Konfabulator for Windows vs. DesktopX

The battle for the widgetfied desktop

Friday, May 27, 2005 by Frogboy | Discussion: DesktopX

And so it begins. The top customization developer for MacOS has brought its premiere customization program, Konfabulator over to Windows. Pixaria, the developer of Konfabulator previously had developed Kaleidoscope.  On Windows, Stardock, whom I work for, is the developer of DesktopX and WindowBlinds have shadow-boxed for years in friendly competition.

Mac advocates would argue that Kaleidoscope was better than WindowBlinds and PC users would argue the opposite.  And the same has been true of DesktopX and Konfabulator.  Neither program is a clone of the other. Both come to the table with their own ideas on how widgets should be done on Windows.

Widgets, btw, for the purposes of our discussion, are mini-applications that can be created relatively easily by end users. No compilers, no development environments necessary.  You just take your graphics and put them together with a few scripts and the host program (Konfabulator or DesktopX) takes care of the rest.  So here's my 2 cents take on Konfabulator and DesktopX for what it's worth..

The Konfabulator Journey

Konfabulator was designed with MacOS X in mind. It makes use of the Quartz graphics engine to deliver alpha blended visuals. That is, the edges of its widgets are blended into the background and can be semi-transparent. The point of Konfabulator has been to give users the power to create "whatever they want" without having to be professional software developers. As long as you know a little Javascript and have some art skills, you can throw together some pretty powerful mini-applications dubbed widgets.

Konfabulator came out in 2003 on MacOS X.  Its lead developer, Arlo Rose, had seen its last effort, Kaleidoscope evaporate as MacOS X did not support the APIs that Kaleidoscope required. Konfabulator generated even more press than Kaleidoscope did and was doing well until Apple announced Dashboard. Dashboard is a feature that is part of MacOS "Tiger" that provides very polished widgets of its own. Since Dashboard is part of the OS and thus "free", it was a significant blow to Konfabulator.

The challenge for Konfabulator as it makes its way onto Windows is to overcome the entrenched competition.  Not only will Konfabulator have to go head to head with Stardock's DesktopX on its own turf but it will also have to compete against a slew of freeware programs that offer much the same functionality such as AveDesk, Kapsules, and Samurize.

DesktopX the unlikely underdog

Since 1999 when WindowBlinds came out, Stardock has been considered the leading developer of Windows customization utilities. WindowBlinds on its own has over 7 million users worldwide and thousands of its own visual styles (skins) for it.  It too has had to contend with encroachment from the OS vendor.  But fortunately for Stardock, Microsoft, unlike Apple, has seemed more interested in supporting its ISVs.  Windows XP not only did not break WindowBlinds, it actually made it function better out of the box and vastly increased its market.  Since Stardock is a Microsoft partner, and Microsoft is a Stardock customer (Microsoft uses WindowBlinds for marketing purposes) it is likely that Longhorn will bring new opportunities for WindowBlinds as well as DesktopX.

DesktopX is far older than Konfabulator. But that's not been as big of an advantage as one might think.  DesktopX began its public life in 2000. But because of the limitations in Windows of the time (it had to work on Windows 95 for instance) and the hardware of the time, its objects were much simpler than the widgets of today.

Also, because the Windows market has a lot of competition in many areas, DesktopX couldn't simply be a program to offer mini-programs on the desktop.  So it had to do more.  DesktopX's philosophy has been to let users put objects on their desktop.  These objects can be used to create entire customize desktop environments.  Or they can be kept stand alone and made into "super icons".  Or they can be put together and exported as a widget.

The challenge for DesktopX is to make sure users realize what it can do and promote what it sees are its advantages over both Konfabulator and its entrenched freeware competition.

So how is DesktoX an underdog? Thanks to brilliant marketing by the folks at Pixaria, Konfabulator has gotten featured on the home pages of News.com, The Register.com, Slashdot, and dozens of other sites in time for its Windows debut. Pixaria was also able to exploit Apple's Dashboard announcement to gain a lot of attention for their program. Many an article has come out talking about Konfabualtor as if it were the only program of its type that exists -- despite DesktopX having millions of downloads.

 

Konfabulator meets DesktopX

So while Mac and PC users battled on Usenet and web forums over the relative merits of their chosen widget enabling programs, they always had to do so from afar. When Konfabulator announced it was going to come out with a Windows version back in November of 2003, it meant that eventually, the two would be able to be compared apples to apples (no pun intended).

