Litestep, dead or alive?
Saturday, November 16, 2002 by gef | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Does anyone still create Litestep themes and is it compatible with WindowsXP. I havn't tried since upgrading and I want to know if it's worth the effort.
Comments greatly appreciated!
Comments greatly appreciated!
 |
|
Page 2 of 4 | |
|
|---|
brazil
Reply #22 Saturday, November 16, 2002 7:15 PM
Reply #22 Saturday, November 16, 2002 7:15 PM
,,,so at the end of the day when a real life look at bandwidth versus downloads,LS will soon be unrepresented here I predict.If the current status remains quo LS will be used by fewer and fewer people because of "steep learning curves" or"improper configuration".Just because many fought long and hard to use LS does not mean it always has to be that way.It would seem that someone would want to fix or delete a dead link like we have on the LS page.Dead links speak much louder than words.
SuperheroCanadian
Reply #23 Saturday, November 16, 2002 7:36 PM
Reply #23 Saturday, November 16, 2002 7:36 PM
Ive been running ls for close to year, ive had my problems, but now build themes for myself, most are a combination of bar themes and "other" but its my personal funtionality. I have jump off the LS cliff and found it was only 3 feet high. Learn from mistakes than rather going to other people to complain about them =P
Jafo
Reply #24 Saturday, November 16, 2002 8:01 PM
Reply #24 Saturday, November 16, 2002 8:01 PM
brazil...
Any one of my LS themes here, by number of downloads would be in the top 10 ever at LS.net or LS.com or any of the others....why?, because Wincustomize.com is actually getting LS out into the world in far greater numbers than any of the dedicated LS sites did.
LS is still popular. It is infinitely more popular since the advent of OTS and themes coded for the system.
LS is an Open Source proggy released under the GNU Licence, and not a Stardock/Wincustomize product. Due to the transience of the LS scene, often links will fail, but technically, Wincustomize is a site which disseminates LiteSTEP themes, just as it does with WinAMP skins, but it is not the Program's Hosting site...[perhaps it should be...
], and does not have builds, modules, docs, etc,etc that actual LS-specific sites are known for. We just try to link to one of them which often has more ups and downs than a honeymoon...
Baker, there is a fail-safe for LiteSTEP...has been for a few years. It's called 'ShellON'.
Even in XP there is nothing better than 'Ctrl/Shift/Esc' and killing a recalcitrant LS and having ShellON popup and offer you the option to reload LS or Exploder or whatever other shells you may have...[I currently have 5, Exploder, 3 separate Litesteps, and Hoverdesk].
A few years ago [in Win98] I tried an installer...but couldn't see the point, when all my 'themes' at the time were self-contained, functional shells and all you had to do was unzip the things to 'C' with relative paths, change one line in system.ini or point to LS in ShellON and that was that...
Any one of my LS themes here, by number of downloads would be in the top 10 ever at LS.net or LS.com or any of the others....why?, because Wincustomize.com is actually getting LS out into the world in far greater numbers than any of the dedicated LS sites did.
LS is still popular. It is infinitely more popular since the advent of OTS and themes coded for the system.
LS is an Open Source proggy released under the GNU Licence, and not a Stardock/Wincustomize product. Due to the transience of the LS scene, often links will fail, but technically, Wincustomize is a site which disseminates LiteSTEP themes, just as it does with WinAMP skins, but it is not the Program's Hosting site...[perhaps it should be...
], and does not have builds, modules, docs, etc,etc that actual LS-specific sites are known for. We just try to link to one of them which often has more ups and downs than a honeymoon...
Baker, there is a fail-safe for LiteSTEP...has been for a few years. It's called 'ShellON'.
Even in XP there is nothing better than 'Ctrl/Shift/Esc' and killing a recalcitrant LS and having ShellON popup and offer you the option to reload LS or Exploder or whatever other shells you may have...[I currently have 5, Exploder, 3 separate Litesteps, and Hoverdesk].
A few years ago [in Win98] I tried an installer...but couldn't see the point, when all my 'themes' at the time were self-contained, functional shells and all you had to do was unzip the things to 'C' with relative paths, change one line in system.ini or point to LS in ShellON and that was that...
bakerstreet
Reply #25 Saturday, November 16, 2002 8:18 PM
Reply #25 Saturday, November 16, 2002 8:18 PM
Jafo: Yeah, that is what I am getting at, really. Why not have ShellOn functionality built in? I used a similar shell-switcher when I was using LS before, and it did the same for me.
brazil
Reply #26 Saturday, November 16, 2002 8:20 PM
Reply #26 Saturday, November 16, 2002 8:20 PM
When Mr. Bandwidth and Mrs. Bigbucks finally sleep together, LiteStep will be talked about.This is the only thing about LS I am sure of.
