WindowFX doesn't add shadow to taskbar?


Recommended Posts

It's very easy, as long as you are not running ancient version of it! Unless you are using it on Windows x64 then it only adds shadows to 32bit programs.

585750419[/snapback]

I'm using the latest version, 2.12 and there is no option for enabling the shadow on the taskbar.

It's pritty silly of Stardock releasing this program without the feature of adding a shadow to the taskbar. I don't want to use WindowFX and Y'z Shadow at the same time. They are both great apps, WindowFX has more options and Y'z uses less resources.

I hope they will add Taskbar shadow support.

you mean the line under 'Shadows' where it says, and i quote, "Apply shadows to the taskbar" ?

585751059[/snapback]

I don't have that option, maybe you're talking about Y'z shadow, I mean WindowFX.

I downloaded WindowFX version 2.12 from the stardock website and in the program itself it says version 2.11?!?

It's pritty silly of Stardock releasing this program without the feature of adding a shadow to the taskbar. I don't want to use WindowFX and Y'z Shadow at the same time. They are both great apps, WindowFX has more options and Y'z uses less resources.

You really think that's not blaming Stardock?

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • It is silly there is no simple way to check whether this profile has been activated. CFRs are normal, but trying to even hide the fact if it's on / off seems silly, especially for something so user-facing. Surely Microsoft is "proud" of their engineering efforts on this one and ought to display it somwhere in the GUI.
    • Many Linux distros are not known for excellent battery life, so I'm not sure that is the best example. A more apt example may be Apple, but Apple's CPUs are simply far more efficient than Intel & AMD at single-threaded tasks like these, so "boosting" is not as power-hungry and less heat-inducing. Not to mention Apple will hardly engage P-cores for basic UI tasks; they use a pretty complicated QoS scheme to only activate P-cores for more serious workloads like HTML / JS execution or decompression or application launch. Microsoft is (smartly) doing it for launch, but also for UI tasks, which is the more nonsensical part: why ... do Windows 11's UIs need modern CPUs to boost? It should load so quickly that there's not even time for the CPU to boost.
    • I've not seen any controlled testing and, judging by Microsoft's mentality, within a year, they'll have added so much more bloat, it'll undo any perceptible latency benefit and we'll have boosted the CPU clocks for nothing.
    • It depends: heat soak is a thing. Initially on cold boot-up, the heatsinks & heatpipes are at ambient temp. After heatsinks & heatpipes warm up (through normal usage), they don't immediately cool to ambient temp when the load goes away. So their baseline is higher and the trigger point for fans is much less stress. Add a few more CPU spikes → it's too hot to stay at the same fan RPM → fans get triggered to start up up much sooner / get triggered to ramp much more quickly.
    • Can LibreOffice just shut up and worry about themselves and stop comparing themselves? Do we see Microsoft complaining about euro office?
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      slackerzz earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Year In
      highriskpaym earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Month Later
      highriskpaym earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      highriskpaym earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      FBSPL earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      501
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      198
    3. 3
      +Edouard
      156
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      84
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!