Per Pixle issue?

Does your graphics card properly support per pixel rendering? Should post the system info and graphics card.

Yes, it properly supports it thank you very much.  ATI X700 Mobility w/latest 6.2 Drivers and WB5 is the latest beta build from SDC.  This is probably yet another one of those bugs I keep finding with WB5 that no one else looks for, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt until I hear from Neil or someone directly at SD.

No sound effects is not a bug as WB5 per pixel skins do not currently support sound effects (there is nothing in the skin format for them)

As for the repaints with taskmanager, thats normal too as taskmanager runs with high priority which results in background apps getting less time to repaint.  If you enable hyperpaint in WB this would go away.

Both of those reasons are a little weird to me.  Because the skin apperently has sounds on it and it is a Per Pixel skin (I think) the sounds only show up when you disable Per Pixel support in the System window (the check mark) in WB5.  When you take the checkmark out (enabling per pixel) the sounds go away.

As for the second thing you stated, it only does this on non-per pixel skins.  Since Task Manager doesn't update with Per Pixel skins am I to assume that that's the reason why the screen doesn't have problems painting behind that window when you drag it arround... because it doesn't update when you click and drag it anyway with a Per Pixel skin?  If that's the case, then I can see the reasons behind that one.  BTW, why doesn't the Task Manager update when you click on it with Per Pixel skins?  I forget if you ever answered that or not.

The skin has sounds on the non per pixel buttons yes, but not on the per pixel ones.  In WB skins sounds are defined on a per button basis.

Taskmanager not updating while moving is simply the way WB per pixel works.

Taskmanager not updating while moving is simply the way WB per pixel works.

Enquireing minds want to know why though...  Will this ever change?  Aperently I found out that all Windows that are not maximized (any appliation) while running a WB skin that's Per Pixel will not update.  Isn't that nice.  Here's a quick test... http://images.nasioc.com/forums/images/smilies/banana.gif

Maximize the window of this webpage and the banana will continue to dance when you click on the titlebar.  If it's in a window format (not maximized) and you click on the title bar the banana will stop dancing if you have a Per Pixel skin running and it'll just momentaraly pause right when you click, but continue to dance when you have a non-Per Pixel skin running.

Another interesting fact... when I saw this I tried to see if Task Manager would behave the same way to properly support my thoughts on this one... yep, with a Per Pixel skin running Task Manager stops updating when in Window format (like we all know), but does not stop updating if it's maximized and you click on the titlebar.

I for one would like a detailed explanation to this unless for some reason it'll infringe on some kind of trade secret for WB's programming code.  I find this kind of behaviour "buggy" and "problamatic" even if you say it's the way it's supposed to work.  I want to know why it's supposed to work like this.  Just explain it... don't assume I'm a complete moron and won't understand.  If you'd rather explain this offsite, just email me.  I'm sure you have that address on file.  Thanks Neil.

I for one would like a detailed explanation to this unless for some reason it'll infringe on some kind of trade secret for WB's programming code. I find this kind of behaviour "buggy" and "problamatic" even if you say it's the way it's supposed to work. I want to know why it's supposed to work like this. Just explain it... don't assume I'm a complete moron and won't understand. If you'd rather explain this offsite, just email me. I'm sure you have that address on file. Thanks Neil.

I'm just curious why you think you should get a detailed description of the "whys" and "why nots". Folks don't ask Microsoft why Office works the way it does and expect a response.

I take a draconian parent sort of veiw; "Because I said so" is a valid answer. I may change my mind later but for now . . . there you go.

It's Stardock's product to do with what they please. They can add, remove, or change features as best fits their resources (time, skills, market, whatever). We are lucky enough to be able to support them or not if we approve of their changes.

I guess it's just in my nature to be interested in how something works or doesn't work.  Like I said, (to me) the issues I'm discussing in this thread just seem peculiar.  I don't think is an easy it's as easy as saying... Well, MS Word doesn't auto translate text you type into another language because the capability just isn't there.  The issues at hand are just wacky quirks.  Maybe it doesn't bother other people, but it bothers me that WB just has these quirks.  I guess what I mean to say is that these issues seem to be more of a "Oh well, just leave it at that and we'll sort it out later" rather then a "It simply cannot be done no way, no how" type thing.  I dunno, maybe I'm just too picky, but I keep finding these odd little quirks in WB5 that are bothering me... that's all.  I figure if it's something that needs to be changed to make it work better and I discuss it maybe they can make the changes and fix everything before WB5.1 comes out. The way I look at it is, I'm BETA testing the program for them and reporting/inquiring about issues I find and want improved.  There's certainly nothing wrong with that.... if you think there is, then you have a bad mindset on how to improve the quality of a product.

There's certainly nothing wrong with that.... if you think there is, then you have a bad mindset on how to improve the quality of a product.

I don't think that there's anything wrong with reporting problems. I think that's a good thing. I'd like to see WB improved.

I do think though, that Stardock knows the problem now. You knowing the cause doesn't help resolve it. If you have information that they require to resolve it, they know how to find you. They have their ways.