At the time, I wrote on Konfabulator's forum, "Konfabulator is going to have some real challenges on the PC. Windows XP doesn't have Quartz.  Stardock had to spend a year and a half developing DirectGUI.  Without a DirectGUI Konfabulator would have to rely purely on layered windows and those take up a lot of memory and CPU -- and PC users are very sensitive to how much RAM these kinds of programs use."

The problem with DesktopX, however, is that for years its content sucked overall. There were real gems buried in the thousands of objects and themes. But most of it was awful.  Stardock envisioned itself as a technology company.  It just threw DesktopX out there and waited for skinners to pick it up and go for it.  While that strategy worked for WindowBlinds, it did not work so well on DesktopX.  The ease in which people could create their own content for DesktopX (DesktopX includes a GUI environment for making content) ensured there were a lot of poorly made themes, objects, and widgets for it.

By contrast, the Konfabulator team "got it" from the start.  They focused just on making widgets and they made sure that Konfabulator came with really polished widgets.  DesktopX lagged behind in that area for a long while.  Only in 2004 did Stardock actually assign its game development team to take a few weeks off and create its own DesktopX content.  You can see some of the results here.

So what are the differences between the two? I'm biased in favor of DesktopX but I also have an interest in trying to be objective on trying to understand what the perceived advantages are on both as users might see them.  Pride is the path to doom after all.

Advantages of Konfabulator over DesktopX

  • Straight Forward. It does widgets. That's it. Very focused approach.

  • Default widgets work well, are slick.

  • Simple user interface - since it only does widgets it can present a consistent, clean interface.

  • Where DesktopX makes new users fumble around with concepts such as "Themes" "Objects" "Widgets", Konfabulator focuses on one thing: Widgets.

  • It is polished to the max. It's just incredibly slick. (yes, this should count for two points)

  • It has better default widgets.

  • Konfabulator has a Macintosh version so it gains the benefit of having those graphics-savvy Macintosh widget makers.

  • Konfabulator has a very vocal and supportive development community for widget makers.

Advantages of DesktopX over Konfabulator

  • Far more configurable. Users can import a widget into DesktopX and tweak it however they want.

  • DesktopX widgets are EXEs. Which means they can have their own icon and can optionally show up in the taskbar, and can be individually set to auto-run.

  • DesktopX supports creating desktop themes. A concept that isn't in Konfabulator. Essentially a user can take a snapshot of their desktop and save it as a file to use later. Or they can completely customize the way Windows looks. See a DesktopX theme in action here.

  • DesktopX supports animation. The fish widget in the screenshot couldn't be done as a Konfabulator widget. The fish swims smoothly around the screen and does so using virtually no CPU.

  • DesktopX widgets support JavaScript (like Konfabulator) but it also supports VB Script and ActiveX controls. That means things like web browser controls, flash, and other things can be made into DesktopX widgets easily.

  • DesktopX has a Pro version that enables users to export their widgets as gadgets. Gadgets, unlike widgets, do not require the user to have DesktopX installed to us. They're truly stand-alone programs. Konfabulator has nothing comparable.

  • While Konfabulator has Konpose (F8) which will bring widgets to the forefront on the desktop, DesktopX has that (F9) but also a show all/hide all widgets feature so that users can hide all their widgets from their desktop (F10). Also, DesktopX's hot keys work as toggles. hit F9 once and your widgets come to the foreground. Hit F9 again and they go back behind your windows. Konpose doesn't do this.

  • DesktopX has a run-time version that is only $14.95. That's $5 less than Konfabualtor 2.0.

This is by no means a complete list for both. Just some of the main highlights between the two.

I don't think either one will knock out the other. I think what will more likely happen is that the two will end up creating more awareness of what is a quiet revolution in the world of personal computer - the migration of things that are more than icons.  Which one is the best or more popular will depend on you.

DesktopX can be found at http://www.desktopx.net

Konfabulator can be found at http://www.konfabulator.com

Related: Widget Wars - run down of programs to widgetfy your desktop!

(updated 5/27/2005 to support DesktopX 3 and Konfabualtor 2, original written Nov 2004).

First Previous Page 3 of 4 Next Last
CerebroJD
Reply #41 Tuesday, November 9, 2004 7:55 PM
And would the memory shown in the task manager be an accurate representation of the usage then?
Abanamore
Reply #42 Tuesday, November 9, 2004 11:03 PM
Draginol,

I don't know who "these people are"... My comments only reffer to the negative article: Konfabulator for Windows vs. DesktopX and the posts made on wincustomize.com all of which are made by people with vested interest in StarDock. So as far as I can see this is not Joe User coming off the street, establishing an account and bashing Konfabulator.

