How Cheap Computers are turbo-charging Skinning!
Sunday, December 1, 2002 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
I just purchased a new machine for KamaGirl yesterday.
It was $700 and came with:
+ 1.7 Ghz CPU
+ 512 MB of RAM
+ Geforce 4 video card
+ 20 gigabyte hard drive
+ Windows XP Professional
(no monitor)
Dell also has computers (with monitor) that are around $700 also but don't have as much expandability as this one or quite as much memory.
In 1992, a top of the line system was a 486DX-33 with 8 megabytes of RAM. If you got OS/2, it used up about 4 megabytes of that leaving 4 megabytes for everything else.
In 1999, a good system was a Pentium III 1-ghz system with 256MB of RAM. If you had Windows NT 4, it used up around 80 megs of that (about 1/3rd of the system).
And both of the above systems cost around $2000.
So now at 1/3rd the price you get a system in which only 1/5th the RAM is used by the OS.
Which makes me think of two things:
1) Wow! No wonder Windows customization is taking off - computers are getting so powerful and so cheap.
2) What's the deal with these people who get anal about whether a program uses 15 megabytes of RAM rather than 8 megabytes? Do they need to ask their mom for a higher allowance or something?
Shouldn't it be about making the computer do what you want as long as it doesn't slow things down so that you can't get things done as the speed you want?
It was $700 and came with:
+ 1.7 Ghz CPU
+ 512 MB of RAM
+ Geforce 4 video card
+ 20 gigabyte hard drive
+ Windows XP Professional
(no monitor)
Dell also has computers (with monitor) that are around $700 also but don't have as much expandability as this one or quite as much memory.
In 1992, a top of the line system was a 486DX-33 with 8 megabytes of RAM. If you got OS/2, it used up about 4 megabytes of that leaving 4 megabytes for everything else.
In 1999, a good system was a Pentium III 1-ghz system with 256MB of RAM. If you had Windows NT 4, it used up around 80 megs of that (about 1/3rd of the system).
And both of the above systems cost around $2000.
So now at 1/3rd the price you get a system in which only 1/5th the RAM is used by the OS.
Which makes me think of two things:
1) Wow! No wonder Windows customization is taking off - computers are getting so powerful and so cheap.
2) What's the deal with these people who get anal about whether a program uses 15 megabytes of RAM rather than 8 megabytes? Do they need to ask their mom for a higher allowance or something?
Shouldn't it be about making the computer do what you want as long as it doesn't slow things down so that you can't get things done as the speed you want? 
Lord Vimal
Reply #2 Sunday, December 1, 2002 2:08 PM
Reply #2 Sunday, December 1, 2002 2:08 PM
hey..this is in AMERICA.
for example:
X-BOX is about $200 in america (in Kuwaiti Dinar: about 60 KD)
but here, in kuwait, it is about 150 to 200 KD!
a geforce 4 ti 4600 is about 150 KD or about 500 bucks...
same with PS2...
there is a 3GHZ PIV in America,
here, the fastest one available is only 2.4 GHZ...
so, your location matters
for example:
X-BOX is about $200 in america (in Kuwaiti Dinar: about 60 KD)
but here, in kuwait, it is about 150 to 200 KD!
a geforce 4 ti 4600 is about 150 KD or about 500 bucks...
same with PS2...
there is a 3GHZ PIV in America,
here, the fastest one available is only 2.4 GHZ...
so, your location matters
moshi
Reply #3 Sunday, December 1, 2002 2:12 PM
Reply #3 Sunday, December 1, 2002 2:12 PM
if anybody thinks, Linux skinning sucks, please look at this new Enlightenment/GTK theme by Pixelmasochist (aka Babyhead):
http://www.deviantart.com/view/946110
has Pixtudio quality
http://www.deviantart.com/view/946110
has Pixtudio quality
sig101
Reply #5 Sunday, December 1, 2002 6:54 PM Hiya Frogboy. Yup it is amazing. I finally (now that SP1 is out) bought a new P4 2Ghz PC with 512 Ram with XP to replace my PII 350 with W98. Still, this new PC cost much less than the PII did 4 years ago.
As an aside, while I was really happy with what WindowBlinds, etc did for my old W98 PC (with its hardware and software limitations) with the new hardware and XP now I can really appreciate the work of the Stardock programmers and the artists here and elsewhere. (Note: not just the skinners but the wallpaper people too.
) It's fantastic! 
