Which Vista is Vista?
Fun with WindowBlinds 5.5
Sunday, March 25, 2007 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize News
vs. 
One of these is Windows Vista by default and one of these is Windows XP with WindowBlinds 5.5 running. Of course, if you look closely at the text in the notepad windows, it's pretty easy to tell.
But check out that the non-Vista actually is more consistently Vista than Vista (you'll know what I mean when you look at the non-theme aware app pictured).
 |
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
vStyler
Reply #2 Monday, March 26, 2007 12:51 AM
Reply #2 Monday, March 26, 2007 12:51 AM
That and the non Vista folder on your left desktop.
Anyway, as far as it goes, if you like the Vista look, IMO..pretty easily emulated with WB and you can still maintain the functionality that your accustomed to on XP.
Either way, seems Stardock is well on the way to having you covered on both sides of the fence.
Anyway, as far as it goes, if you like the Vista look, IMO..pretty easily emulated with WB and you can still maintain the functionality that your accustomed to on XP.
Either way, seems Stardock is well on the way to having you covered on both sides of the fence.
Armbut
Reply #3 Monday, March 26, 2007 2:06 AM
Reply #3 Monday, March 26, 2007 2:06 AM
It's kinda obvious, because the icons on both are not similar...XP-like icons on the left and Vista icons on the right...
Also, noticeably, the taskbar isn't transparent on the XP shot (left).
And finally, the glass streaks on the titlebars aren't as numerous as the ones in the left in RTM versions of Vista (just look at the right screenhot for a reference)
Change your icons, and you could have a pretty good emulation there!!! You also might want to try VAIO (look on joejoe.org) for the Vista Sidebar
Also, noticeably, the taskbar isn't transparent on the XP shot (left).
And finally, the glass streaks on the titlebars aren't as numerous as the ones in the left in RTM versions of Vista (just look at the right screenhot for a reference)
Change your icons, and you could have a pretty good emulation there!!! You also might want to try VAIO (look on joejoe.org) for the Vista Sidebar
Josephs
Reply #4 Monday, March 26, 2007 2:33 AM
Reply #4 Monday, March 26, 2007 2:33 AM
Haha, pretty funny 
It was a give away which one was Vista though, Windows Vista doesn't have a taskbar resizer (It does have Quicklaunch resizers, but not the actual strip used to size the bar itself)!
It was a give away which one was Vista though, Windows Vista doesn't have a taskbar resizer (It does have Quicklaunch resizers, but not the actual strip used to size the bar itself)!
butch123
Reply #5 Monday, March 26, 2007 4:24 AM
Reply #5 Monday, March 26, 2007 4:24 AM
Just a fast guess,seeing Windowsblinds has a blue side bar and vista side bar is green I would say the one on the left is Windowblinds and the one on the right is vista.....
cavalierex
Reply #6 Monday, March 26, 2007 7:12 AM
Reply #6 Monday, March 26, 2007 7:12 AM
Vista has gaussian blur in the glass... WindowBlinds is just transparency -- for now, anyway.
ZubaZ
Reply #8 Monday, March 26, 2007 11:43 AM
Reply #8 Monday, March 26, 2007 11:43 AM
If look and feel are the only reasons you are upgrading from XP to Vista . . there's no need to upgrade.
Philly0381
Reply #9 Monday, March 26, 2007 12:05 PM
Reply #9 Monday, March 26, 2007 12:05 PM
Sir Zubaz - Thank you. I don't know if you have upgraded to Vista, I haven't. The reasson being is that all I able to read about here is customizeing Vista.
There hasn't been any threads about the real differences between XP and Vista that would make me want to upgrade. I'm looking for information that indicates Vista does computer operations and information and data handling more efficiently and just better than XP.
There hasn't been any threads about the real differences between XP and Vista that would make me want to upgrade. I'm looking for information that indicates Vista does computer operations and information and data handling more efficiently and just better than XP.
ZubaZ
Reply #10 Monday, March 26, 2007 1:10 PM
Reply #10 Monday, March 26, 2007 1:10 PM
My questions about upgrading to new operating systems (Windows, Linux, or Mac) are:
Better security is nice.
Better graphics is nice.
I wish I could find a better comparison (but I am lazy) but here is a comparison of the Vista versions
XP does everything I want now and most of the Vista features are available as add-ons for XP.
I am going to be dual (duel?
) booting XP and Vista for awhile I think. But I am sure that I'll be migrating over soon enough.
