Well I have to agree with what you basically said in the shellrevealed forums. I'd rather have Microsoft concentrating on security, os improvements, etc. than worrying about skinning.

On problem that I always have when I talk to people about skins is one of UI uniformity. Move one button and some people fall apart. You don't know how many times I've been called to "find someone's taskbar" or have someone call me to reformat a computer because moving a folder messed up where a desktop icon was pointed. They click the icon, get an error, and their productivity stops until it is fixed.

Imagine someone like that trying to normalize a Litestep theme. Imagine people going out to get jobs who learned computing on a hyped-up alienware rig with a non-standard UI. Nah, there's definite benefits to standardization.

I think Vista should be customizable only so far as it doesn't cut into the use of the product. If the resource usage is minimal, and the scheme doesn't cause problems for non-skinners, then fine. I think it would be far, far better if they just give the ability for third party companies to make skinning software, and leave the resource usage to those apps, instead of running theme services, etc.

MS feels they have to be everything for everyone, though. They make the disinterested user pay in dollars and system resources for things they don't need, and the companies that make their living producing third party solutions get screwed too.

Putting aside the fact that vocal requests for skinning to be part of the OS didn't start up until third-party OS skinning programs started to come out, SHOULD they be part of the OS?

No!..... MS tends to dumb things down, and I don't want a stupid skinning engine.
I don't plan to move to Vista in the near future, but if/when I do, I want to use WindowBlinds for my skinning needs......just as I have since 1998.

I think it has benefitted the skinning community that skinning ahs been done by third party. WB has pushed forward more skinning features than MS had built into its own. Lets face it, MS will never push ahead with trying to add more feature to a built-in skinning engine.
So I think a thirdpary engine is the best.

Now, when will we be able to skinn Vista and at the same time run Aero?

"WB has pushed forward more skinning features than MS had built into its own. Lets face it, MS will never push ahead with trying to add more feature to a built-in skinning engine. So I think a thirdpary engine is the best."

Nope, and therein lies the problem. MS will never devote the kind of care and attention to skinning that Stardock will. They will, though, create something that might appear easier or less hassle so that fanboys will rag on WB and continue the "WB uses too many resources and window's skinning uses none" farce that we've come to know and hate. MS does that will all the apps they try to absorb. You get a half-assed version that is just close enough to usable to deny third parties customers.

Being a long-time LS User [reg'd number 71, back in the day when they were being counted] I don't 'care' about whether a skin [or my skin] will have a user wetting his pants in frustration/confusion because a button was moved.

HE can suck thumbs with the great unwashed, yet another automaton in the MS machine of conformity, aka Metropolis. [thanks, Fritz]

Skinning was/is intended as CHANGE....to be different...to be non-conformist.

There IS no point at all to the vast majority of uxtheme.dll-hacked skins as virtually the ONLY difference with them is they are yet another Luna, just not 'signed'.

Whoopee.

Difference means just that.  Drag yourself screaming, away from conformity....no, not to Mac, or some 'nix bastard-child, you don't have to abandon ship, not when there are alternatives within the MS sphere called 'skinning'.

Stardock's Windowblinds is, as Brad says, the only one left still going.  I know I once skinned for 3 different proggies that did 'much the same'...but the only one still standing is WB.

If it 'fell' due to incompatabilities with a new OS then a significant era and outlet for creative invention would be lost.

If MS incorporated its functionality into the OS without the need for an external 'force' driving its development you can bet your left proverbial it would be watered down to the lowest common denominator....

....and skinning's creativity would be lost.

 

Wincustomize.com is Windows' most 'prominent' source for skinners/skinning....with over 2.5 million members/users ....but that's peanuts when counted against the total Windows users.

If MS does their sums they will determine skinning/skinnability is a tad insignificant and they will spend effort/money commensurably....so that will be....that....

I'm definitely no fan of Microsoft adding tons of stuff into their OS.  The more they add, the more bloated the OS gets, and the more stuff that is there to break and ruin my experience.  It also, of course, adds memory requirements and other hardware requirements that I have to deal with even if I don't want the features.

I much prefer that I get these features from other vendors in most cases.  I can grab my choice, find the best of the bunch and use it or choose not to use the feature at all without having to go plowing through tweak options to turn off stuff that is getting in my way.

I hope things stay that way for most of the future, but with Microsoft I expect the worst.  They'll eventually add the stuff, put the competitors out of business, and leave us with crap rather than having to continue improving things because they still have competition.

