ExtremeTech Reviews WindowBlinds 5
Sunday, January 22, 2006 by BX | Discussion: WinCustomize News
ExtremeTech,
a well known and respected website dedicated for technology news, has taken an
in-depth look at the newly released WindowBlinds 5. In an exclusive article,
they have discussed almost every feautre of WindowBlinds 5 like per-pixel alpha
blending, as well as the ability to change toolbar icons, progress animations,
and the hue and saturation of the Windows interface.
For more information please check the provided link.
 |
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Alpha Tellurian
Reply #2 Sunday, January 22, 2006 7:29 AM
Reply #2 Sunday, January 22, 2006 7:29 AM
They only gave it an 8 
That's an outrage!!!
That's an outrage!!!
Hus
Reply #3 Sunday, January 22, 2006 12:55 PM
Reply #3 Sunday, January 22, 2006 12:55 PM
Wow, whoever reviewed WB doesn't know what they're doing. Did you see the screenshots of DogmaX? How can they think that's how its supposed to look? Piss-poor reviewing, they should've inquired why it didn't look like the SS brewman made. For shame on ExtremeTech, they should know better!
On a side-note, I like the Gizmo-mod you did for them, looks nice.
On a side-note, I like the Gizmo-mod you did for them, looks nice.
TheD2JBug
Reply #4 Sunday, January 22, 2006 2:32 PM
Reply #4 Sunday, January 22, 2006 2:32 PM
*ahem*
It featured a Butch123 port of a msstyle. Where are the other three horsemen?
This article highlights one of the things I don't like about how Windowblinds appears. All the skins higlighted save one looked like old Windowblinds 4. Heck one of them was a MSstyle port. Windowblinds is *cool* . It's cool because you could have a semi-transparent BeOS if you wanted to with Windowblinds. Highlighting a bunch of old skins with no compact startmenus dosen't highlight what Windowblinds can do.
Stardock should place some effort into making a killer skin for WB with *every* supported feature. Then make it the default skin when WB is loaded.
It featured a Butch123 port of a msstyle. Where are the other three horsemen?
This article highlights one of the things I don't like about how Windowblinds appears. All the skins higlighted save one looked like old Windowblinds 4. Heck one of them was a MSstyle port. Windowblinds is *cool* . It's cool because you could have a semi-transparent BeOS if you wanted to with Windowblinds. Highlighting a bunch of old skins with no compact startmenus dosen't highlight what Windowblinds can do.
Stardock should place some effort into making a killer skin for WB with *every* supported feature. Then make it the default skin when WB is loaded.
Jafo
Reply #5 Sunday, January 22, 2006 4:00 PM
Reply #5 Sunday, January 22, 2006 4:00 PM
All in all it seemed pretty OK. The important thing to remember is that the 'ExtremeTech' reviewer is a user not an 'insider' who would be aware of the origins/ports he chooses as appealing.
Also...to a degree this is really about Windowblinds in general....not 'just' v5....so it's going to be aimed at the 'novice', not necessarily the 'current user looking to upgrade'...
John Rooney
Reply #6 Sunday, January 22, 2006 4:36 PM
Reply #6 Sunday, January 22, 2006 4:36 PM
I was looking at the comments to said review, and wow, WindowBlinds has to be one of the most misunderstood programs out there....
Jafo
Reply #7 Sunday, January 22, 2006 4:48 PM
Reply #7 Sunday, January 22, 2006 4:48 PM
Yes...I forgot to look at the comments.
They ARE a pretty dopey bunch, aren't they? I guess they hang out on a 'tech' site hoping to be associated with people who actually have a 'clue'....
DesignCaddy
Reply #8 Sunday, January 22, 2006 5:06 PM
Reply #8 Sunday, January 22, 2006 5:06 PM
blasphomy - that 'skin' of butch's looked terrible. I'm glad for the outside opinion review, but he should have checked for some of the more popular and slicker skins 
how well-made the skin is affects the performance of the software.. example, butch's ports always have trouble with different applications because they arn't skinned properly. This would gives a bad rep to a first glance of windowblinds. Good exposure all in the same.
how well-made the skin is affects the performance of the software.. example, butch's ports always have trouble with different applications because they arn't skinned properly. This would gives a bad rep to a first glance of windowblinds. Good exposure all in the same.
Adamness
Reply #9 Sunday, January 22, 2006 11:50 PM
Reply #9 Sunday, January 22, 2006 11:50 PM
After reading through the comments, everyone there thinks that WindowBlinds alone is $50. The writer of that should clarify. Even I think $50 would be too much for WB alone, but is a good deal for all the OD apps.
If I wasn't so lazy, I'd register an tell these people OD is a pretty worthwhile thing to have.
If I wasn't so lazy, I'd register an tell these people OD is a pretty worthwhile thing to have.
Jafo
Reply #10 Monday, January 23, 2006 12:38 AM
Reply #10 Monday, January 23, 2006 12:38 AM
| If I wasn't so lazy, I'd register an tell these people OD is a pretty worthwhile thing to have. |
I feel the issue I'd have commenting there [so didn't] would be not too dissimilar to Frogboy doing the same...running the risk of being seen as 'biased' towards Windowblinds and/or Wincustomize.com.