As to the other stuff you spew: Fanboy? Whatever. As I said in my post earlier I hadn't even heard of Konfabulator until you guys mentioned it on your site. However, having seen the program I can now see why you (StarDock) is worried. Here is a program that is better suited for Joe User which is set to destroy all the hype you have created around desktopx. Let me explain, yours truly, Joe User, don't know VBS, JS, NET, C++, C#, etc.... I do know I like good looking objects on the desktop... Konfabulator has those a plenty (no matter what you say, or what you may pull out of wincustomize in 99.8% of the case the widgets for Konfabulator are better looking and more refined), makes them easy to use, and that is all it does... Fits my needs nicely... So why shoould I be looking at StarDock? Why indeed.... As for memory, CPU both are cheap and a plenty... All of my boxes have at least a gig of memory (yes it might not be PC4000 but heck pc2700 is fast enough for day to day use and is cheap) and are pentium 4 or Athlons... And I am sure as Konfabulator gets more mature it will get better... Just like DesktopX. Remember the disaster DEsktopX one was: "slow, memory hog, and unstable... And those are Stardock people's own words when they were urging everyone to upgrade to 2.2...

As for this advertisement for desktopx being Anti-Konfabulator... I never said that... I just said you guys need better tactics of selling your software (which BTW I described as "good" in my original post) as oppose to trying to force it down users throats... But NOW that YOU mention it on a second read this advertisement for desktopx is Anti-Konfabulator...

Your first paragraph is all about how the creators of Konfabulator were screwed and were desperate so they jumped to the PC....

When you list the pros of each program all you say for Konfabulator is "it only does widgets"... Oh you say it in 10 different ways but that is all you say...

So yes YOU are RIGHT... The advertisement for desktopx is anti-Konfabulator....

So again I ask why can't you just talk about your own product and maybe put out a chart of feature comparisons? Why do you feel the need to post 7 "news items" in four days just to say.. Hey desktopx is better... Are you hoping repettition will make it true?

TheGreenReaper: Not sure what you are tlaking about... Please explain...
CerebroJD
Reply #43 Tuesday, November 9, 2004 11:17 PM
Style XP, YzDock, AveDesk


StyleXP = System hack, illegal, and doesnt skin as much as Windowblinds. Also uses more ram. All these are facts.

YzDock = Cool program, but not in developement any longer, while ObjectDock is. OD uses less ram in an equivalent configuration. All these are facts.

AveDesk = Well built program for what it does. Works well on the widget front, as does Konfabulator Avedesk is free, and uses less ram. All these are facts.


The only one of these programs that Stardock has actively challenged is StyleXP, and thats because its something that users shouldnt have to pay for, since its a) a system hack, and available free and c) a violation of the EULA that comes with Windows. Stardock doesnt threaten, steal, or bully anyone, or any product. All statements made by Frogboy and/or Draginol are simply him pointing out the factual reasons why one product is superiour, or inferior to the other. I have done the same, and will do the same.

TasT
Reply #44 Tuesday, November 9, 2004 11:39 PM
Shadow Punk ( if you want to be Shadow lord you'll have to register with the site and quit posting annon.)

It seems that your're trying to pick a fight here. Lets look at the facts

So far I have see only fair comparison between the two proggies, both of which are in a release version.

1) The High amount of memory taken by Konfab will effect your systems even with 2 GB or ram as will the 20 or 30 mb that DX takes up on my system.

2) DX is not as user friendly. ( Brad this really will need to be addressed)

3) I you read through all the artricles that have been written by brad on the widget thing I think that you will get a better Idea of where he stands.

4)The look of the widgets are in my opinion equal if not leaning slightly towards DX and there are more and more widgets every week for both proggies so they will both have good and bad.

BTW I have been a stardock Customer for some 5 years, I did quite a bit of beta testing on DX while it was in prerelease form. However, I am not loyal to DesktopX it has upset me more than any other program out there. It has so much potiential, yet no one seems to really exploit it. _martin_ has made great strides but it seems that there still could be so much more done. Before you ask froggie, I don't really know. It's just a feeling I have. I want to like Konfab but the mass amounts of mem useage and simplicty of the program turned me off. DesktopX could learn from this though and create a simple interface for users that don't want the full power of the proggie. Basically take the widgets and give then z order options, transparency options and the such.
Abanamore
Reply #45 Tuesday, November 9, 2004 11:50 PM
TasT: Learn some manners, grow up, and then we can have an adult conversation. Save the name calling for recess.
TasT
Reply #46 Tuesday, November 9, 2004 11:53 PM
One thing that I forgot to mention, Konfab will grow and get better as will all the other widget proggies. So I would guess that the mem usage will drop for konfab in the future.
TasT
Reply #47 Tuesday, November 9, 2004 11:57 PM
It is recess at my house!

