Application border

Whats the standard way to control the aplication border thickness?

The default border is pretty thin…

Should be manually implemented as a look and feel extra or does it have already implemented ways to adjust the thickness?

(inserting the example image)

where´s the (insert image) button from phpBB? is it disabled?
correct me if i´m wrong but…
in a forum for discussing a GUI the (insert image) should be enabled… shoudn´t be?

is there some plan or some easy way to make better finished borders with rounded corners?

or maybe better… some simulated 3d effects to enhance the finishing of applications? exagerated in the attached picture for ease of viewing.

just some thougth that ocurred here and deserves some mentioning.

i´m just concerned about further enhancing some finishing aspects of the application in mind because it is a BIG aspect of a gui to take control of the entire application area and custom it like juce does.

if anyone wants to use the default os dependent behavior about the bounding frame for the application it´s should be just a matter of choosing it, but of course, anyone using an alternative gui doesn´t want to do this, the gui should provide treatment for the app frame and the title bar together with the client area.

otherwise what´s the point to use the alternative gui? to make a nice and different graphical application but surrounded with the mediocre frame, title bar and dependent finishing of the operating system?

some other expensive, large and complex libraries miss this important point, which is advertised for juce: to be pixel by pixel equal, whatever OS it runs on, and that includes the application frame and title bar.

in other libraries if you wish the same finishing to include the bounding frame and titlebar, you´re on your own, no support included inside the lib whatsoever (with juce as an exception), which means that it will be necessary to get deep inside GDI32 calls to perform this kind of finishing, which totally misses the objective in using an alternative gui: to encapsulate the complex works of the OS so one can focus on the programming task of the application itself instead of concerning about the graphical interface.

people that thinks that the application should have the normal and average OS behavior to me are short minded, that should be an option given to the programmer, if he wishes to uses “average” windows appearance it´s just a matter of making it average by having the entire control of the bounding application area but making the finishing similar to the OS.

"The main issue with JUCE as far as its use on Windows is concerned is its look’n’feel quite different from your average Windows one: an XP/Vista skin is seriously required…"

the point that this comment i´ve found on the net misses is: i “can” do a vista skin (or mac skin maybe… or a nextstep skin…) with juce (it has facilities for treating the application frame included), even if i don´t have vista installed, in other libs i “can´t or won´t” (unless doing some complex surgery inside the lib, trying to compensate the missing work that should be done on those in first place), those will have the OS skin only… and that´s it… period.

best regards


My perspective on this topic is a bit different. I’ve found that every cross-platform system that doesn’t use native platform controls doesn’t look like a native platform app. That is a problem - as a Mac user, something that ‘seems’ to be a Mac app but is a bit wrong is a big turn-off, i.e. it goes right in the trash. I personally came to the point that I’d rather it have a distinct look and feel that can be identical on all platforms. That is difficult if you’re making certain apps, and you need the user to be instantly at home in your app. I submit that it’s impossible to get that and be cross-platform.

I use Juce so I can make a quick, nice-looking app in the shortest time possible. If there’s any requirement for a native platform look, you should probably look at RealBasic, and accept a drop in speed etc. - it’s very suitable for data manipulation apps, database etc. etc. When you need speed and power - raw audio or video handling for example, then Juce is the way to go. I think in those cases, a distinct look and feel works, since they tend to be 1st class apps - the sort you expect to occupy your whole machine and be the primary app you’re using.

2c please. BTW, good luck with your custom borders, but they should probably be custom, not in the library per se. They’re a bit much, IMHO.


ooops… forgot to mention another quote on the same.

“There is no doubt JUCE is an excellent platform for developing cross-platform audio applications (the audio sequencer Tracktion was developed using JUCE) but its general look’n’feel is likely to be an obstacle to a wider adoption, in particular from the Microsoft Windows community.”

i TOTALLY object this, i wan´t to program for windows, and i want to get rid of it´s finishing and i want to have control over the finishing of my application, surrounding frame included.

and i DON´T WANT to have to install the “brand new” super duper, “transparent pink round button enhanced” beauuuuuutiful version of the extended service pack, of the additional upgrade, of the specialized “freeeeee!!!” module of the “careful” (custom) made, special release (get it while our stocks last!!!) version 95982000.2003.YQ of the “blind view” operating system, with a “mere” 666 terabytes installation size, to achieve the same finishing that i can get done only using if the gui has skin facilities. (ooops… sarcastic thoughts again… sorry)

anyone else with the same opinion?

That is a problem - as a Mac user, something that ‘seems’ to be a Mac >app but is a bit wrong is a big turn-off

for this case there is always the option of switching to the default OS look and feel, what i´m arguing here is only for the custom look which i consider a positive aspect, i think that the point in enhancing it goes beyond making a similar application, i´m considering things like: more than the typical 3 button (minimize, maximize, close) look, (N buttons maybe?) in my case, looking for some application that has customized looks (and includes the option of using standard skin) means that the programmer had dedicated more work other than simply doing the basic purpose of the application and giving attention to it´s finishing.

you should probably look at RealBasic, and accept a drop in speed etc.

basic? drop in speed? no thanks…
my purpose is to give some opinion in areas that can enhance the custom look and feel, using a fast language like c or assembler.

2c please. BTW, good luck with your custom borders, but they should >probably be custom, not in the library per se. They’re a bit much, IMHO.


those were exagerated on purpose, because “a bit much” is the most generic possible case, in which the subset of “reasonable” is included and it should be taken into account for those.

the capacity of making rounded corners with transparency outside the curves (a positive aspect of Mac os), and also the shadowing/chiseling/beveling (a positive aspect of windows os) of the frame, and the adjustment of the border thickness (a positive aspect of windows os), that are facilities already (at least some) provided by the operating system, should be included in the lib when using a custom look and feel.

I think in those cases, a distinct look and feel works, since they tend to >be 1st class apps - the sort you expect to occupy your whole machine and >be the primary app you’re using.

first class apps, exactly my point, that use first class libs (juce included), that have first class, specialized ways of dealing amongst other things, the more specialized finishing as possible of the application look…


exploring at some other relationship, the basic point of developing anything is related to the market, my concern with the quality of finishing is related to the fact that the market seems to be hungry for even better finishing as this reseach reveals, with the steep raising in use for better looking os´s

IMO i think that the ability of making carefully finished graphical apps could follow the same ramp by allowing already present but older operating systems users to have the same kind finishing without a change in the OS.