Stardock's Windowblinds is, as Brad says, the only one left still going. I know I once skinned for 3 different proggies that did 'much the same'...but the only one still standing is WB.

I think uxtheme helped kill the others. It eliminated the market for a simple skinning program.

And now, all those thousands of msstyles are dead. Vista won't support those msstyles.

And now, all those thousands of msstyles are dead. Vista won't support those msstyles

Which means those who DO wish to still use them will have to rely on WB's capacity to import/convert them.

In the 'bigger picture' that will be an uncomfortable case of all the eggs.....

Skinning needs diversity, not 'condensation'....

I certainl think that MS should not worry about skinning, if for no other reason than if the third party programs vanish, we are stuck with absolutely no updates to the skinning engine and abilities until we get the next OS.

Third part programs help push things forward. I doubt any of us would expect to see advancements to the skinning engine of Vista be part of SP1 or SP2 for Vista. MS just isn't going to put more effort into it if they add it in the first place.

The whole skinning thing becomes stagnant.

From a personal point of view, yes, Vista should support skinning, but not with its own engine. If MS were to incorporate a skinning engine into Vista, I see it going the way of Internet Explorer, with years having lapsed between IE6 and IE7. Given that scenario, I'd prefer it that MS left the skinning of Vista to 3rd party developers (Stardock) and concentrated on creating an extremely sturdy, reliable and safe OS to use.

However, should MS enter the skinning arena, and its skinning engine suffers the same fate as IE, it does pose a question: would it leave those people who 'suddenly' found themselves hooked on skinning wanting more, looking towards 3rd party developers to get their fix? Given the small percentage of discerning PC users who currently consider skinning their GUI's, the answer to that is probably not too many, with most either making do with the offering thrown out there by MS or simply not bothering at all.

I've spoken with numerous people about skinning, and most are only concerned with PC function, not the aesthetics of their GUI - "Why would I want to go spending money on that?" - and for that very reason, I'd rather MS 'supported' skinning and not enter the arena to possibly squeeze 3rd party developers out. Besides, Aero will be more than enough GUI enhancement for the average user, probably rarely used by most, and MS would be adding a lot of under-used bloat (at great expense) if it were to incorporate a WB type skinning engine into the OS. Also, a lot of users would see it as unnecessary and resent having to pay for something they neither want or use.

Furthermore, without WindowBlinds we were stuck with variants of XP's Luna, and I don't want to see Stardock forced out of the Vista loop and be stuck for years with a occasional variations of Aero emanating from MS's GUI lab. Equally to the point. would MS accept skins from the public domain like WC does, and if not, what happens to our skinners if Vista became a closed shop, made available only to 'professional' skinners of MS' choosing???

Thanks but no thanks, Mr Gates!! By all means, make a long overdue entry into the Windows security market, but please leave the skinning engine alone...we're quite happy with the one we've got

WhiteRabbit - That made me realize something -- Vista has the DWM process which, currently, has the only tangible benefit of providing a blur effect to the Windows title bar in Vista.  Cost: ~70MB of ram.

Yet every time there's talk about WindowBlinds on some website, you'll get someone calling it "bloated" with its whopping 2 megabyte foot print.

After all, saying that WB has a 2MB foot print when it's simply sitting in the taskbar without any skin loaded isn't really presenting what you'd call a typical case

Was someone saying that?....

I thought the DWM would utilize the RAM on the Graphicscard...?

Coming late on this one.

For my part, the only thing I would add to Vista's customization abilities (at least up to build 5744) would be the ability to use a gradient in the frame (reference Windows 2000 ability to use two colors in the titlebar). I did see a reasonable percentage (20% - 30%) of users utilizing this feature.

I really like the fact that you can set the icons to different sizes in explorer, and - IMO - the design and dynamic updating is just fantastic.

My only concern at this point is the use of the GPU by an increasing number of software vendors (including the Vista OS) and the publicity pertaining to the WDDM 2.0 which is reported to be an upcoming specification. If I am understanding things correctly, the GPU may suffer what could be compared to CPU delays in running commands due to the increase in software and OS requests hitting the GPU at the same time.

The current specification (again, if I am understanding things correctly) does not handle these multiple requests very well, so a user running a number of programs that rely upon the GPU functions to complete commands may see some performance hits. I am wondering if this would present a situation where coders are trying to insure their program had priority on requests, or would the OS provide some sort of support for the traffic to alleviate any issues?

As I have stated many times, I am no coder, so some clarification here would be great.

This driver issue would be the only question I would have about a program like WindowBlinds being able to run and not be noticed outside of the nice skin.

Great question, Brad.