MS Visual Styles vs. Windowblinds 3 SW vs. Windowblinds 3 Enhanced

[starpc]

Found this chart on a microsoft windows XP newsgroup. It compares the various features of Microsoft Visual Styles, WindowBlinds 3 Shareware and WindowBlinds 3 Enhanced.

[kawai]

Also

Slugglish Now! Support built in with Windows Blind XP [x]

Crappy, ugly and irregular skins available for free on WB [x]

Hijack your system in no time WB [x]

Useless features that are junky in nature WB [x]

[mortensen]

Worse than Chinese drip torture - WB [x]

Destroys Windows XP's good looks - WB [x]

[mortensen]

ROTFLMFAO!!! I just read the comparison list and I can't stop laughing! They try and state that Windows Blinds XP is better that XP Visual Styles. LMAO!

I can't believe they put in the comparison "Works on Win98/ME/2000" as a feature - ARGH! Funny.

[Primalgoo]

OK this chart seems somewhat true. But you guys crack me up about the MSStyles being a better technology than WindowBlindsXP. You guys evidently don't remember this but Microsoft had some Stardock employees on the MSStyles design team. The only difference is that WindowBlindsXP or 3 is a more Advanced version of the Styles. It's kinda the same as MS including a very limited version of Roxio's DirectCD into the OS and then saying you can get Easy CD Creator 5 Plat. for more "Advanced" features. The EXACT same is true for the Microsoft/Stardock relationship.

[purush]

I beg to differ on this, Styles XP is although in its infancy has a great future, it does not muck up the OS like Window Blinds. What's more, it is so simple in its excution, that it does not touch any system files, so you are much safer with Stles XP. Waite for some more time and I am sure they will come up with some of the most exciting themes that you can ever imagine.

[kawai]

Windows Blind had always sucked, since a lot of the UI elements are hijacked by WB, sometimes skins look weird at some resolutions.

Visual Style in other hand, is stable and uniformly applied across windows.

Granted, VS doesn't have all the extra (crappy) features in WB, but who the **** want a crappy smart bar on your Windows?

Let's look at the Aqua theme from Jason, much better than any crappy Auqua themes for WB.

[Rudy]

yeah and WindowBlinds can't skin the scroll bar in IE (that REALLY suck)

[Guest foo]

Actually, Styles is the one who cracks into Microsofts digitally signed files. All WindowBlinds does is change the gui when a window opens. Styles does in fact change system files to do its purpose. How do you think they get around MS digital sig?

They achieve the same goal, but windowblinds goes beyond and lets you customize even more options. Either you haven't used windowsblinds or have no idea what beta means. WB isn't buggy. It works like a dream. And it really doesn't slow the computer down that much. As for the skins, its all on the skin creator how it looks. If they make a crappy skin, its gonna look crappy. Its not WB. The aqua skin for WB is so much more complete than the Styles one. The styles one looks kinda lame if you ask me

Microsoft can easily break Styles skinning system by releasing one update. And then what?

Personnally, i really have no preference. I have been using WB for about 3 years now and have never had a problem. I use both programs at different times, but strongly prefer WB. Its just a better program.

[TheHampster]

Styles XP isn't a skinning program. It's a patch to uxtheme.dll so that users can make their own .msstyles. People should be referring to these as Microsoft visual styles. They're the ones who did the hard work on creating .msstyles as a skin format.

WindowBlinds XP uses the exact same engine as .msstyles does. But instead of patching uxtheme.dll to get around the digitally signed requirement, they made their own skin format. WindowBlinds skins are no faster or slower than .msstyle skins when you're comparing apples and apples. Most WB skins are just big and bloated. The same thing will happen with .msstyle skins once people get that skin builder and go nuts with it.