Bad idea. IMHO.

Why, Kona? I think it could be easly done.

I have had some bad experinences with FX. If it happens, so be it but I will just have to get use to it I guess.

lol this is jsut a discussion about an idea, maybe if i was a stardock programmer i would understand your last statement.

Kona, why exactly do you thinks its a bad idea?

China, I to think it could be easily done, and its not like the options/features of WindowFX need be on by default if the code was merged into Windowblinds.

It would just be another section in the WB configuration utility, they could if necessary still create an individual exe and extensions but it aould by default be packaged and installed with Windowblinds wich means as a default part of WB it would most certanly get more regular updates and hopefully worked on a bit more than it has been in the past.

I think the reason its been neglected so is because on its own its pure eyecandy (i know the lastest beta versions have features that can be usefull for overall UI functionality) but Windowblinds has the power to add huge enhancements to the OS UI that are not there by default or at all.

i think it would be very benificial to have the two merged. as long as you could turn certain featuers on and off.. more streamlined customizing. of course this might have been pondered over by the powers that be so if they passed on it they may have their reasons.. does winfx sell seperately? if not, sounds like a plan

No,WinFX shouldn't be combined because of two issues that are key in my opinion.

1. Hardware issues on the user end would lend to some serious support issues for WindowBlinds, an otherwise stable app which plays nice with just about anything that will run Windows.

2. People write addons for WindowFX which can seriously chew up the CPU cycles on shared memory systems. Hell of a thing to break WindowBlinds just to add WIndowFX to it and combine the two prices.

they address system resources in different ways...

Otherwise Windowblinds would puke out on shared memory systems like WIndowFX tends to do on older hardware....

WindowFX like DX9...

Windowblinds could careless...

that's a good point, ip.. the rules about memory and WB would be completely rewritten.

Thas why my idea to keep the executable files seperate not entirely coded together except for control, like say if the FX part failed it would shutdown and leave WB stable and intact.

now i know thats basicly how it is now, but the things is if everyone that had WB also had the options and features of FX by default i think the possibilty of newer and newr content for it being created to be alot better than it is now. i mean im bored with the stuff that is on Wincust for it lol.

and you think WB itself cant be resource heavy depending on the skin?

have you downloaded treetog''''s anteres skin from the GUIolympics?????? on fully animated subskin it eats 62% of my CPU wich is an P4 3.0ghz
yes the skin was created to show ALL the new built in features of 4.3 but so what? if those features are there and the skinners arent using them then why did the programmers put them there?

Complaining about the resources of something that possibly wouldnt hgappen untill a basic computer is like a pentium 5 6ghz with a 2ghz fsb is like people who are currently complaining about the resources it uses witch is less than the default XP themes.

and considering that Longhorn is coming up in a few years at least attempting to take the best parts of FX and add them to WB for when LH is out and its new UI systems i think at least would be good programing tactics






[Message Edited]

oh, sorry, I didn't have a clue that Windowblinds could eat up cpu cycles and such.

I'll be quiet now and soak up the new understanding...

there is a thought i have though...
have any of you seen the longhorn screenshots when they have the transparency features of the shell turned on. (i cant remember exactly what it is called, some random letter conbination)
that looks absolutely awesome. If windowblinds could use alpha transparency like that it would be a major selling point imho
like with Xp, wb users will once again get the features of the new shell style before the OS actually comes out.
although alpha transparency will probly be a big CPU hog when used like that... err i dunno

Listen to IPlural

transparency

If I'm not mistaken....there is a WBSkin Plugin to turn-on transparency in a WBSkin.

Consider this... As a stand-alone product, WFX sells for $20. If Stardock bundled it with WB, they would have to double the price of WB. This would be a major turn-off to people who simply want to skin their OS.

Also, WindowBlinds has gone through painstaking development to make it compatible with all versions of Windows, and systems with relatively low resources. WFX, on the other hand, is very resource intensive, and unless you have the best of video cards/drivers, it can be a painful experience. In a nutshell, WFX is not for everyone, while WB is. 

There's my 2 cents.

I agree with IP, MikeB and kona. It shouldn't be merged. They've raised what I think are valid objections. In addition, I don't see an advantage to merging the two. You said that it will bring more focus to WinFX, but I submit it would divert focus from furthering either app in the short term as they focus on combining the two.

Even if you were correct in the long term, where is the gain? It unnecessarily complicates skinning WB, which is already a fairly hefty undertaking. By the same token, it would radically complicate the developing of new FX, and many of those developers don't really do WB skins. The type of skinning involved for WB and WinFX have very little to do with one another other than both being applied to the same OS.

As it is now, if a user wants both, she/he can have them by going through one additional config, most elements of which they would have to go through even if the two apps were combined. There's my 2 cents.