB configuration utility, they could if necessary still create an individual exe and extensions but it aould by default be packaged and installed with Windowblinds wich means as a default part of WB it would most certanly get more regular updates and hopefully worked on a bit more than it has been in the past.
I think the reason its been neglected so is because on its own its pure eyecandy (i know the lastest beta versions have features that can be usefull for overall UI functionality) but Windowblinds has the power to add huge enhancements to the OS UI that are not there by default or at all.
Kona, why exactly do you thinks its a bad idea?
China, I to think it could be easily done, and its not like the options/features of WindowFX need be on by default if the code was merged into Windowblinds.
It would just be another section in the WB configuration utility, they could if necessary still create an individual exe and extensions but it aould by default be packaged and installed with Windowblinds wich means as a default part of WB it would most certanly get more regular updates and hopefully worked on a bit more than it has been in the past.
I think the reason its been neglected so is because on its own its pure eyecandy (i know the lastest beta versions have features that can be usefull for overall UI functionality) but Windowblinds has the power to add huge enhancements to the OS UI that are not there by default or at all.
DesignCaddy
Reply #5 Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:45 AM
Reply #5 Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:45 AM
i think it would be very benificial to have the two merged. as long as you could turn certain featuers on and off.. more streamlined customizing. of course this might have been pondered over by the powers that be so if they passed on it they may have their reasons.. does winfx sell seperately? if not, sounds like a plan
IPlural
Reply #6 Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:47 AM
Reply #6 Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:47 AM
No,WinFX shouldn't be combined because of two issues that are key in my opinion.
1. Hardware issues on the user end would lend to some serious support issues for WindowBlinds, an otherwise stable app which plays nice with just about anything that will run Windows.
2. People write addons for WindowFX which can seriously chew up the CPU cycles on shared memory systems. Hell of a thing to break WindowBlinds just to add WIndowFX to it and combine the two prices.
1. Hardware issues on the user end would lend to some serious support issues for WindowBlinds, an otherwise stable app which plays nice with just about anything that will run Windows.
2. People write addons for WindowFX which can seriously chew up the CPU cycles on shared memory systems. Hell of a thing to break WindowBlinds just to add WIndowFX to it and combine the two prices.
IPlural
Reply #7 Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:49 AM
Reply #7 Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:49 AM
they address system resources in different ways...
Otherwise Windowblinds would puke out on shared memory systems like WIndowFX tends to do on older hardware....
WindowFX like DX9...
Windowblinds could careless...
Otherwise Windowblinds would puke out on shared memory systems like WIndowFX tends to do on older hardware....
WindowFX like DX9...
Windowblinds could careless...
DesignCaddy
Reply #8 Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:53 AM
Reply #8 Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:53 AM
that's a good point, ip.. the rules about memory and WB would be completely rewritten.
murassmeblade
Reply #9 Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:55 AM
Reply #9 Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:55 AM
Thas why my idea to keep the executable files seperate not entirely coded together except for control, like say if the FX part failed it would shutdown and leave WB stable and intact.
now i know thats basicly how it is now, but the things is if everyone that had WB also had the options and features of FX by default i think the possibilty of newer and newr content for it being created to be alot better than it is now. i mean im bored with the stuff that is on Wincust for it lol.
and you think WB itself cant be resource heavy depending on the skin?
have you downloaded treetog''''s anteres skin from the GUIolympics?????? on fully animated subskin it eats 62% of my CPU wich is an P4 3.0ghz
yes the skin was created to show ALL the new built in features of 4.3 but so what? if those features are there and the skinners arent using them then why did the programmers put them there?
Complaining about the resources of something that possibly wouldnt hgappen untill a basic computer is like a pentium 5 6ghz with a 2ghz fsb is like people who are currently complaining about the resources it uses witch is less than the default XP themes.
and considering that Longhorn is coming up in a few years at least attempting to take the best parts of FX and add them to WB for when LH is out and its new UI systems i think at least would be good programing tactics
[Message Edited]
now i know thats basicly how it is now, but the things is if everyone that had WB also had the options and features of FX by default i think the possibilty of newer and newr content for it being created to be alot better than it is now. i mean im bored with the stuff that is on Wincust for it lol.
and you think WB itself cant be resource heavy depending on the skin?
have you downloaded treetog''''s anteres skin from the GUIolympics?????? on fully animated subskin it eats 62% of my CPU wich is an P4 3.0ghz
yes the skin was created to show ALL the new built in features of 4.3 but so what? if those features are there and the skinners arent using them then why did the programmers put them there?
Complaining about the resources of something that possibly wouldnt hgappen untill a basic computer is like a pentium 5 6ghz with a 2ghz fsb is like people who are currently complaining about the resources it uses witch is less than the default XP themes.
and considering that Longhorn is coming up in a few years at least attempting to take the best parts of FX and add them to WB for when LH is out and its new UI systems i think at least would be good programing tactics
[Message Edited]
IPlural
Reply #10 Saturday, May 15, 2004 3:28 AM
Reply #10 Saturday, May 15, 2004 3:28 AM
oh, sorry, I didn't have a clue that Windowblinds could eat up cpu cycles and such.
I'll be quiet now and soak up the new understanding...
I'll be quiet now and soak up the new understanding...
Suriken
Reply #11 Saturday, May 15, 2004 4:25 AM
Reply #11 Saturday, May 15, 2004 4:25 AM
there is a thought i have though...
have any of you seen the longhorn screenshots when they have the transparency features of the shell turned on. (i cant remember exactly what it is called, some random letter conbination)
that looks absolutely awesome. If windowblinds could use alpha transparency like that it would be a major selling point imho
like with Xp, wb users will once again get the features of the new shell style before the OS actually comes out.
although alpha transparency will probly be a big CPU hog when used like that... err i dunno
have any of you seen the longhorn screenshots when they have the transparency features of the shell turned on. (i cant remember exactly what it is called, some random letter conbination)
that looks absolutely awesome. If windowblinds could use alpha transparency like that it would be a major selling point imho
like with Xp, wb users will once again get the features of the new shell style before the OS actually comes out.
although alpha transparency will probly be a big CPU hog when used like that... err i dunno
Essencay
Reply #13 Saturday, May 15, 2004 7:28 AM
If I'm not mistaken....there is a WBSkin Plugin to turn-on transparency in a WBSkin.