As for "ram hogging" software....in part the concern is a leftover from when people really did have to watch their resource use with the W9x family. But for myself, I think I still prefer efficient apps when possible. The improvement in hardware capacities and resource use has encouraged "bloatware" IMO and a part of me still thinks that a portion of that is due to sloppy programming. It depends on what the app does, of course. Graphic intensive stuff I would expect to use more resources. But an AV? Different case. Still it's really nice to not have to closely monitor that sort of thing as I did before. Nevertheless, I still disable unneeded services and things I don't want to run on startup. Old habits....
Reply #5 Sunday, December 1, 2002 6:54 PM
Hiya Frogboy. Yup it is amazing. I finally (now that SP1 is out) bought a new P4 2Ghz PC with 512 Ram with XP to replace my PII 350 with W98. Still, this new PC cost much less than the PII did 4 years ago. As an aside, while I was really happy with what WindowBlinds, etc did for my old W98 PC (with its hardware and software limitations) with the new hardware and XP now I can really appreciate the work of the Stardock programmers and the artists here and elsewhere. (Note: not just the skinners but the wallpaper people too.
) It's fantastic! 
As for "ram hogging" software....in part the concern is a leftover from when people really did have to watch their resource use with the W9x family. But for myself, I think I still prefer efficient apps when possible. The improvement in hardware capacities and resource use has encouraged "bloatware" IMO and a part of me still thinks that a portion of that is due to sloppy programming. It depends on what the app does, of course. Graphic intensive stuff I would expect to use more resources. But an AV? Different case. Still it's really nice to not have to closely monitor that sort of thing as I did before. Nevertheless, I still disable unneeded services and things I don't want to run on startup. Old habits....
bmetelsky
Reply #6 Sunday, December 1, 2002 8:28 PM
Reply #6 Sunday, December 1, 2002 8:28 PM
It is nice that prices have come down in the past few years overall. I bought my Dell for under $1000 and have been very happy with it. It's also a breeze to upgrade, the case just pops open with a button - no screws to mess with and everything is pretty easy to access.
Frogboy
Reply #7 Sunday, December 1, 2002 8:49 PM
Reply #7 Sunday, December 1, 2002 8:49 PM
Moshi, I don't agree with your premise. I don't think Linux has better themes or skins overall. There are SOME excellent themes available for Linux but I nothing better than what I've seen on Windows.
That skin you show could be done as a WindowBlinds skin for instance.
But that's really not germane to the topic at hand. In the past year, with Windows XP now available and computers incredibly cheap, skinning has become much more mainstream because the resources these programs use is absolute while the percent they use of a typical system decreases.
That skin you show could be done as a WindowBlinds skin for instance.
But that's really not germane to the topic at hand. In the past year, with Windows XP now available and computers incredibly cheap, skinning has become much more mainstream because the resources these programs use is absolute while the percent they use of a typical system decreases.
Angel_Wings
Reply #8 Sunday, December 1, 2002 9:21 PM
Reply #8 Sunday, December 1, 2002 9:21 PM
*deep breath*
Okay, here goes...
RAM usage really isn't too big of a deal with WB (I think I might've mistakenly stated that in a previous thread), I mean, even on my slowest old slug of a win95 puter WB worked swimmingly ol’ chap, but...
The only thing that keeps me from utilizing the Windowblinds app now is this:
Load time on restart (okay, so I’m impatient)…
And, the dreaded “Taskbar takeover”. I keep my taskbar with tons of quick launch shortcuts (see example: http://www.darkseraphim.com/taskbar.jpg)and I double up my taskbar...not only does restart re-level my taskbar to one level but if I use certain windowblinds with certain styles…I have to unlock my XP toolbar and readjust it to fit accordingly and then relock it (yeah I’m persnickety)…but it drives me a bit bonkers.
I very, mucho-mucho love eye candy…but I don’t wanna have to fuss with it on a constant basis.
I think this is more of an XP thing because I always did the same with my WIN 95, WIN 98 and Win ME and never had a WB sitch like that…
But, anyhoo…just my two 'sense' worth.
Still luv ya guys!
Okay, here goes...
RAM usage really isn't too big of a deal with WB (I think I might've mistakenly stated that in a previous thread), I mean, even on my slowest old slug of a win95 puter WB worked swimmingly ol’ chap, but...
