FAQ: WindowBlinds vs. Style XP vs. UXTheme


Recommended Posts

Since this topic comes up so often here at Neowin, here is a simple guide to what's what on these different ways of applying visual styles.

[Dislaimer: I work for Stardock]

In Windows XP if you want to apply additional visual styles beyond blue, green, and silver you have to install additional software to do it.

That software will take one of two paths: Either use .msstyles files, which is the skin format Microsoft used to create its 3 bundled visual styles or it will use its own format.

Microsoft runs .msstyles files through a bundled DLL called uxtheme.dll. For compatibility and branding reasons, Microsoft made uxtheme.dll only run Microsoft digitally signed .msstyles files.

So if you want to use third party .msstyles files you have to either convert it to a different visual style format or disable Microsoft's digital signing protection.

WindowBlinds takes the former route. It has its own visual style format and sends skins through wblind.dll instead of uxtheme.dll (i.e. using WindowBlinds does NOT take extra memory).

Style XP, Star Skin, Tune-Up, uxtheme patches take the latter. They patch out a few bytes in uxtheme.dll to make the API CryptVerifySig() always return true. Style XP 2.x does this in RAM using a driver that loads when you boot. Most uxtheme patchers literally replace the uxtheme.dll on your hard disk.

Both methods have their own advantages and disadvantages.

WindowBlinds has the advantage of being continually updated. So performance and other enhancements suggested by users are able to be implemented. Because it has its own skin format, its visual styles can have additional features (borders of any size, buttons can be placed anywhere, sound effects, colorizing, etc.). You can learn more about it HERE.

WindowBlinds has the disadvantage that is not free. It's $20 to register (or you can get it as part of Object Desktop.

Also, because its skin format is more free-form, you end up with a lot of strange looking skins. So users looking for something that's like the standard Windows UI may have to sift through a lot of strange (or ugly) skins.

Using SkinStudio, a free program you can download HERE you can use .msstyles files under WindowBlinds. Its accuracy in conversion continually improves but some visual styles still may have to be tweaked to be perfect.

Another WindowBlinds disadvantage is that if you have a patched uxtheme.dll you have to hold down the CTRL key when opening display properties to see the .msstyles files in your themes directory.

The advantage for using a uxtheme.dll patch is that it is free. You simply replace your uxtheme.dll and you can make use of the hundreds of .msstyles files available. Here on Neowin.net, many high quality .msstyles can be found. You can find completd ones HERE.

The disadvantage of using uxtheme.dll is that it's a bit more technically involved to get installed and has to be replaced every time you update Windows XP's build. This is pretty minor if you're technically savvy.

Replacing uxtheme.dll WILL NOT increase your vulnerability to viri or spyware. It does not disable Microsoft digital signing globally, only on .msstyles.

Obviously uxtheme.dll can't make use of visual styles in the WindowBlinds format.

As for Style XP, the advantage of using Style XP is that it makes it much easier to patch uxtheme.dll. It does it in memory and is pretty seamless in doing so. So a "non-techie" ends up with a nice easy interface for using third party msstyles.

The disadvantage is that it's $20 to use and requires updating it every time Windows XP gets updated to a new build #.

Which you use depends on what your needs are. None of these methods use up very much memory. In an age where the typical web browser uses 20 megabytes of memory, visual styles use hardly any memory at all. And none of them, on a modern machine, should slow down your computer in any noticeable way.

Have fun!

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!