I agree with Frogboy on the self patch against the StyleXP route.

Purchasing StyleXP is kind of like people spending $20.00 on a Pet Rock.

Anyone can pick up a Rock and glue eyes on it...

sheesh...

if you really look hard you can find patches that change your systemfiles to make your computer look like osx panther. It even changes the login screen to look like macs. however I change 'blinds often and find the ease with which windowsblinds works and the quality of its skins amazing. The osxp skin for windowblinds looks almost just like osx, while stylexp's osxp looks nothing like osx, its got the little stripes and the aquaball buttons, but they all look wrong.

well...

why not just get the patch then instead of paying 20 dollars?


I can only ask people who actually use it here why pay for something they can find on the net and use to do the same thing.

All of which just seems funny to me.


geekboy2000 has a point about WB not skinning (or flavoring) all apps or every part of them. Nevertheless I would rather use something that doesn't change the dll like the way SXP does.


I don't have XP (of which to me is another problem with StyleXP) but from what I understand if WB doesn't skin it, the windows uses the native 'skin'. I would personally just set XP to Silver and what ever is not skinned has the silver look that would hopefully match.




Or I would just exclude the program all together and use the XP default themes for it.




Or if your feeling dangerous...

Use both and try to find the same theme for each (one for the patch and the other for WB)

Something that some do not take into consideration is the oddities that some application developers code into their apps thinking they have found a better manner in which to optimize their applications response times and such. So instead of using the standard API, they bastardize it, which might very well make the app faster and still run stable. But it can also make it so only those parts of the code which do in fact make use of the standard API's skin properly and those areas that do not, get dinked.

For instance, I would like to know if anyone run both WB and StyleXP have loaded up Directory Opus?

If so does DOpus skin correctly in StyleXP?

Directory Opus plays with the API's and such and skins partly in WB and now and then forgets itself and will paint the total window only to change back to it's normal state when you move your mouse.

The same with some apps which will not handle the min/max/close buttons on the tool bar when run under WB. I am thinking it is how they decided to handle mouse clicks on those buttons in their application. Mainly because so many other programs work fully, and it might also be the specific skin in some instance which is the skinner digression not WB's...

anyway, buying StyleXP is like recycling beer in my opinion...

Unfortunately, if an app is excluded from skinning via a WB exclusion, the app is not skinned at all. In other words, it doesn't take on the XP Visual Style, it's simply unskinned (like a default win2k app).

geekboy....One WB skin I use crashes ACDSee 3.....but it's no drama as one of my own skins does not, so I use that specifically for that proggy.....so all apps remain skinned...I just haven't bothered to debug the other skin to solve its specific problem because it's no biggie to use two skins at once....

Msstyles and WindowBlinds both have their strengths and weaknesses. I would say, overall, WindowBlinds skins more.

Compare:

Windows XP on its own:

http://www.windowblinds.net/wb4/before.jpg

Add WindowBlinds:

http://www.windowblinds.net/wb4/after.jpg

I tried AOL 9 today, WindowBlinds works fine with it. But it doesn't skin the title bar of AOL IM (yet). On the other hand, XP's msstyles don't skin most programs completely.

 

Thanks for testing it out, Frogboy. For whatever reason, on my install of AOL 9, no window inside of the main AOL interface is skinned. That includes the sign-on screen, the Welcome screen, mail composition windows, etc, etc. Only the main window is skinned for me. I wonder why the difference?
[Message Edited]

i've used both style xp and windowblinds. i've not found a program that won't run using style xp, i've found quite a few that will not run using windowblinds. you then have to make some modifications in windowblinds.
i've not had a problem with style xp using the dll mentioned in this topic.
the one big plus that i see with windowblinds is that they seem to have a larger selection of outstanding skins than style xp.
i bought windowblinds not style xp for that reason alone.
they are both shareware, so i suggest that you try them both out and make your own call. they both do a good job at changing the look and feel of windows.
that's my opinion anyway.

So wait...

If WB is running and you8 exclude and app on XP then XP doesn't use the default Luna style???

I wonder why?

I was trying to check and see what Style XP flavors exactly and if it flavors everything but I only have screenshots to go by (I'm on win 98 and before I was on win200)

My sister has XP but I am not willing to try it on there and something happens and I get trapped in dll hell.

"If WB is running and you exclude and app on XP then XP doesn't use the default Luna style???"

No, it doesn't. While WB is running the Luna style is as if suspended and unskinned apps appear in the classic style GUI, with some color influence from the WB skin in use.

sig101 is exactly right. I suppose that while it's possible to have both apps *installed* at the same time, it's not possible to have both "theme engines" run at the same time. At least that's my non-technical guess. Having a WB option that would allow "exclude, but skin with Windows Visual Style" would be a great thing!