Didn't you get the memo? Oh wait that only went to registered users.....................

MonkeyNation
Reply #48 Wednesday, November 10, 2004 5:39 AM
Christ, looks like i've stepped out of the adult world and come accross some child populated rock where everyone fights about who's daddy is the best.

Honestly, for god sake, shut up with the childish bickering. I read this thread primarily to get an understanding of what konfabulator was shaping up to be like, but instead it was a painful read full of adolescent remarks. Far to much teenage angst building up here.
TheSkinsFactory
Reply #49 Wednesday, November 10, 2004 9:20 AM
This is a perfect example why third-party reviewers should be making the comparison and not the owner of one of the products. No one is going to take it seriously. There is a reason Microsoft and other companies hire third-parties to do independant reviews. It's always the same thing. Brad you will keep comparing your products to other products and you will keep inciting nasty debates while being accused of being biased (which you are. i certainly don't blame you as you own one of the products). Why don't you hire a true third party company to do a review. Now that would be something.
Draginol
Reply #50 Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:50 AM

People can take it for what it's worth.

I've seen a couple fanboys argue it's anti-Konfabualtor without giving a single specific (except Shadow who claimed that saying Konfabulator only does widgets is somehow a criticism -- that is a major advantage of Konfabulator over DesktopX, it makes its focus very clear and if you talked to anyone who used the two they would likely agree with that).  I listed advantages of both.  I don't claim to be unbiased.  People should try both and make their own decision.

But some of the things I list aren't opinions, they're facts.  Konfabulator uses about 10 megabytes currently per widget.  That's more so than most stand alone programs.  That's not "anti" Konfabulator. That's a verifiable fact.

If someone else wants to write a comparison, I'd be delighted.  One thing to point out, at least we acknowledge the existence of Konfabulator.  If you listen to Arlo's press, you would think that Konfabulator had invented this stuff and it had no competition.

Septimus
Reply #51 Tuesday, December 7, 2004 6:25 PM
Wow, shame this article got dragged down so much.

Small update, Konfab is now using 2mb's per widget. They are cleaning up the memory much more efficiently (in terms of the all important task manager details )

I'd just like to say that DX has come across in a better light though thanks to Martin, Tiggz, and Mormegil. Their releases are making a difference.

The user friendliness of DX does need to improve, its hard to say how as I don't have many issues with it, but some users with little or no DX experience need to be quizzed by Stardock in a proper evaluation to improve it.
Septimus
Reply #52 Tuesday, December 7, 2004 6:26 PM
Double post as the forum didn't update to show the start of a second page.
Frogboy
Reply #53 Tuesday, December 7, 2004 8:00 PM
Yea DesktopX 2.4 has a lot of new features that are designed to make it a lot simpler.
SuiteLife
Reply #54 Wednesday, December 8, 2004 9:44 AM
Ed Voas stated this on Konfabulator's forum on Nov 9th...
(He is one of the lead developers of the Windows Version of Konfabulator)

"In fact, we are right in line with Desktop X. I verified this this AM. For example, I looked at the Desktop X digital clock widget, and it's private memory was 4MB. A more complex K widget, The Weather, took about 4.5MB of private memory. Private memory is the memory actually allocated by the process. The number you see in Task Manager is the amount of total memory used in RAM, but this is not memory that is necessarily used. This memory includes shared libraries, etc. that are linked and loaded on app launch. Typically, this amount of space is not stuff that's actually used more than once (bringup) if at all. When the OS needs more memory, it will page this memory out and reduce the working set of the application to just what's needed. But if you have a bunch of free RAM, it won't get paged. But you don't NEED it to get paged.

So for example, that same Desktop X widget showed me:

4MB private memory
2MB working set (this is what you'll see in Task Manager)
10MB max working set

Note that last number. Considering our smaller widgets take around that or less (larger ones take more - and the more images, then certainly that's more ram), you'll note that we are not that far off. The Weather showed:

4.5M private
12 MB working
12 MB max

The difference here is that we aren't calling anything to force us to page out. When I do that, I get:

4.5 MB private
2 MB working
12 MB max

You'll note that our working set looks about the same as desktop X. If i call this API to page ourselves out every minute, I can get our working set to about 400K, but at that point, you have to page your application in every time something interesting happens. Plus if you keep paging out, you'll keep the disk access hot, potentially stopping a portable's hard disk from spinning down. So clearly that's not desired. So what I did last night was try an approach to flush ourselves to disk after we load a widget, and I don't call it again. This allows the widget to keep what it truly needs to run resident and removes the cruft from RAM.

