It sure is. Is that SKS beta feedback still being watched by the developers?

Beta feedback is always watched/noted....;)

From checking your skin a couple things

1) for the standard window frames you for left right and bottom have used a tga image, must be a bitmap.

2) you have made the standard frames the same as per pixel, they are not, for per pixel the top and bottom go completely across window and the sides fir between. For standard frames the sides go from top to bottom of window and the top and bottom fit between them.

Stardock *always* listens to feedback from users.  I think it's part of what makes them great.
Neil was watching this post ealier. 
Email support.  Reference this post.  They'll get it to Neil formally.

Let me know if you have any VM issues.  (don't expect you will though.)

If you have perpixel frames this image isnt used by WB anymore(in XP)...sucks too.  

I think I get it, now. Still, the components that are not skinned in the trial use the Windows classic graphics - no way to "pseudoskin" those.

If the standard frames were not constructed properly & used the wrong type of graphics, that would explain much of what he's describing. Hoever, defects in the standard frames should be just as apparent in the purchased version as in the trial. The problem is that SKS (at least version 5) is "hopeful," as I think Jafo once described it, and the Preview will often look right when the applied skin does not. The applied skin using the purchased version of WB should look just like the skin in the trial version except for those elements the trial does not skin by design, provided correctly constructed standard frames are included in the skin. So, I'm still left scratching my head a little.

You are right Cavan1. I created separate images for those since. But I could still use the TGA images for left, right and bottom without any problem. Only titlebar needed to be BMP file.

IR - If per pixel frames from a blind are not used by WB in the trial version, is it safe to assume that the menu bar image will be used? If that is true, I would not be able to check how it will look with that image on using a registered version of WB.

Daiwa - In SKS 5 everything looked good (?). Only when I disabled the per pixel frames from WB, I could see what was wrong. The preview window in SKS 5 shows the per pixel form once the pixel frames are setup in the blind(?). Right now I think I may have elements other than the standard frames as differences (menu bar image as an example. What else?)

I know it is not a big deal. Unlike many of you here, I am not good at visualizing how all those tiny images when placed in the right order will look like. I can only do that with pieces of source code   

jp -

There is a dropdown box at the top of the SKS5 preview window when the Windows preview pane is selected. You can select which set of borders are displayed in the preview window from there. Displays the Active nonperpixel window by default.

  

Your overthinking ...if your unsure...cut the images,and take a look.I THINK the menubar images will show if you have perpixel disabled in wbconfig(assuming you have perpixels frames).(but why have them if registered users wont see them?)

I am back home and checked it. You are right. It is using the menu bar when perpixel border is disabled.

Cavan1 - This is standard borders (fixed) using TGA (left, right and bottom). Titlebar is bmp.

Downloaded and installed the VPC. Now DL'ing IE7 virtual disks.

Windows XP VM with IE 7 up and running now   

WB up and running on the VPC. WB said my graphics card does not support per pixel and gave me an option to enable limited per pixel support. Here is the image. Thanks Zubaz. It is great idea!

Glad it works for you!

That VHD will expire . . but MS keeps releaseing new ones . . Don't know how long it will last but it sure is easier (and not violating any licences) than installing an OS on a VM.

It will expire on April 1st. But I have an unused Windows XP Professional 32 bit license that I can use to build one from scratch.

I also realized that my VPC was running really fast. I allocated 1 GB memory to it and VPC detected the hardware virtualization support in the processor.