Snowman
Reply #27 Saturday, November 16, 2002 8:43 PM
Reply #27 Saturday, November 16, 2002 8:43 PM
brazil: nah it just generally annoyed me 
So I visited Hoverdesk.net and have stayed there ever since
So I visited Hoverdesk.net and have stayed there ever since
brazil
Reply #29 Saturday, November 16, 2002 9:52 PM
Reply #29 Saturday, November 16, 2002 9:52 PM
Thanks for the tip Madam Snowman,I have never tried HD.LS annoyed me as well.I thought the look and concept were for me, but even when I got a "theme" to load I got a hundred freaky warning screens telling me what the "OTS theme" I was trying to load was missing.Tried to get out and walla,frozen on every reboot,no way home.It,LS,seems to have eaten Bryan King.He loaded it on XP and the last post we got from him sounded like he was taking on water.Never to be heard from again so far.I also have noticed the lack of comments on LS themes and I have to wonder how many of these people loaded it like everything else on the WC Browser only to be hobbled on reboot.Then,after recovery, go to the page where you downloaded the theme to try and get help and click, no page to be displayed.Very poorly supported here and there.The kind of money needed to make a site like this fly will need mainstream money not fringe coinage.Either LS will join the cause or the Bandwidth Hogz gonna eat it,,and when it does the Litestepers will have no one to blame but themselves for ignoring the crys for help to crush the 'Steep learning curve"
gef
Reply #30 Sunday, November 17, 2002 3:55 AM
Reply #30 Sunday, November 17, 2002 3:55 AM
So, judging by the comments received, the concensus seems to be that Litestep causes many people problems and so do not use it. The 29 replies have been from only 8 people - very good comments but not a very wide range of users.............. I'll wait awhile and see what happens next.
Many thanks for the interest.
Many thanks for the interest.
craeonics
Reply #31 Sunday, November 17, 2002 6:10 AM
Reply #31 Sunday, November 17, 2002 6:10 AM
The concensus is that LiteStep causes brazil problems (as does the space bar), while everyone else says it runs a-okay.
Thing is: LiteStep is for power users. If you're not comfortable with your machine, you shouldn't run it. Documentation and what not is out there, you just have to dig deep these days.
Experiment-ware so to speak (as opposed to one-click-install-ware).
Thing is: LiteStep is for power users. If you're not comfortable with your machine, you shouldn't run it. Documentation and what not is out there, you just have to dig deep these days.
Experiment-ware so to speak (as opposed to one-click-install-ware).
craeonics
Reply #32 Sunday, November 17, 2002 6:13 AM
Reply #32 Sunday, November 17, 2002 6:13 AM
Another thing: LiteStep themes are very author dependent (shortcuts used and what not), so they're not very portable or usable to others. Perhaps this is why people are contnent with tweaking their own themes and feel little need to upload them.
Snowman
Reply #33 Sunday, November 17, 2002 6:29 AM
Reply #33 Sunday, November 17, 2002 6:29 AM
bakerman: HvD CAN be used as shell, you just won't have the systray + some other "normal" windows thingys... but hey.. who needs'em anyways
gef: I don't think that LS it self is the cause for all the problems mentioned. I do believe that it is a "Fail 40", as in wrong/faulty "installation" of LS that causes these problems! If LS ain't setup correct it might "blow up" your system. First time I tried LS was two or three years ago before the OTS was "invented" and you had to edit like 117 diff system files in order to get it to load/work. Gave me a great deal of hairloss and sleepless nights
gef: I don't think that LS it self is the cause for all the problems mentioned. I do believe that it is a "Fail 40", as in wrong/faulty "installation" of LS that causes these problems! If LS ain't setup correct it might "blow up" your system. First time I tried LS was two or three years ago before the OTS was "invented" and you had to edit like 117 diff system files in order to get it to load/work. Gave me a great deal of hairloss and sleepless nights
MarkMcQ
Reply #34 Sunday, November 17, 2002 7:15 AM
Reply #34 Sunday, November 17, 2002 7:15 AM
Most LS themes that need configured before use come with a readme file (Surprising how many people don't actually bother to read it though, then they complain that things don't work) that points out all the parts that need to be edited.
What it all comes down to nowadays, is that a lot of people want the results, but aren't prepared to put in the time to read the documents, and make sure everything is set up properly beforehand.It's a shame, becuase that little bit of preperation, usually gives the good reward of having your desktop looking snazzy, and providing some excellent theme-specific features.
