Skip to main content

WPF - Setting Up Themes

Forcing WPF to use a specific Windows theme | I Got Rhythm

At a client recently, we developed our WPF application under Windows 7, tested it under Windows XP and everything looked great. 
Then it was deployed.
As it turns out, one of the deployments was over a Citrix server that forced applications to run under Classic mode. 
Those of you who have worked with various operating systems over the years will know what I'm talking about. Classic mode isn't quite classic, unless you are one of the few who think playing bar pong on an 84" TV is superior to playing one of the more dimensional games. Or maybe one of the few who like to get up and change the TV channel rather than finding the remote. Or one of the .... (you get the idea)
While most things converted well, Tabs do not. In WPF, we have these beautiful tabs that look fresh but over in Classic mode, they have the look and feel of, well, Classic Windows 95 and VB 6 applications.
The application was demo'd to the client under Windows 7 but deployed under Windows Classic so all of a sudden, the user's experience went from "wow, that looks great" to "what kind of crap did you give me".
But all was not lost. I found this very old (2006) but super useful post about forcing WPF to use a theme. In the end, it was as simple as adding a forced reference to PresentationFramework.Aero in the solution and adding

  <ResourceDictionary.MergedDictionaries>

        <ResourceDictionary Source="/PresentationFramework.Aero;component/themes/Aero.NormalColor.xaml" />

    </ResourceDictionary.MergedDictionaries

to the Resource dictionary (or to the Application.xaml file).

Voila our tabs went from crap to zap!

To make the experience even more sweet, that post from 2006? The blog is still being updated today (a lot more posts than here recently as well). Well done, Aelij Arbel, well done and Thank you!

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Elevating Project Specifications with Three Insightful ChatGPT Prompts

For developers and testers, ChatGPT, the freely accessible tool from OpenAI, is game-changing. If you want to learn a new programming language, ask for samples or have it convert your existing code. This can be done in Visual Studio Code (using GitHub CoPilot) or directly in the ChatGPT app or web site.  If you’re a tester, ChatGPT can write a test spec or actual test code (if you use Jest or Cypress) based on existing code, copied and pasted into the input area. But ChatGPT can be of huge value for analysts (whether system or business) who need to validate their needs. There’s often a disconnect between developers and analysts. Analysts complain that developers don’t build what they asked for or ask too many questions. Developers complain that analysts haven’t thought of obvious things. In these situations, ChatGPT can be a great intermediary. At its worst, it forces you to think about and then discount obvious issues. At best, it clarifies the needs into documented requirements. ...

Respect

Respect is something humans give to each other through personal connection. It’s the bond that forms when we recognize something—or someone—as significant, relatable, or worthy of care. This connection doesn’t have to be limited to people. There was an  article  recently that described the differing attitudes towards AI tools such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini (formerly Bard). Some people treat them like a standard search while others form a sort of personal relationship — being courteous, saying “please” and “thank you”. Occasionally, people share extra details unrelated to their question, like, ‘I’m going to a wedding. What flower goes well with a tuxedo?’ Does an AI “care” how you respond to it? Of course not — it reflects the patterns it’s trained on. Yet our interaction shapes how these tools evolve, and that influence is something we should take seriously. Most of us have all expressed frustration when an AI “hallucinates”. Real or not, the larger issue is that we have hi...

Friend vs Therapist vs LLM: Shades of Grey

The conversations with AI series brings up a single point and then compares it between different LLM engines. These types of conversations were one of the many contributing factors to my writing of " Towards Consciousness " that explores the benefits and issues of creating a conscious AI. In this scenario, I was interested in seeing how an LLM might differ from a friend or therapist on issues that may have nuanced responses or contexts. In doing so, I came up with an interesting discussion on shades of grey. My Premise: Is it a bit strange to be using an LLM as a sober second thought? Every time I walk down this path of “why use an LLM to do certain things”, I come back to the alternatives that people like to say. “Why not bring it up with a friend?” A friend typically has your back or will say whatever to support their own agenda. “A therapist?” That’s someone who is “trained” to be impartial. But a computer? A computer is impartial based on two logical outcomes. If you say ...