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...

When A Machine Starts To Care

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Arthur C. Clarke (1962)  I first used that quote when I was starting out in the tech industry. Back then, it was a way to illustrate just how fast and powerful computers had become. Querying large datasets in seconds felt magical—at least to those who didn’t build them.  Today, we’re facing something even more extraordinary. Large Language Models (LLMs) can now carry on conversations that approach human-level fluency. Clarke’s quote applies again. And just as importantly, many researchers argue that LLMs meet—or at least brush up against—the criteria of the Turing Test.  We tend to criticize LLMs for their “hallucinations,” their sometimes-confident inaccuracies. But let’s be honest: we also complain when our friends misremember facts or recount things inaccurately. This doesn’t excuse LLMs—it simply highlights that the behavior isn’t entirely alien. In some ways, it mirrors our own cognitive limits....