~begin rant~  I've been using WindowBlinds for 4 years. The program is not buggy, 
but certain OS's are. It really irks me when people blame a program when the OS can't 
perform. I've used WB with 98SE, W2k, and now XP.
Yes, I had problems with 98SE, with or without WB running........ go figure. 
95, 98, ME, have limited resources, and don't manage them well. W2k, and XP have 
much more resources available, and will actually free the memory being used when 
you close a program. 
To top it off, benchmark tests have shown XP actually performs better with WB. msstyles 
are slower than WindowBlinds themes. ~end of rant~

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

So who said it was? I don't recall seeing that post.


On Wednesday, October 23, 2002 at 9:44 am, aka wrote:

>~begin rant~  I've been using WindowBlinds for 4 years. The program is not buggy, 
>but certain OS's are. It really irks me when people blame a program when the OS 
can't 
>perform. I've used WB with 98SE, W2k, and now XP.
>Yes, I had problems with 98SE, with or without WB running........ go figure. 
>95, 98, ME, have limited resources, and don't manage them well. W2k, and XP have 
>much more resources available, and will actually free the memory being used when 
>you close a program. 
>To top it off, benchmark tests have shown XP actually performs better with WB. msstyles 
>are slower than WindowBlinds themes. ~end of rant~

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

???


On Wednesday, October 23, 2002 at 9:44 am, aka wrote:

>~begin rant~  I've been using WindowBlinds for 4 years. The program is not buggy, 
>but certain OS's are. It really irks me when people blame a program when the OS 
can't 
>perform. I've used WB with 98SE, W2k, and now XP.
>Yes, I had problems with 98SE, with or without WB running........ go figure. 
>95, 98, ME, have limited resources, and don't manage them well. W2k, and XP have 
>much more resources available, and will actually free the memory being used when 
>you close a program. 
>To top it off, benchmark tests have shown XP actually performs better with WB. msstyles 
>are slower than WindowBlinds themes. ~end of rant~

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

That's nice - I sometimes make a desktop/screensaver change to my computer, but more often than not, I'm looking at the app I'm running....


On Wednesday, October 23, 2002 at 9:44 am, aka wrote:

>~begin rant~  I've been using WindowBlinds for 4 years. The program is not buggy, 
>but certain OS's are. It really irks me when people blame a program when the OS 
can't 
>perform. I've used WB with 98SE, W2k, and now XP.
>Yes, I had problems with 98SE, with or without WB running........ go figure. 
>95, 98, ME, have limited resources, and don't manage them well. W2k, and XP have 
>much more resources available, and will actually free the memory being used when 
>you close a program. 
>To top it off, benchmark tests have shown XP actually performs better with WB. msstyles 
>are slower than WindowBlinds themes. ~end of rant~

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

The sky is blue, grass is green!


On Wednesday, October 23, 2002 at 9:44 am, aka wrote:

>~begin rant~  I've been using WindowBlinds for 4 years. The program is not buggy, 
>but certain OS's are. It really irks me when people blame a program when the OS 
can't 
>perform. I've used WB with 98SE, W2k, and now XP.
>Yes, I had problems with 98SE, with or without WB running........ go figure. 
>95, 98, ME, have limited resources, and don't manage them well. W2k, and XP have 
>much more resources available, and will actually free the memory being used when 
>you close a program. 
>To top it off, benchmark tests have shown XP actually performs better with WB. msstyles 
>are slower than WindowBlinds themes. ~end of rant~

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

It's on the Customize Windows XP Styles page.
http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article02-001

....just bugs me when I see that.






On Wednesday, October 23, 2002 at 10:34 am, Ricer46 wrote:
>So who said it was? I don't recall seeing that post.
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Well if you wanted to make a point, you probably should have made that reference to begin with. Without it you appear to be a ranting fool who has no purpose. I think the accumulation of responses support that.


On Wednesday, October 23, 2002 at 12:23 pm, aka wrote:

>It's on the Customize Windows XP Styles page.
>http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article02-001
>
>....just bugs me when I see that.
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Geez.. Every Professional programmer knows that there is no such thing as a bug free program. ESPECIALLY when you are writing massive amounts of code. Whether or not bugs ever cause a problem or not is besides the point. Until there is standardization in programming and third party programmers have all of the operating systems secrets, the more chances of bugs. WB didn't run on any of my machines correctly, even on a fresh test install. In others, it acted incorrectly with some drivers. You were lucky.. Other people weren't. I'm sure if you asked the WB people, they will confirm that they work out bugs, just like everyone else does and yes I program in more than one type of language, PC and Industrial (robotics, PLC). C K


On Wednesday, October 23, 2002 at 12:23 pm, aka wrote:

>It's on the Customize Windows XP Styles page.
>http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article02-001
>
>....just bugs me when I see that.
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Are you a stardock stock-holder? anyway, blame it on the sun, or blame it on the rain.. at least for win98 (in a p3, 512mb) there were quite few more problems wint WB than witout them.. that's a fact... Also you have to deactivate it for some apps...