What would be 'best' is positive re-inforcement from WB users/skinners who can be seen to be more 'distanced'....
herojig
Reply #11 Monday, January 23, 2006 3:12 AM
Reply #11 Monday, January 23, 2006 3:12 AM
I'm just looking for a comparison between WB 4.51 and 5. I have 4.51, it's great. Is there an advantage to upgrade? Thanks in advance for this info...jigs
Kevin_C
Reply #12 Monday, January 23, 2006 8:34 AM
I'm right there with ya but I'm not sure I could think of a nice way to disagree with the techtards that obviously just skimmed through the review and looked at the less than stellar screenshots and the one number $50 and then drew their conclusions. Most of the comments also strike me as being made by the same disenchanted 17 year olds who want to change their PC's appearance but think that everything should be free to them.. Ok, now I'm ranting so I'll stop before I really get carried away.
Seems WB would be better off if reviews like this didn't even exist. There's nothing positive about that review and if there were and I read the comments I'd immediately be turned off to the product. Maybe the SD marketing team needs to go in and do a little clean up on isle ExtremeTech!
Reply #12 Monday, January 23, 2006 8:34 AM
| If I wasn't so lazy, I'd register an tell these people OD is a pretty worthwhile thing to have. |
I'm right there with ya but I'm not sure I could think of a nice way to disagree with the techtards that obviously just skimmed through the review and looked at the less than stellar screenshots and the one number $50 and then drew their conclusions. Most of the comments also strike me as being made by the same disenchanted 17 year olds who want to change their PC's appearance but think that everything should be free to them.. Ok, now I'm ranting so I'll stop before I really get carried away.
Seems WB would be better off if reviews like this didn't even exist. There's nothing positive about that review and if there were and I read the comments I'd immediately be turned off to the product. Maybe the SD marketing team needs to go in and do a little clean up on isle ExtremeTech!
John Rooney
Reply #13 Monday, January 23, 2006 11:14 AM
Reply #13 Monday, January 23, 2006 11:14 AM
I think what is needed is a detailed performance and memory-use analysis of WindowBlinds and the other common Object Desktop products on various common hardware and software configurations. This would, atleast for the readership of sites like extremetech, go a long way towards dispelling some common misconceptions of the product.
Adamness
Reply #14 Monday, January 23, 2006 11:28 AM
Reply #14 Monday, January 23, 2006 11:28 AM
I agree, John. If a more prominient website like Cnet did a review, they usually do go into performance tests. If Cnet can review anything from cars to stereos to Photoshop, why can't they review OD?
DesignCaddy
Reply #15 Monday, January 23, 2006 12:58 PM
Reply #15 Monday, January 23, 2006 12:58 PM
after seeing the comments unfold from that article, i take back what i said earlier.. the review is in fact doing more harm than good. Its not entirely the fault of the writer - you can be so clear, but if your readers are ignorant then there is nothing anyone can do about it. The commentors obviously have not read through the article. They don't understand that WB alone is 20$, not 50, and they are all talking about performance and stability issues which at large none of us - including the writer - have. They make un just comparisons, and speculate. Its very damaging to Stardocks rep. Though - arn't we used to this kind of treatment already?
As Jafo said the best way to fix this is if our community came out in force and calmly but sincerely talked up WB with user-experienced fact. Don't flame. Be nice. But share your story. I won't participate, i don't think people like that are worth the trouble. But if this sort of thing gets under your skin, go and speak up.
As Jafo said the best way to fix this is if our community came out in force and calmly but sincerely talked up WB with user-experienced fact. Don't flame. Be nice. But share your story. I won't participate, i don't think people like that are worth the trouble. But if this sort of thing gets under your skin, go and speak up.
EventHorizon
Reply #17 Monday, January 23, 2006 4:11 PM
Reply #17 Monday, January 23, 2006 4:11 PM
Heh, the 'member rating' for WB is 1 out of 5 stars...Noobs. 
bhast2
Reply #19 Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:10 PM
Reply #19 Tuesday, January 24, 2006 11:10 PM
great stuff i love the new windowblinds, i was lost before i got it can't wait to see what they come up with next over there at stardock
RiddickRom
Reply #20 Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:40 AM
Reply #20 Thursday, January 26, 2006 12:40 AM
The review wasn't too bad. I didn't see the need to talk about the $50 package, the review was of a single program, not other programs by the same company. Clearly thats confusing a lot of people, who are skimming and coming away believing it costs $50. Already been said but I wanted to echo it.
Usually ExtremeTech has good articles, this one seemed more like someone spending too much time making screenshots then whacking out some words to go with it, rather than reviewing the mechanics of what WindowsBlinds really can do.
Usually ExtremeTech has good articles, this one seemed more like someone spending too much time making screenshots then whacking out some words to go with it, rather than reviewing the mechanics of what WindowsBlinds really can do.
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 Sunday, January 22, 2006 5:20 AM
thanks for the link BX!