The only thing that keeps me from utilizing the Windowblinds app now is this:
Load time on restart (okay, so I’m impatient)…
And, the dreaded “Taskbar takeover”. I keep my taskbar with tons of quick launch shortcuts (see example: http://www.darkseraphim.com/taskbar.jpg)and I double up my taskbar...not only does restart re-level my taskbar to one level but if I use certain windowblinds with certain styles…I have to unlock my XP toolbar and readjust it to fit accordingly and then relock it (yeah I’m persnickety)…but it drives me a bit bonkers.
I very, mucho-mucho love eye candy…but I don’t wanna have to fuss with it on a constant basis.
I think this is more of an XP thing because I always did the same with my WIN 95, WIN 98 and Win ME and never had a WB sitch like that…
But, anyhoo…just my two 'sense' worth.
Still luv ya guys!
moshi
Reply #9 Sunday, December 1, 2002 9:26 PM
Reply #9 Sunday, December 1, 2002 9:26 PM
i did not say that Linux has better skins. i was talking about the programs that do the Window skinning. they seem to need less powerful computers to work properly.
i know that this skin can be done for WindowBlinds. actually some should do that, Nathan (who did it) is a very nice and humble guy and i´m pretty sure he would give permission for a port. i was just showing an example, because the two news posts i remember from here and the GUI Olympics on Linux skinning, showed some of the most fugly examples
maybe i felt this:
"Do they need to ask their mom for a higher allowance or something?"
was a little directed to me because i do care about resource use. i work for my money btw., i´m a little too old to ask my mum
i know that this skin can be done for WindowBlinds. actually some should do that, Nathan (who did it) is a very nice and humble guy and i´m pretty sure he would give permission for a port. i was just showing an example, because the two news posts i remember from here and the GUI Olympics on Linux skinning, showed some of the most fugly examples
maybe i felt this:
"Do they need to ask their mom for a higher allowance or something?"
was a little directed to me because i do care about resource use. i work for my money btw., i´m a little too old to ask my mum
Doreen
Reply #10 Sunday, December 1, 2002 9:55 PM
Reply #10 Sunday, December 1, 2002 9:55 PM
700 bucks? Javagirl you need to learn how to play some hard ball... hehe
but yes 700 will def get you more these days for sures! (soon they will be giving them away and everyone will be on a pocket pc)
pocket pc's are as much as a desktop now...
but yes 700 will def get you more these days for sures! (soon they will be giving them away and everyone will be on a pocket pc)
pocket pc's are as much as a desktop now...
Aqua.
Reply #11 Sunday, December 1, 2002 10:34 PM
Reply #11 Sunday, December 1, 2002 10:34 PM
You spent $700 on that? Sheesh, you should have been able to get that for $500 or less.
Frogboy
Reply #13 Sunday, December 1, 2002 10:39 PM
Reply #13 Sunday, December 1, 2002 10:39 PM
Linux needs less powerful computers than Windows XP.
Litestep, DesktopX, WindowBlinds are all very very light on system resources, memory usage, in absolute terms.
Litestep, DesktopX, WindowBlinds are all very very light on system resources, memory usage, in absolute terms.
Aqua.
Reply #14 Sunday, December 1, 2002 11:05 PM
Reply #14 Sunday, December 1, 2002 11:05 PM
I have no problems whatsoever with the memory footprint of object desktop products.
Check out http://www.3dna.net totally awesome desktop replacement, but it takes up between 70mb and 90mb of ram. (Which is way too much)
Check out http://www.3dna.net totally awesome desktop replacement, but it takes up between 70mb and 90mb of ram. (Which is way too much)
TheSkinsFactory
Reply #15 Monday, December 2, 2002 12:40 AM
Reply #15 Monday, December 2, 2002 12:40 AM
Brad: Next time try Tiger Direct. You can get even more for the money.
Griffinme
Reply #16 Monday, December 2, 2002 2:18 AM
Reply #16 Monday, December 2, 2002 2:18 AM
I am currently using a second hard drive for the swap file with XP. The hard drive is set to spin down if it is not used for 5min. With 384 megs of ram and several aps running the drive spends most of its time sleeping.
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!
Reply #1 Sunday, December 1, 2002 2:04 PM
is Linux just the better OS for skinning or do it´s window managers have better programmers? a combination of Enlightenment or Sawfish with GTK offers the same customization as WindowBlinds and runs fast and stable on really poor systems
btw: not everybody has the same preferences. i for example buy a new pair of skis every year. that´s far more important to me than the little machine at home