Reply #13 Saturday, May 15, 2004 7:28 AM
| transparency |
If I'm not mistaken....there is a WBSkin Plugin to turn-on transparency in a WBSkin.
MikeB314
Reply #14 Saturday, May 15, 2004 8:39 AM
Reply #14 Saturday, May 15, 2004 8:39 AM
Consider this... As a stand-alone product, WFX sells for $20. If Stardock bundled it with WB, they would have to double the price of WB. This would be a major turn-off to people who simply want to skin their OS.
Also, WindowBlinds has gone through painstaking development to make it compatible with all versions of Windows, and systems with relatively low resources. WFX, on the other hand, is very resource intensive, and unless you have the best of video cards/drivers, it can be a painful experience. In a nutshell, WFX is not for everyone, while WB is.
There's my 2 cents. 
Shameless Designs
Reply #15 Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:04 PM
Reply #15 Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:04 PM
I agree with IP, MikeB and kona. It shouldn't be merged. They've raised what I think are valid objections. In addition, I don't see an advantage to merging the two. You said that it will bring more focus to WinFX, but I submit it would divert focus from furthering either app in the short term as they focus on combining the two.
Even if you were correct in the long term, where is the gain? It unnecessarily complicates skinning WB, which is already a fairly hefty undertaking. By the same token, it would radically complicate the developing of new FX, and many of those developers don't really do WB skins. The type of skinning involved for WB and WinFX have very little to do with one another other than both being applied to the same OS.
As it is now, if a user wants both, she/he can have them by going through one additional config, most elements of which they would have to go through even if the two apps were combined. There's my 2 cents.
Even if you were correct in the long term, where is the gain? It unnecessarily complicates skinning WB, which is already a fairly hefty undertaking. By the same token, it would radically complicate the developing of new FX, and many of those developers don't really do WB skins. The type of skinning involved for WB and WinFX have very little to do with one another other than both being applied to the same OS.
As it is now, if a user wants both, she/he can have them by going through one additional config, most elements of which they would have to go through even if the two apps were combined. There's my 2 cents.
Koasati
Reply #16 Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:26 PM
Reply #16 Saturday, May 15, 2004 2:26 PM
You can add me to no list, for all the reasons already stated.
smoke-tetsu
Reply #18 Saturday, May 15, 2004 5:16 PM
Reply #18 Saturday, May 15, 2004 5:16 PM
What I would like is more interoperability with windowFX and WB.
For example, if you could specify a shadow for each border in a WB skin and have it only apply to a window that is skinned by that border. This would work especially well if you can set the inner offset of the shadow in it''''s specification file then you can make custom tailored shadows for just about any skin. This would also give you the appearence of antialiasing in the borders if you do the shadow right.
To round off that functionality per app, and or per class shadows can be added, or to just be able to specify a generic shadow to be applied to borders that aren''''t skinned by WB (borderless windows,menus certain MP3 players like itunes, real one, etc.)
I already make shadows that compensate for the inner offset of the setting for rounded window but this would take that concept a lot further.
The shadow skinning and border skinning in WB and WFX CAN be tied together more than it is now.
P.S. What is the code to specify the shadow in a WB skin anyway?
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]
For example, if you could specify a shadow for each border in a WB skin and have it only apply to a window that is skinned by that border. This would work especially well if you can set the inner offset of the shadow in it''''s specification file then you can make custom tailored shadows for just about any skin. This would also give you the appearence of antialiasing in the borders if you do the shadow right.
To round off that functionality per app, and or per class shadows can be added, or to just be able to specify a generic shadow to be applied to borders that aren''''t skinned by WB (borderless windows,menus certain MP3 players like itunes, real one, etc.)
I already make shadows that compensate for the inner offset of the setting for rounded window but this would take that concept a lot further.
The shadow skinning and border skinning in WB and WFX CAN be tied together more than it is now.
P.S. What is the code to specify the shadow in a WB skin anyway?
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]
murassmeblade
Reply #19 Saturday, May 15, 2004 7:13 PM
Reply #19 Saturday, May 15, 2004 7:13 PM
That there is exactly my point, WNFX has not only shadow support defined by WB skins but other features seem to be more attuned to what a WB skin is doing.
now that i think about it, it seems a few of you took this the worng way, thats fine its made me realize that even if this were to happen i guess some of you are not ready.
as both WINFX and WB are even more developed to be less and less resource happy i will bring this up again maybe when Longhorn is RTM lol then maybe the majority of computer hardware will be powerfull enough to allow some of you to immagine it outside of the constraints of todays hardware.
now that i think about it, it seems a few of you took this the worng way, thats fine its made me realize that even if this were to happen i guess some of you are not ready.
as both WINFX and WB are even more developed to be less and less resource happy i will bring this up again maybe when Longhorn is RTM lol then maybe the majority of computer hardware will be powerfull enough to allow some of you to immagine it outside of the constraints of todays hardware.
Latin4567
Reply #20 Saturday, May 15, 2004 7:27 PM
Reply #20 Saturday, May 15, 2004 7:27 PM
I think it should as well however then that would be one less benifit of OD (if they already have WB then FX's intergration into WB would take away from the benifits of having OD)
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 Saturday, May 15, 2004 1:47 AM