Windowblinds 5 takes less memory then Windows Default?

[DisplayBMT]

Whoa whoa whoa! Everyone slow down! WindowsBlinds has bloody nothing to do with UXTheme!

Let's back it up, kids. Windows only uses its so-called skinning component when it applies a theme. That means only once. And to apply. The patch allows themes not made by Microsoft to be applied. It is not a program, and thus can't take any freakin' memory.

WindowsBlinds literally applies bitmaps over the components of the Windows GUI. Meaning that it always runs, chewing on your memory like the neighbor's dog on your garden hose, and whenever you resize a window it has to come up with a squished or stretched bitmap for the titlebar.

I have a non-MS theme right now, applied with the UXTheme patch. No process on my manager called uxtheme32.dll. It cannot take up memory. Case closed.

[metal_dragen Veteran]

a) You shouldn't resurrect old posts.

b) Get your info straight

i) First, the default skinning engine in Windows XP does indeed take up memory because it uses the same process that Windowblinds uses to apply skins (hell, Stardock consulted with Microsoft on the creation of the UXTheme engine - it's based loosely on older Windowblinds code).

ii) Second, the theme engine in Windows XP doesn't show as UXTheme in your process manager because it runs as a system service, not as an application. Bring up the process manager and take a look at all those processes that are called "svchost" - those are services that are running on your computer in the background - one of them is the UXTheme engine.

[#Michael]

  DisplayBMT said:

Whoa whoa whoa! Everyone slow down! WindowsBlinds has bloody nothing to do with UXTheme!

Let's back it up, kids. Windows only uses its so-called skinning component when it applies a theme. That means only once. And to apply. The patch allows themes not made by Microsoft to be applied. It is not a program, and thus can't take any freakin' memory.

WindowsBlinds literally applies bitmaps over the components of the Windows GUI. Meaning that it always runs, chewing on your memory like the neighbor's dog on your garden hose, and whenever you resize a window it has to come up with a squished or stretched bitmap for the titlebar.

I have a non-MS theme right now, applied with the UXTheme patch. No process on my manager called uxtheme32.dll. It cannot take up memory. Case closed.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You have no idea how the uxtheme skinning engine works, how the windowblinds engine works or how the uxtheme runs under the svchost.exe whenever a theme is being used.

The uxtheme.dll is the skinning engine for XP and is in constent use while a skin is being used....when it is applied and in use. It is used under one of the numerous svchost.exe services. In fact the uxtheme skinning engine is actually a service called: Themes: Provides user experience theme management. And when it is running it is contained under the svchost.exe

Now when WB4 was around it ran as a seperate process...namely wblind.dll and took up extra memory. Now it runs as its own service and replaces the uxtheme engine.

Try getting your facts straight before you post and don't bring up a dead old thread.

[phot0nic]

  DisplayBMT said:

Whoa whoa whoa! Everyone slow down! WindowsBlinds has bloody nothing to do with UXTheme!

Let's back it up, kids. Windows only uses its so-called skinning component when it applies a theme. That means only once. And to apply. The patch allows themes not made by Microsoft to be applied. It is not a program, and thus can't take any freakin' memory.

WindowsBlinds literally applies bitmaps over the components of the Windows GUI. Meaning that it always runs, chewing on your memory like the neighbor's dog on your garden hose, and whenever you resize a window it has to come up with a squished or stretched bitmap for the titlebar.

I have a non-MS theme right now, applied with the UXTheme patch. No process on my manager called uxtheme32.dll. It cannot take up memory. Case closed.

Wow, you couldn't be any more wrong. "It cannot take up memory"? I'm sorry bud, but not only do you not know how the skinning engine works, it's obvious that you don't know how computers in general work.

[Neil Banfield]

  DisplayBMT said:

Whoa whoa whoa! Everyone slow down! WindowsBlinds has bloody nothing to do with UXTheme!

Let's back it up, kids. Windows only uses its so-called skinning component when it applies a theme. That means only once. And to apply. The patch allows themes not made by Microsoft to be applied. It is not a program, and thus can't take any freakin' memory.

WindowsBlinds literally applies bitmaps over the components of the Windows GUI. Meaning that it always runs, chewing on your memory like the neighbor's dog on your garden hose, and whenever you resize a window it has to come up with a squished or stretched bitmap for the titlebar.

I have a non-MS theme right now, applied with the UXTheme patch. No process on my manager called uxtheme32.dll. It cannot take up memory. Case closed.

Sorry, but this is complete rubbish.