I'd be interested in the why . . . but it strikes me as pretty clear that SD doesn't want to share the "why" or the "we don't know why". I just was just wondering why you kept asking. It's cool though . . . ask away.

I do think though, that Stardock knows the problem now. You knowing the cause doesn't help resolve it. If you have information that they require to resolve it, they know how to find you.

You sure about that?... because out of every other thing I've reported as possible issues I usually get the "Ehh, we'll look into it" or the ever popular "That's just how it works".  They must be a bunch of Republicans working at SD.

Actually, we're mostly liberterians. Though Brad is of course, a capitalist.

When you play with alternate GUIs....shells, that is....and you incoporate animations.....then open and/or move something such as TaskManager [which itself has 'animations'...CPU usage, etc]...you can get all sorts of animation freezes.  The graphic card chatting to the OS and saying "WTF am I supposed to be rewriting?" ...can have a hard time working out what to refresh/rewrite as a priority.

I may have an AGP8x 256meg card only taxed to 1024x768...but I get it.

I think the reason is a fundamental XP OS one.  If you push the limitations of an OS graphically then things that were NOT envisaged by the OS designer can occur.

It's a fact of life that "shit happens", and hardly one to lament as a 'bug' or 'issue'.  Think more of it as an 'inability' and you won't be forever asking 'why', as if the knowledge would solve anything or fix the 'issue'.

Example.

I totally whacked my GUI one day by setting a Litestep module to control my res and refresh and inadvertently set it to 1600x1200 @100hz ....not a good idea on a 15 incher.  No, I didn't think...'ooh, why doesn't a 15 inch monitor automatically drop out of a 'wrong' res...or why IS THERE a 'wrong' res?" ....no, I simply said 'oops' as I realized I was doing something BEYOND the specs of the equipment.

When a per-pixel skin is being drawn by WB within XP it is emulating the effect [but not the mechanics] of what Vista will do, and that is well beyond what MS had imagined XP was likely to be ever doing.

Think of WB5 per-pixel as the ability to jump off tall buildings [something you are not expected to be doing]...but a side-effect is the odd broken leg or two.  If you want to be one who jumps off buildings then put an order in for crutches....but it's still better than just standing on the sidelines with the default XP Luna crowd....

Jafo for Secretary of State.

Well, that makes me feel way better then, Jafo...  I think I understand now...

WindowBlinds 5.... "For the user that wants to show the shortcommings of the XP GUI."

You guys still don't get it.  Why the hell would someone make a GUI interface change possible if they know that change would inhibit the GUI's ability to work properly as designed?  WindowBlinds5 and SD have always stated how WB works together with the GUI interface and doesn't hack it like other skinning apps do.  Well, if that's the case, then why go beyond the GUI interface's abilities when you know it's going to cause problems and people will complain about.  Let's face it... WB4.6 was way better in terms of stability and ability.  Sure, it might not have been able to make things look like Vista does, but at least my damn DOS prompt was skinned.  Face it guys... WB5's capabilities should have been held off until Vista came along to properly support it.  I still feel like WB5 is trying to be a Ferrari with cloth seats.

people will complain about

Person.

The graphic card chatting to the OS and saying "WTF am I supposed to be rewriting?"

I didn't know hardware and software talked to each other in such casual language.

Get over it!!!  Let these people get on with helping people with real problems.

STFU Free

Why the hell would someone make a GUI interface change possible if they know that change would inhibit the GUI's ability to work properly as designed?

it looks better

why go beyond the GUI interface's abilities when you know it's going to cause problems

but what problems? you find out when you do it. then you find a way to make it work.
man needs to tinker

you could always go back to 4.6

There appears to be no pleasing/appeasing this guy, despite thoroughly responsive replies from WB's developer & other top SD staff. Our glass is half full, his is half empty & gonna stay that way, so I think we can all move on.

I'll keep my eyes open for the release announcement of WindowCurtains by JRSCCivic98.

i agree with daiwa. civic is making it sound like, 'why would someone make a GUI interface change possible even though there may be a minor hiccup here and there.' and yes, per pixel windows not updating while being dragged is a MINOR hiccup.

The way I look at it is, I'm BETA testing the program for them and reporting/inquiring about issues I find and want improved.

windowblinds 5 have been out of beta for months. you're no longer a beta tester, you're a user.

and yes, per pixel windows not updating while being dragged is a MINOR hiccup.

At least we agree that is it a problem/hickup.

windowblinds 5 have been out of beta for months. you're no longer a beta tester, you're a user

Not exactly correct.  The most current version off of SDC is actually a BETA build.  Get the facts correct before you correct someone.  While WB5 original release is out of BETA the current/most recent build is still a BETA.  It's designated as such.

exactly! the latest builds are betas. if you're using one, you're beta testing. but if you're presently using a beta build, you voluntarily downloaded and installed it. if you aren't happy with the latest beta build, roll back to the 'official' release of wb5 or even further back to wb4.6.

The question has been answered. Anything else added is just bait for the waiting wolf.

Taskmanager not updating while it is being dragged with a per pixel skin is by design.  It is not a bug. 

I am unsure exactly why someone would be dragging the window for so long that they need it to update or even notice that it is not.