On Wednesday, October 23, 2002 at 9:44 am, aka wrote:

>~begin rant~  I've been using WindowBlinds for 4 years. The program is not buggy, 
>but certain OS's are. It really irks me when people blame a program when the OS 
can't 
>perform. I've used WB with 98SE, W2k, and now XP.
>Yes, I had problems with 98SE, with or without WB running........ go figure. 
>95, 98, ME, have limited resources, and don't manage them well. W2k, and XP have 
>much more resources available, and will actually free the memory being used when 
>you close a program. 
>To top it off, benchmark tests have shown XP actually performs better with WB. msstyles 
>are slower than WindowBlinds themes. ~end of rant~

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Yes WindowBlinds is Buggy. In addition it eats ram like crazy. Not a believer? Install a proggie like ram turbo or another and launch your windowBlinds - just watch the ram drop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


On Wednesday, October 23, 2002 at 9:44 am, aka wrote:

>~begin rant~  I've been using WindowBlinds for 4 years. The program is not buggy, 
>but certain OS's are. It really irks me when people blame a program when the OS 
can't 
>perform. I've used WB with 98SE, W2k, and now XP.
>Yes, I had problems with 98SE, with or without WB running........ go figure. 
>95, 98, ME, have limited resources, and don't manage them well. W2k, and XP have 
>much more resources available, and will actually free the memory being used when 
>you close a program. 
>To top it off, benchmark tests have shown XP actually performs better with WB. msstyles 
>are slower than WindowBlinds themes. ~end of rant~

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I know I'm off topic here, but as a bit of encouragement, I think we ARE (slowly but surely) moving towards a 'standardization' in programming. In a way, .NET trys to accomplish this. At least it strives for this more so than COM......


On Wednesday, October 23, 2002 at 3:05 pm, C K wrote:
>Geez.. Every Professional programmer knows that there is no such thing as a bug
>free program. ESPECIALLY when you are writing massive amounts of code. Whether
>or not bugs ever cause a problem or not is besides the point. Until there is standardization
>in programming and third party programmers have all of the operating systems secrets,
>the more chances of bugs. WB didn't run on any of my machines correctly, even on
>a fresh test install. In others, it acted incorrectly with some drivers. You were
>lucky.. Other people weren't. I'm sure if you asked the WB people, they will confirm
>that they work out bugs, just like everyone else does and yes I program in more than
>one type of language, PC and Industrial (robotics, PLC). C K
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I agree that it is buggy: Start a program, any program in minimized mode. You cannot restore it or open it. Bug.


On Sunday, July 6, 2003 at 11:17 am, CC wrote:
>
>Yes WindowBlinds is Buggy. In addition it eats ram like crazy. Not a believer? Install
>a proggie like ram turbo or another and launch your windowBlinds - just watch the
>ram drop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Yes Windows Blinds IS buggy, and it DOES slow down the computer because it adds a process which takes up memory. The more memory you use the slower your comp. would go! And who claimed that Windows Blinds was more efficient? Windows Blinds programmers! What do you expect from the people who made the program!? Say that Windows Blinds is slow!?

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

window blinds uses 3d hardware to render the ui. windows xp does not. window blinds is therefore, quicker. do research.


On Tuesday, December 30, 2003 at 11:34 pm, Windows Blinds IS Buggy wrote:
>Yes Windows Blinds IS buggy, and it DOES slow down the computer because it adds a
>process which takes up memory.
>
>The more memory you use the slower your comp. would go!
>
>And who claimed that Windows Blinds was more efficient? Windows Blinds programmers!
>What do you expect from the people who made the program!? Say that Windows Blinds
>is slow!?

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

hey all, dunno abt all ya guyz but i got probs with window blinds 4.5 and 5 n serious ones ........worked perfectky for 15-20 days .........registered versions........then the explorer just wont run .....too damn slow.....i have 1 gb ram... amd 3200+ had to slowly uninstall it tuk arnd an hour or so just to do that it was that slow...happened to my frnd too.besides i agree it eats a lot of ram....stick to a normal default stuffs dont mess up everything.....


On Thursday, December 22, 2005 at 9:58 am, adam wrote:
>window blinds uses 3d hardware to render the ui. windows xp does not. window blinds
>is therefore, quicker. do research.
>
>
>

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

• Search this forum
• Start a new thread on a different subject

• Report abuse of the forum