You know what I am interested in? Windows Home Server. That's going to be a killer!
- Does it run the apps I want?
- Does it support my hardware?
- Does it improve the stability?
- Does it run faster?
- Does it improve my experience?
- Do I need it to do my job?
Better security is nice.
Better graphics is nice.
I wish I could find a better comparison (but I am lazy) but here is a comparison of the Vista versions
XP does everything I want now and most of the Vista features are available as add-ons for XP.
I am going to be dual (duel?
) booting XP and Vista for awhile I think. But I am sure that I'll be migrating over soon enough.You know what I am interested in? Windows Home Server. That's going to be a killer!
Threi
Reply #11 Monday, March 26, 2007 1:18 PM
If look and feel are the only reasons you are upgrading from XP to Vista . . there's no need to upgrade.
yeah agreed im actually pretty picky with how much memory my os takes up...i have 1gb of ram and i get pissed if windows xp uses more than 250mb of it (firefox being the exception...
Reply #11 Monday, March 26, 2007 1:18 PM
If look and feel are the only reasons you are upgrading from XP to Vista . . there's no need to upgrade.
yeah agreed im actually pretty picky with how much memory my os takes up...i have 1gb of ram and i get pissed if windows xp uses more than 250mb of it (firefox being the exception...
Kirkburn
Reply #14 Monday, March 26, 2007 2:54 PM
If look and feel are the only reasons you are upgrading from XP to Vista . . there's no need to upgrade.
yeah agreed im actually pretty picky with how much memory my os takes up...i have 1gb of ram and i get pissed if windows xp uses more than 250mb of it (firefox being the exception...
And so the train rumbles on. Look, will people please stop complaining about the amount of RAM Vista uses, and actually research the topic?
Reply #14 Monday, March 26, 2007 2:54 PM
If look and feel are the only reasons you are upgrading from XP to Vista . . there's no need to upgrade.
yeah agreed im actually pretty picky with how much memory my os takes up...i have 1gb of ram and i get pissed if windows xp uses more than 250mb of it (firefox being the exception...
And so the train rumbles on. Look, will people please stop complaining about the amount of RAM Vista uses, and actually research the topic?
ZubaZ
Reply #15 Monday, March 26, 2007 3:03 PM
Knowledge is power.
Reply #15 Monday, March 26, 2007 3:03 PM
And so the train rumbles on. Look, will people please stop complaining about the amount of RAM Vista uses, and actually research the topic?
If you have real data, I'd love to see it.Knowledge is power.
sleepydawg
Reply #16 Monday, March 26, 2007 5:02 PM
Not so. Kayeirene's has done a fantastic job on White Flame. Not only is the taskbar transparent but the start menu has the same blur effect.
I have gone a few steps further than frogboy on my copycat OS and it is quite impressive.
I have grown tiered of Vista for now so my thanks to Stardock for giving me a choice of skins. Still I have to give Microsoft credit for inventing a look that is extremely easy on the eyes and easy to use.
Reply #16 Monday, March 26, 2007 5:02 PM
Also, noticeably, the taskbar isn't transparent on the XP shot (left).
Not so. Kayeirene's has done a fantastic job on White Flame. Not only is the taskbar transparent but the start menu has the same blur effect.
I have gone a few steps further than frogboy on my copycat OS and it is quite impressive.
I have grown tiered of Vista for now so my thanks to Stardock for giving me a choice of skins. Still I have to give Microsoft credit for inventing a look that is extremely easy on the eyes and easy to use.
SkylineLover454
Reply #17 Monday, March 26, 2007 7:04 PM
Reply #17 Monday, March 26, 2007 7:04 PM
liquidkool
Reply #18 Monday, March 26, 2007 10:43 PM
Reply #18 Monday, March 26, 2007 10:43 PM
I too have Vista (Ultimate) and I must say it is most impressive. It has a very clean look, which was Microsofts intent.
As for the amount of ram used, it really isn't that much. And what better proves this is that I loaded vista onto my older computer with only 512 mb memory and it worked fine.
clear. confident. connected
As for the amount of ram used, it really isn't that much. And what better proves this is that I loaded vista onto my older computer with only 512 mb memory and it worked fine.
clear. confident. connected
Bebi Bulma
Reply #19 Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:37 AM
Reply #19 Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:37 AM
Why does the Vista version of the WB config have the pretty task pane but the XP one has the dull boring luna-style blue one?
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Sunday, March 25, 2007 11:59 PM