Frogboy Frogboy

WindowBlinds 4 features

WindowBlinds 4 features

One of the debates we regularly have with regard to WindowBlinds is a classic argument:

Are we better off throwing in more features into the base product or breaking out new features into new programs?

Here's a good example: We can change IE toolbar icons and the throbber. You can do that with WebBlinds. But few people seem to use WebBlinds even though you could just use it to change the toolbar buttons and nothing else (with minimal system impact).

I tend to come from the school of thought of having more programs that do fewer things each to keep each one as small and tight as possible.

But that also opens up the door for the guy who says "Well, my program does X, Y, and Z in a single program."

So with WindowBlinds 4, we have ideas such as having the ability to skin the toolbar icons in IE and explorer and changing error messages and progress dialog animations and all sorts of pieces of Windows that many people take for granted as being unchangable.

But would we be better off breaking that sort of thing off into a seperate program (part of Object Desktop still of course) that does that and let WindowBlinds call that program to do its thing rather than have it integrated into WindowBlinds itself?

I could go either way on this. We really want to see toolbar icon changing in Windows become much more popular than it already has. That's the larger goal here.

Which path would you suggest?

Powered by SkinBrowser!
22,536 views 82 replies
Reply #51 Top
Jobeleca/me testing
Reply #52 Top
Jafo sez "Your first language is 'English'"

ummmmm, I missed the first 99% of the babya thing, but i had just assumed... well... forget it.
Reply #53 Top
/me whee! Ok ok

About the question of the thread, keep em separate. Keep the programs KISS & separate, use WinStyles to bring everything together instead of cramming everything together.
Reply #54 Top
I wouldn't mind it being packaged with windowblinds, but i'm afraid it may discourage new skinners because they may want to skin for fun, but when they start figuring out what to do, they are intimidated by all of the options. Just my thoughts.
Reply #55 Top
Well, I think it's btter at least to do like-OD (objectdock)-do a 2000/xp release fiest, then a nt 4.0/88/9.x relewasse soon after.
Reply #56 Top
Object Dock is free and was created long ago as more of a POC app, according to SD/FB. Not in the same class as WindowBlinds. WB is perhaps SD's bread and butter app (as a stand alone app, that is) and SD has already indicated that SB 4 supports W98.

Bit tkn u fpr yre onwalubul npt.
Reply #58 Top
Yiou'll know that soon MSwon't have offive 98(work suyre-has word t-so next no more for 98)-many developers wilstartr bto support the klat4st
Reply #59 Top
What is a 'klat4st'?

And what do you do with one?
Reply #60 Top
Skooky wacka nof in zopple distort na willy wonka pop goes the weasel, na?

Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #61 Top
mr. aaful.......... if you can't type in English, at least stick to the topic. No one ask what OS's should be supported.

Translation:
m2 as4ul pl3asee sh8t thr 7uc5 up.
Reply #62 Top
I agree with some of the others above, keep it out of wblinds and maybe you could add it to Icon packager along with Icon Text and Icon background Transparencies where it belongs, WFX not every one can use it, Wblinds has become to much skinning for me, It's become work instead of enjoyment.... The only thing any more I've been using is wblinds and icon pkgr, there is too many separate programs in object desktop and some don't get along with their relatives and cause puter problems.... using wblinds is skins, using Icon packager is for icons and all icons settings, web blinds should take the place of hotbar etc.... just another view point
Reply #64 Top
sig said: 'The OS still functions and apps still run.'

That isn't always true. The real death of any OS is when they stop releasing hardware drivers and DirextX upgrades for it. If you can't put a sound, video, or network card in it, or upgrade virus software, or even use new patches for programs you already have, it is pretty much dead.

When Everquest patched last year, you *had* to upgrade to DX8. If you had an OS they didn't make DX8 for, you couldn't play... software you already owned. With the new MS limits, I think it is safe to assume that 98 probably doesn't have much more than a year left.

I don't see how spending months to develop a program for an OS that doesn't have more than a couple of years left is cost effective. Not much time to pay for your labor.
Reply #65 Top
I agree- just drop 95 supprt )if not done already).
Reply #67 Top
Of course, it depends what apps you use and what you do on your PC. And typically W98 users are running them on older machines. For people running programs that are using the latest DirectX, etc and require new hardware and drivers, the older PC's and OS's won't cut it. But not everyone has those requirements.

Basic mainstream apps such as AV's, for example, don't require driver upgrades, etc. So in those areas there will be vendors that will have apps supporting W98 as long as a profitable market is there. I don't see them dropping W98 quite as soon as you.
Reply #68 Top
Well, we're only up to N.I.S. 2003, so I guess we'll see next year. If Norton is updating for win98 in 2004, I'll buy you a cookie.

Reply #69 Top
Well, treegforf, vagarant Frogboy-0driop 98 support-becausr it's 4 years old, nsecure,noyt a stsble as 2000/xp is?
Reply #70 Top
Maybe it's Russian....
Reply #71 Top
first you want your Windows98 to look like XP. then you want Windows9x support for programs that would help you doing this dropped. does that make any sense?
Reply #72 Top
well,I thinmk 98 isn't secyre-pludi ty's old-msyube release a 98 version of wb (as free-in 3yes or 4yres time).,
Reply #73 Top
please stop typing with your feet.
Reply #74 Top
Moshi : Aafuss never makes much sense.

Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #75 Top
OK...maybe he's just discovered alcohol and he just pickled the only functioning brain cell...