Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 2nd Oct 2007 19:21 UTC, submitted by draginol
Graphics, User Interfaces Developer Stardock has released WindowBlinds 6 today. It is a utility that allows users to customize the look and feel of Windows by applying "skins" to change the user interface of the OS. WindowBlinds 6 can make Windows XP look virtually identical to Windows Vista (including blurred glass). Thanks to hardware acceleration, a typical XP system dressed to look like Vista will perform faster than Vista still. WindowBlinds 6 also adds full skinning support to Windows Vista, making it the first and only program to support full Windows Vista customization. CNet takes a quick look at this new release.
Thread beginning with comment 275754
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Never understood...
by rikostan on Tue 2nd Oct 2007 19:56 UTC
rikostan
Member since:
2007-02-24

I have never understood why anybody would want to run something like this on top of Explorer. Why not use one of the myriad of alternative shells that replace explorer rather than waste even more resources by running on top of it?

Reply Score: 6

RE: Never understood...
by sappyvcv on Tue 2nd Oct 2007 20:09 in reply to "Never understood..."
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't think you understand what WindowBlinds is..

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Never understood...
by rikostan on Tue 2nd Oct 2007 20:41 in reply to "RE: Never understood..."
rikostan Member since:
2007-02-24

I understand I can accomplish most of the same functionality using different .msstyles and a shell like Litestep.

Reply Parent Score: 1

pg--az Member since:
2006-03-15

That sounds frightening, but interesting !
What is your favorite, or top three favorites, from the "myriad" ?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Never understood...
by bornagainenguin on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 04:31 in reply to "Never understood..."
bornagainenguin Member since:
2005-08-07

Maybe because Stardock either bought out many of the freeware \ shareware shell enhancement utilities and converted them ALL to run on top the explorer shell and stopped any development in that area? Maybe because (due to various factors) the shell scene lost most of the non-Stardock related shell news sites and the shell replacements were allowed to wither away?

Sorry, this isn't meant as an attack on you, I recently went through some of my favorite shell replacements to give 'em a try out on XP before wiping only to discover very little remains of the once vibrant community. Litstep hasn't seen any major releases in years, the various other shells seem to have all disappeared or gone payware (with the correspondingly thin theme support that renders)...

[SIGH] And on top of all of that this is STARDOCK we're talking about here.... I'll never forgive them for buying up MacVision and then removing all hopes of it being a shell replacement. Objectbar is nice enough mind you--and if I was to drop any money on a shell enhancemnt it'd be for ObjectBar! --but it is no longer capable of running as a shell, like the old MacVision could way back in the day*....

--bornagainpenguin

*back in the day means on Win9x OSes, as Win2000 was released shortly after MacVision was purchased and the port to WinNT 5.x has never to my knowledge been able to run as shell, if you try you'll bork the system. Don't, I know from experience...

EDIT-- fixed my / (what has OSNews.com got against the backslash anyway??)

Edited 2007-10-03 04:37

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Never understood...
by Laurence on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 11:22 in reply to "Never understood..."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

"I have never understood why anybody would want to run something like this on top of Explorer. Why not use one of the myriad of alternative shells that replace explorer rather than waste even more resources by running on top of it?"


I never understood why people wanted to goto so much trouble replacing the windows shells either. If you don't like windows interface, then don't use windows. It's not as if Windows is a solid core with a poor window manager bolted on top. (quite the opposite in fact - Windows as an interface isn't too shabby. It's the user accounts / security, system stability and speed (etc) that let their side down)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Never understood...
by siride on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 12:29 in reply to "RE: Never understood..."
siride Member since:
2006-01-02

I think you have it backwards. The NT kernel is quite competent, probably better designed and implemented than Linux, which grew organically without much direction and forethought. It's the lack of security that Explorer peddles that is the problem. Nobody in userland really enforces security in Windows (at least pre-Vista). So all of the ACLs and fancy mechanism that the kernel supports and the core userspace stuff implements, is just washed away by the time you get to the actual user interface.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Never understood...
by Dave_K on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 22:29 in reply to "RE: Never understood..."
Dave_K Member since:
2005-11-16

I never understood why people wanted to goto so much trouble replacing the windows shells either. If you don't like windows interface, then don't use windows.


Many people, myself included, use Windows because of its selection of applications. Since most of the time I'm interacting with applications, they outweight any advantages offered by other OSes.

Personally I think that Windows Explorer is probably one of the weakest parts of the OS. It's not so bad that it would convince me to use another OS, or even make me go to a lot of effort to change it, but I can see why other people would.

Reply Parent Score: 2