WindowsBlinds: Is it just me or....


Recommended Posts

So reading all this, it's very interesting. How much does WB rely on MS's Skining engine to do its stuff? And on Win2k, there is no skinning engine so would WB work better on Win2k or WinXP? Coz WinXp sucks major arse if you ask me...

WB works quite well on Win2k tho some apps such as Fireworks and Photoshop seem sluggish when using them and I don't want to be unloading and reloading skins every 5 minutes; but I shaw as hell would rather be using Win2k than WinXP... If WB 3.2 is going to be that much better, then I could have Winxp with out having Winxp if you get my drift?

Cheers raw_mustard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm forced to agree with DJP on this one. There is a lot of WinME style crap that was carried over to XP, but luckily, you can turn it all off with no bother (if you know how), which basically makes it Win2K, but a little bit more stable.

As for WB performance on Win2K, I don't know, but when I first installed it on XP, there was no noticeable difference in performance difference between the two. WindowBlinds has undergone what are in my opinion some pretty major changes in the past couple of revisions though, and now there's not a WB theme on my system that doesn't perform better than any MSStyles theme.

WB does to the best of my knowledge extend Microsoft's own skinning APIs, but Stardock's own themeing methods in older versions of windows seem to behave just as well, and as fast.

If you're not sure about all this, just download the trial version and try it out for yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2xx and 3.0-3.1 windowblinds didnt really impress me much(3.1 was noticibly faster) but now 3.2 seems to really be a lot faster(on my system at least), windowblinds just needs a decent longhorn skin though :) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.