What it all comes down to nowadays, is that a lot of people want the results, but aren't prepared to put in the time to read the documents, and make sure everything is set up properly beforehand.It's a shame, becuase that little bit of preperation, usually gives the good reward of having your desktop looking snazzy, and providing some excellent theme-specific features.
gef
Reply #35 Sunday, November 17, 2002 9:26 AM
Reply #35 Sunday, November 17, 2002 9:26 AM
To clarify the initial question. Personally, I find Litestep quite easy, that wasn't the question. I just wanted to know if many people were interested enough for me or anyone else for that matter, to go to the trouble of creating a theme. I havn't tried since the old '98 days and wasn't sure if XP posed any problems.
JamMeister33
Reply #36 Sunday, November 17, 2002 9:29 AM
Reply #36 Sunday, November 17, 2002 9:29 AM
I've never used Litestep, never seen it, never knew it existed until I came to this site...
moshi
Reply #37 Sunday, November 17, 2002 1:27 PM
Reply #37 Sunday, November 17, 2002 1:27 PM
gef: when XP was new LiteStep had some problems with the systray. of course LiteStep development has not stopped and the systray works fine now
some modules work under XP/2K only (eycandy stuff as per-pixel alpha-blending). examples are layercut.dll, grdtransparent.dll
your graphics have always been some of the really beautiful around, so i´m pretty sure a lot of people would appreciate new stuff from you please have a look at layercut.dll btw.
been to lsthemes.com recently?
some modules work under XP/2K only (eycandy stuff as per-pixel alpha-blending). examples are layercut.dll, grdtransparent.dll
your graphics have always been some of the really beautiful around, so i´m pretty sure a lot of people would appreciate new stuff from you
please have a look at layercut.dll btw.been to lsthemes.com recently?
gef
Reply #38 Sunday, November 17, 2002 2:15 PM
Reply #38 Sunday, November 17, 2002 2:15 PM
moshi - Thanks for the info and update. Just what I needed. I havn't visited lsthemes recently,I'll go there now.
Jafo
Reply #39 Sunday, November 17, 2002 8:34 PM
Reply #39 Sunday, November 17, 2002 8:34 PM
For a 'normal' user, who has the capacity to read and comprehend, LiteSTEP will not create any problems.
People themeing for LiteSTEP naturally run the risk of doing 'odd' things while coding and can expect a bit more 'fun', but so too would Joe Average delving into Explorer.exe with a copy of Reshacker.
A MS OS is quite capable of giving 'trouble' with or without the assistance of an alternate shell.
Win2000 and XP both created problems for LiteSTEP's systray but it wasn't too long before that was sorted.
Shell handling in a NT-based OS requires registry mods, rather than via system.ini as in Win9x, and the 'moron's solution to LS in NT' [the one I personally use...
] is to handle that with ShellON. Works for me....
People themeing for LiteSTEP naturally run the risk of doing 'odd' things while coding and can expect a bit more 'fun', but so too would Joe Average delving into Explorer.exe with a copy of Reshacker.
A MS OS is quite capable of giving 'trouble' with or without the assistance of an alternate shell.
Win2000 and XP both created problems for LiteSTEP's systray but it wasn't too long before that was sorted.
Shell handling in a NT-based OS requires registry mods, rather than via system.ini as in Win9x, and the 'moron's solution to LS in NT' [the one I personally use...
] is to handle that with ShellON. Works for me....
mrbiotech
Reply #40 Wednesday, November 20, 2002 5:18 AM
Reply #40 Wednesday, November 20, 2002 5:18 AM
I've found LiteStep to be an extremely configurable environment with a lot of goodies. For the common user, however, the coding gets to be a little too much (spend more time tweaking the RC files than enjoying the GUI). I have never been able to get it to run for more than four hours without a completely irreversible hang-up. 
Don't skin for LiteStep. Skin for Object Desktop. LiteStep, Bad. Object Desktop, Good. Bad bad good bad, good good bad. Bad.
Don't skin for LiteStep. Skin for Object Desktop. LiteStep, Bad. Object Desktop, Good. Bad bad good bad, good good bad. Bad.
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!
|
|
Page 2 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Saturday, November 16, 2002 7:13 PM
Stardock does good work, and it would no doubt do a great job with LS, but shell replacement is an area that would be pretty unprofitable. In the 95/98 days, it was *very* beneficial to replace the Explorer shell, and there weren't a lot of system resources to run shell-like apps *over* Explorer. Now, the basic Windows shell is much more stable, and there are heaps of resources to run things like DesktopX over it. That leaves less reason to replace the shell, and so less demand for shell replacements, I suppose.