On XP i NEEDED a custom theme because it was soooooooooooo fugly, god damn.. On Vista.. but damn it was ugly. On 7 i really wanted a custom theme because the hideos shadows and highlight borders ruin everything, god thanks there are custom themes. On 8 it's not perfect and the "colorless" inactive windows are weird, but it's not as fugly to me that i instantly search for a custom theme, but again.. once i see a custom theme i like.. that it will be. One theme can not please everyone, heck some ppl patch their 7 to look like XP with luna and stuff, or some really gothic style/dark/very hideous texture Theme, i will never get it, no matter how you bend it.. it just does not look good lol, to me
Yes, it was, that green grass and blue sky wallpaper was the most graceless thing I've seen for ages... Entire BLUE Luna was fugly until MS made "Zune" (black) theme and "Royale Noir" (also black) theme...
Yep, the guy found the trick to affect frame-borders only, but unfortunately, he isn't not graphical genius, what shows clearly, when he tries to do his own clip-arts for the elements...
You should really download True Transparency from the Author's site here: Code: www .pngfactory.net/customxp/TrueTransparency/?langid=1 It was written for Windows XP and is has many flaws to make it unusable on Windows 8 anyhow.
I do agree that the program is buggy atm however it just proves that aero is actually possible in w8. Sooner or later we will have the original aero back. Although lack of it doesn't make me feel suicidal, I still wan't it bad!
Stop confusing Transparency with Aero, Aero is a full system of effects even Windows 8 has, the Transparency is only part of "Aero", and then again the Transparency in Windows Vista/7 is using Shaders do blur the background efficiently and performant.
Its not going to happen. If i was, it would have already. Windows 8 has been out for about 5 months already.
well the Release Date: 8/14/2012 (RTM) is technically almost 5 months. The minute it released to Subscriber Downloads, it went public.
I was using the Enterprise RTM trial until it expired last weekend. Loved its performance, but not its look. I'm now back on the 64-bit RP, and can't believe the difference! They should have released the RP with transparency and Gadgets in lieu of the bland and unappealing RTM/Retail versions without them. The RP is every bit as fast, far better-looking, and only marginally less stable. It's the version I'd like to buy. And the next time someone gives me the excuses of 'performance issues' or 'security' for the removal of gadgets and/or transparency, I'll go 'postal', I swear.
I agree, I'm surprised at the number of people defending what Microsoft have done. I posted (a few too many) posts about this on the Guru3D forums (under a different username), and it seems that most people actually find Windows 8 perfect. It's responses like that which will mean we won't be getting a good UI back. I also pointed out the Aero and RP thing like you have, and I agree totally with you that Aero made SFA difference to performance and even battery life. You can't compare the battery life you get on laptops from the RP with Aero to the final, because the final is different, and has actually had some further optimisations with updates. You can though compare RP with Aero and with it disabled, and it made no difference on a modern laptop. Performance wise, it's true Aero was a little too much for many computers when Vista came out, but most computers with any performance related issues with Aero were low or low-middle end computers even by 2006 standard. Well, its almost 2013, computers have come a long way in efficiency since then! On top of that, there have been very significant optimisations to the code, including the UI code. The Windows 8 UI is now properly accelerated too (supposedly). These optimisations were present in the RP. So, why did Microsoft remove it? They are trying to make desktop Windows look like tablet Windows to improve tablet sales through uniformity, and also they are trying to make normal 'desktop' windows uglier, including the programs, to make Metro Apps more appealing. If you want to talk about inefficiency, you should look at the space (and file) utilisation of Metro Apps. Like I said before, ideally if you were to insist on Metro Apps, you would: - have separate UAC for Metro Apps and normal Apps, so you can have UAC turned off for normal apps and on for Metro. It can be done, since it disallows you from running Metro Apps with LUA disabled - have full aero glass - have the new 'start' screen actually as a desktop screen (even as an option). See below By a new start screen, I mean basically having a desktop, but with overlayed 'panels', one for metro apps, the other for the start menu apps, You can have a slider that appears when you move the mouse cursor over the bottom of the panel, so you can move through the Metro apps or start menu icons as required. You can also 'grab' the panels, so you can have the metro apps on right, desktop on left, or top and bottom (or vice versa) or even move say, the metro panel to a different screen. The Start meny icons would be like normal desktop icons (not the horrible Windows 95 style icons where the text background is solid), and metro apps can have an Aero border around it (as an option) for visible pleasing. Now, this won't interfere with the uniformity across platforms, since the principle is the same. If Microsoft think people can't work out the difference, they are treating people like idiots. There are a few other areas of Windows that is also visually unappealing (due to changes they made). Office 2013 is also visually unappealing, there is no reason for it to be such a boring UI! Microsoft are just hoping people 'get used to it', and for it to help sell tablets and phones. It's sales success comes largely from the fact it is currently cheap to upgrade to. It's not a case of being afraid of change, because I am a supporter of change as long as that change is for the better! I did point out the desktop idea afterall, which if you realise what I mean is very similar to the metro UI but much, much more appealing to use. It seems Microsoft are trying to kill off the concept of wallpaper. The stndard Metro 'start' screens actually makes sense on tablets and phones, but not on computers.
First everyone hated Aero Transparency.. now everyone is loving Aero Transparency... But you should know, there are still people that demand Luna or "Classic" style, can't please everyone.