What I am saying is true in any paged VM system. Mac OS has the same deal. If you look in top on the Mac, you'll see that some apps seem to take up ungodly amounts of memory, but a lot of this ends up being shared memory, or memory that can be paged out, RPRIV in top is the only number that really matters... it's the amount of RAM the app actually allocated. As mentioned, that number on the PC is currently around 4-5MB. And as mentioned, that number is the same as Desktop X.

In short, my point is that Task Manager shows you typically everything the process needed to run unless you got so low on ram that it needed to page the application out. On my system, that number is 12M because I have 1.25G of RAM. If you have less RAM, I'd bet that number might be lower because its paged some of the app out. And like I said, we really (from empirical evidence) only need to keep around 2-3M in RAM max to keep the app responsive and not hitting the disk. I've already made that change so that people can feel better about what they see in Task Manager, but it's just an accounting illusion. But if it makes people feel better, so be it."
SuiteLife
Reply #55 Wednesday, December 8, 2004 9:45 AM
What do others think? I just an trying to debate on buying Konfabulator. I already am using Desktop X and have been for about 2 years, but have not had a good time with it, since it crashes alot for me. Errors with different widgets and problems with widgets looking funny on the screen. Konfabulator has be perfect for the first 24 hours of used. I like what I see so far.
Frogboy
Reply #56 Friday, December 10, 2004 8:15 PM

Regardless of what Ed says, Konfabulator does use more memory.

But I don't think any of the widget enablers use a significant amount of memory in the bigger scheme of things.

That said, you're comparing the widgets that come with Konfabulator with widgets you've downloaded for DesktopX. That's not a fair comparison.  The widgets that come with DesktopX are quite solid as well. It's when you start using widgets made by others that things get to be problematic. If you stick with just Stardock certified widgets, you'll likely find that your experiences are similar.

But that shouldn't stop you from buying Konfabulator. I am a registered user of Konfabulator. And I have no problem running DesktopX, avedesk, Kapsules, Konfabulator, etc. all together.

SuiteLife
Reply #57 Wednesday, December 15, 2004 9:20 AM
I just got around to downloading DesktopX 2.4. Wow, it so much more stable than before and a cleaner interface. I think I will be running both Konfabulator and DesktopX for the time being. I am just worried still about the weather object/widget erroring out again like in the past. (One reason I like Konfabulator so much, the weather widget there has never caused any errors and it have been running since last week on stop.)
DrChemera4
Reply #58 Friday, January 7, 2005 1:42 AM
Obviously that several Konfabulator widgets dont use total 8 megs of ram but saying that every widgets constantanly for sure needs 10+ megs and so 5 widgets it is 50+ megs is what I can't agree with.
I use Konfabulator 1.8.3, I dont know maybe previous versions were that ram hog but ver. 1.8.3 is fine for me.

I have 4 widgets running (Chrome Clock, Picture Frame, mini CPU, Platonic Solids) and they occupy from 20 to 30 megs (5-7+ megs per widget, not small but I can accept it).

I've never used DesktopX so I refrain to comment this product. I use AveDesk and Konfabulator. AveDesk uses less memory and has more features in tuning of widgets/desklets (though you can't run desklet by double click on it like in Konfabulator). But widgets on Konfabulator looks slicker, more eye catching (but, imho, AveDesk apearance is still solid).

Some desklets don't exist (or simply I can't find them) on both platforms. For instance I would like to see Picture Frame on AveDesk or Animation, Folder, Shortcut widgets on Konfabulator with opportunity to change PNGs and the size of the widget.

Skinner CerebroJD

YzDock uses very little memory and since it doesn't have some functions of OD I wouldn't risk to claim that YzDock is some kind of ram hog comparing to OD. When both apps uses so little ram, ram is not an argument in "who is better". As a dock I prefer YzDock (I don't like OD magnification and how it reacts on a mouse), but I use OD plus as a tab.
Frogboy
Reply #59 Friday, January 7, 2005 10:55 AM
None of these programs use that much RAM compared to stand alone programs.
Frogboy
Reply #60 Sunday, May 29, 2005 11:40 AM

Article updated for DesktopX 3 and Konfabulator 2. 

Whether you use DesktopX or Konfabulator even Kapsules/Samurize/AveDesk, these programs can be truly useful. Widgets, by their nature, aren't just visually slick, they tend to use less memory than a full blown stand alone program.

The challenge is for the development communities to create widgets that demonstrate their usefulness.

Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

  • Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
  • Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
  • Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
  • It's simple, and FREE!



web-wc01