I was wondering about a patch I heard about earlier that allows you to use visual styles from ThemeXP. I'd like to use them but with as little resources as possible.
What's the name of that patch and how good is it exactly?
Printable View
I was wondering about a patch I heard about earlier that allows you to use visual styles from ThemeXP. I'd like to use them but with as little resources as possible.
What's the name of that patch and how good is it exactly?
UXTheme Multi-Patcher
How good is it? It does the job...
If you want to use as little resource as possible, then go with the Windows Classic theme and turn off all extra eye candy, but the theme patcher uses a hell of a lot less resources than windowblinds. Don't use style XP either. It uses more resources than it has to. Just go with the patcher.
-- Xero Grid --
Agreed, go with the uxtheme.dll patch. you can use all the styles that u'd be able to use with style xp but with a lot less resources. windows blinds use completely diff themes to the xp visual styles, u can get just as good, or better looking visual styles. so go with the patch.
which patchers r u guys talking bout? the one that uNz[i] posted?
i personally didnt use a auto-patcher, but manually patched it.
http://www.mcbriens.net/liam/img/smilies/yes.gifQuote:
Originally posted by abu_has_the_power@21 April 2004 - 07:16
which patchers r u guys talking bout? the one that uNz[i] posted?
will this work with stylexp themes?
If you're talking about the ones with the .msstyles extension, then yeah. The thing about the new styleXP, it has other options like replacing icons, which is a bad idea, and a bunch of other stuff which is really pointless.
Replacing icons, ESPECIALLY, one by one is a bad idea because it uses a lot more video memory, as well as having mor icons on the desktop. There's a lot of little things like that no one knows about.
-- Xero Grid --
Hmm, I've installed a different icon set using StyleXP and haven't noticed more icons on my desktop.Quote:
Originally posted by Xero Grid@21 April 2004 - 02:31
...as well as having mor icons on the desktop.
Sorry, that's not what I meant. I meant that simply having more icons on the desktop makes the computer work harder when it doesn't have to, like replacing the icons.
I feel that the less on the desktop, the better. With the quicklaunch and start menu, are desktop icons really neccesary? That reminds me of this kind of funny incident when I had to fix a computer that couldn't use the recycle bin or desktop icons, and I cleaned up both and it started working again. Weird problem with a simple solution. :lol:
-- Xero Grid --
True, but backgrounds also soak up memory and it's down to personal desktop preferences and thus subjective.Quote:
Originally posted by Xero Grid@21 April 2004 - 06:30
Sorry, that's not what I meant. I meant that simply having more icons on the desktop makes the computer work harder when it doesn't have to, like replacing the icons.
I feel that the less on the desktop, the better. With the quicklaunch and start menu, are desktop icons really neccesary?
I think WinXP looks lovely with its newer interface, bitmapped task bar and especially the transparent backgrounds for icon labels, and it looks even better with a StyleXP-enhanced (or any other program FTM) interface.
The trade-off always has to be speed. I can put up with it, as can many others, but obviously there are going to be just as many that can't.
It makes me laugh when I see people in here tell someone to install Win2k as it's the same as XP without the bells and whistles, without considering what the person actually wants; I say that if someone wants some features then they only need be aware of the effect those features might have.
Still, what do I know? I loved WinME I had about three BSODs in 4 years with it on three computers against a BSOD at least every bloody fortnight with Win98, yet everyone in here lambasts it as M$'s 'worst ever' OS. Yeah, it's slower than 98/SE but a Hummer is slower than a Honda Accord, yet the Yanks love Hummers. :)
BTW I'm not disagreeing with you, just making conversation. :)
:lol: :lol:
Indeed. I don't like the original XP interface as well. An improvment is always cool and fun. I just like tell people what makes for better performance in my experiences. I do have a question for you though. The Sphere XP. Ever heard of it. It could be quite interesting. I've seen some 3d interfaces before, but not like this.
2000 is XP without the eye candy... I've used the analogy before but only really when explaining to someone who had no idea how to use a computer. :D
WinME... ::shiver:: Just fills my mind with bad experiences. Any ME machine and me equals lots of fire and doom. :lol:
-- Xero Grid --