Both WB & UXtheme could be said to apply bitmaps over the components of the Windows GUI (hint: the only default look is classic). Whenever you resize a window, uxtheme has to come up with a squished or stretched bitmap for the titlebar etc etc.

When you run a msstyle, the XP skinning component (uxtheme.dll) is loaded into every process and is called everytime something needs repainting. Likewise the theme service is running all the time.

[Punio4]

I am using konfabulator's memory gauge widget, and am running a comuter with 512 mb ram, barton2800+ and 9800pro...

Using the same theme (KoL's Tiger II) via msstyles or WB5 (removed WB5 while testing msstyles, and also disabled theme services while testing WB5) , i get the following results on boot:

msstyles: 54% memory taken

Windowblinds5: 76% memory taken

The case is clear for me...

[javagreen]

  DisplayBMT said:

WindowsBlinds literally applies bitmaps over the components of the Windows GUI........Meaning that it always runs, chewing on your memory like the neighbor's dog on your garden hose........and whenever you resize a window ......it has to come up with a squished or stretched bitmap for the titlebar.

:rofl: :rofl: LMAO man :laugh:

You made my day matey, you should post more often :p

[Osiris]

I love old threads, is the final of WB5 even out yet?

I think its pretty naive to assume that a theming program that uses transparency effects will not take up any more resources than the standard operating system GUI. Infact if I recall from Vista what is unique about it is that its higher themes, Glass and diamond(?) will run the GUI effects through the VPU as opposed through the standard CPU/Memory interface as XP and past operating systems would. So unless WB5 uses the VPU to process its fancy effects then I would have to suggest that for XP users at least, it would without a doubt use more resources.

Eitherway not since the early betas have I tested WB5 so ill give it another go now, but im expecting the same results.

[#Michael]

  Osiris said:

I love old threads, is the final of WB5 even out yet?

I think its pretty naive to assume that a theming program that uses transparency effects will not take up any more resources than the standard operating system GUI. Infact if I recall from Vista what is unique about it is that its higher themes, Glass and diamond(?) will run the GUI effects through the VPU as opposed through the standard CPU/Memory interface as XP and past operating systems would. So unless WB5 uses the VPU to process its fancy effects then I would have to suggest that for XP users at least, it would without a doubt use more resources.

Eitherway not since the early betas have I tested WB5 so ill give it another go now, but im expecting the same results.

WB5 has been out since October now and is great. It runs by uses the memory of your gfx card and not your cpu/ram. Therefore taking the useage off your machine and putting on your gfx card. Remember that the built in uxtheme is actually a stripped down WB3.

[Osiris]

Well there you go, in 4 pages no one actually laid claim to that argument. Were Windows Blinds 5 to utlisie the VPU as opposed to the CPU as Vista will, then of course you will probably see the same/less resource usage. And of course factors like a non direct X 9 compliant video card will invariably mean your system runs sluggish.

My only concern with this whole methodology as would be my concern with Vista, although I suspect the OS could close the effects alot more quicker then a standalone app, or perhaps Vista intends that machines capable of the higher graphics will be capable of sustaining both, in any event my concern would be if Windows Blinds is absorping VPU/Video Ram, how does that impact on the perfomrance of other multimedia apps/games?

[phot0nic]

I don't notice any difference in multimedia apps/games on my machine, however, I'm not really a gamer. I do however work with 3D engineering such as Inventor and Solidworks, and everything runs just as well.

[#Michael]

  Osiris said:

Well there you go, in 4 pages no one actually laid claim to that argument. Were Windows Blinds 5 to utlisie the VPU as opposed to the CPU as Vista will, then of course you will probably see the same/less resource usage. And of course factors like a non direct X 9 compliant video card will invariably mean your system runs sluggish.

My only concern with this whole methodology as would be my concern with Vista, although I suspect the OS could close the effects alot more quicker then a standalone app, or perhaps Vista intends that machines capable of the higher graphics will be capable of sustaining both, in any event my concern would be if Windows Blinds is absorping VPU/Video Ram, how does that impact on the perfomrance of other multimedia apps/games?

I am not a gamer by any means....usually don't play them at all. But I do a lot of graphic work (photoshop, elements, corel draw, etc..) and watch a lot of dvds on my machine (windvd and wmp10) and I have never noticed a slow down.

Occassionally there might be parts of photoshop that aren't skinned right but those are slight bugs in the skin.

My main machine is: Athlon xp 2400+, 1gb ddr400, ati 9500 pro