kmkkid, they are WB3 skins....made specifically to support proper skinning of XP, whereas the 'normal' WB skin section is for skins which are/were made without access to, or prior to the advent of WB3 and XP...

Also, Microsoft's Visual Styles (.msstyles) are protected by Microsoft's Digital Signature therefore we can not accept unauthorized .mstyles.

WB3 skins (UIS) are the only authorized visual styles for Windows XP. kmkid, your argument would be like saying only .BMP files are native.

And Chris, I love your watercolor theme. It is the best skin available for Style XP. But I've been using Watercolor skins for WB since last winter and there's not difference that I can tell between the two.

Hi Again tandis

I see what you mean, but now that people know XP visual style skins (msstyles) are available, people might get confused, it was just a suggestion, I think WB3 would be more appropriate *shrug* And I dont like what T-Man said.. you cannot accept "unauthorized" msstyles? Thtas like calling me a thief for making a skin thats without protection. MS made a huge mistake thinking they could stop people from making skins. This was just wrong for them to do in the first place, because it's controlling. I read the concerns MS had with this, but in fact using MSstyles format would be less harmfull to your system if something went wrong then WB. Say a themes titlebars became messed up , like black or transparent, a user could easily switch to another theme, and everything would be fixed. The same would go for WB but extra steps like having to unload the program and then wait for it to change back to the plain theme. I guess they would act the same if something went wrong, but sometimes WB leaves stuff all funky even when you unload it, and it would require a restart And people like me dont want to restart their systems unless they have to. Anyways to make a long story short, why not host msstyles? MS is obviously ok with the new themes, because TGTSoft has talked to them and they are fully aware, in fact I bet MS was going to allow users to make skins eventually anyways *shrug* Maybe I can contact MS show them how I ported the skin, and maybe they would authorize it and even include it in an update or something That is once all the bugs are worked out. And provided they dont sue me for copyright infringement

Chris

Good point kmkkid, I was wondering about that myself, but didn't want to start another argument. Indeed, the section should be renamed Windowblinds 3 or even Windowblinds for XP. I do agree that it's very confusing, if not deceiving to name the section WinXP.

Oh and I want to add that I requested at skinz.org that they rename their "StyleXP" section to "XP Styles" or "MS Styles" or something like that since StyleXP did not make any skin format, they merely made a patch, and the skin format is by Microsoft.
For the same reason, I ask that the section should be renamed to "Windowblinds XP" because those skins are not in the Windows XP format (msstyles).

I only add this to let you know that I only wish to be fair everywhere, I am consistent in it. What is good for one is good for the other.

Im not speaking for stardock but since only wb skins are recognized by microsoft who makes xp to be real xp skins the they are winxp skins. contrary to what some style xp boosters like to pretend, i bet most xp users use windowblinds. when you go to the section its straight forward.

I have nothin against msstyles, i use them. but I find them pretty pedestrian, not much better than just sticking with windows classic.
That's not taking anything away from kmkkid who has made a good skin desite the restraints.