Are Stardock aps resource hogs?
Monday, December 9, 2002 by ShrededHumanz | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
Seriously I bought OD in July but dont use it because it seems to be a resource hog. I like Windowblinds and Icon Packager. My question is do these two aps consume alot or what?
I have a G4 Ti 4600 and 512 MB of RAM on a P3 @ 866MhZ.
I more or less run XP for games, FreeBSD and Linux for everything else. If one of you could answer this question I would appreciate it.
I have a G4 Ti 4600 and 512 MB of RAM on a P3 @ 866MhZ.
I more or less run XP for games, FreeBSD and Linux for everything else. If one of you could answer this question I would appreciate it.
 |
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Koasati
Reply #2 Monday, December 9, 2002 9:18 PM
Reply #2 Monday, December 9, 2002 9:18 PM
I have an old PII 450, 384megs of ram......
WindowBlinds is using 3.7 megs right now
I opened IconPackager just to check..... it's now using 4.4 megs.......... CursorXP is using 2.7 megs. That's a total of 10.8 megs....... no big deal, and IP is only open when I use it.
I don't consider this resources hogging.
WindowBlinds is using 3.7 megs right now
I opened IconPackager just to check..... it's now using 4.4 megs.......... CursorXP is using 2.7 megs. That's a total of 10.8 megs....... no big deal, and IP is only open when I use it.
I don't consider this resources hogging.
Jafo
Reply #3 Monday, December 9, 2002 9:28 PM
Reply #3 Monday, December 9, 2002 9:28 PM
Shoot, I'm still running some OD apps on a PII 350, 256 ram, W98 and you're worried about resources???
XP's far better at resource and memory mgt than w98 so why the concern? Have you had any actual problems or issues when running the apps? I'd say WB isn't a resource hog on W98. Haven't run IconPackager on W98, so can't say myself. But if these apps run OK on older, less powerful machines with 98, they should do even that much better on your machine with XP.
by sig101 - 12/9/2002 9:23:19 PM
Relocated from duplicate thread...
XP's far better at resource and memory mgt than w98 so why the concern? Have you had any actual problems or issues when running the apps? I'd say WB isn't a resource hog on W98. Haven't run IconPackager on W98, so can't say myself. But if these apps run OK on older, less powerful machines with 98, they should do even that much better on your machine with XP.
by sig101 - 12/9/2002 9:23:19 PM
Relocated from duplicate thread...
Frogboy
Reply #4 Monday, December 9, 2002 9:50 PM
Reply #4 Monday, December 9, 2002 9:50 PM
IconPackager uses no resources whatsoever -- it applies icons. It doesn't stay in memory. WindowBlinds uses about the same amount of memory as Notepad.
Aqua.
Reply #5 Monday, December 9, 2002 9:53 PM
Reply #5 Monday, December 9, 2002 9:53 PM
I ran it just fine on an emachines 333mhz celeron and 32mb ram.
If it's slowing you down, there's something wrong with your system, not your hardware.
If it's slowing you down, there's something wrong with your system, not your hardware.
Jafo
Reply #6 Monday, December 9, 2002 10:04 PM
Reply #6 Monday, December 9, 2002 10:04 PM
I first used WB on a P100 with 8meg of ram...in Win95....and a wild 1meg Trident card...
ShrededHumanz
Reply #8 Monday, December 9, 2002 10:13 PM
Reply #8 Monday, December 9, 2002 10:13 PM
Thank you all for your quick responses. I stripped XP services down for gaming, but notepad is more than exceptable. I do like it so I'll reinstall. Jafo> Use Cacheman on your set up it'll work wonders. My old sys had 98/166MhZ/96MB of RAM on a 2G HDD, and Cacheman made it tollerable. 
Once thank you all for your time.
I stripped XP services down for gaming, but notepad is more than exceptable. I do like it so I'll reinstall. Jafo> Use Cacheman on your set up it'll work wonders. My old sys had 98/166MhZ/96MB of RAM on a 2G HDD, and Cacheman made it tollerable. 
Once thank you all for your time.
paxx
Reply #9 Monday, December 9, 2002 11:03 PM
Reply #9 Monday, December 9, 2002 11:03 PM
A few things about Windowblinds: some skins use more resources than others, so if resources are a concern, shop for UIS1 skins, I believe they are the one using the less resources.
Also, if you have an anti-virus software, make sure it doesn't scan every file all the time (Norton calls this "comprehensive"), but only the ones that have potentially harmfull extensions. Otherwise, the antivirus will scan all the graphics of the skin everytime a window opens, which will considerably slow down your system.
Also, if you have an anti-virus software, make sure it doesn't scan every file all the time (Norton calls this "comprehensive"), but only the ones that have potentially harmfull extensions. Otherwise, the antivirus will scan all the graphics of the skin everytime a window opens, which will considerably slow down your system.
Angel_Wings
Reply #10 Monday, December 9, 2002 11:18 PM
Reply #10 Monday, December 9, 2002 11:18 PM
Hmmmmmmm.
Skinning can be likened to "make-up"
The girl that gets up and scrubs her face fresh and clean with no make-up gets out the door easy peasy BUT the girl that decides she'd like to curl her eyelashes and put on some eyeshadow and blush and curl her straight hair...well...he-he
Now, you may prefer the girl with the fresh scrubbed "natural face" or ya may like the "super-model made-up face" and so it's all about how much ya want it and if you don't mind waitin' for it. The natural girl will come down the stairs ready for your date and the "made up" girl will make you wait!
Get the "picture"
Skinning can be likened to "make-up"
The girl that gets up and scrubs her face fresh and clean with no make-up gets out the door easy peasy BUT the girl that decides she'd like to curl her eyelashes and put on some eyeshadow and blush and curl her straight hair...well...he-he
Now, you may prefer the girl with the fresh scrubbed "natural face" or ya may like the "super-model made-up face" and so it's all about how much ya want it and if you don't mind waitin' for it. The natural girl will come down the stairs ready for your date and the "made up" girl will make you wait!
Get the "picture"
paxx
Reply #11 Tuesday, December 10, 2002 5:35 AM
Reply #11 Tuesday, December 10, 2002 5:35 AM
Oh, and BTW, if you are running Windows XP, it is likely that Windowblinds will actually run faster than the "native" XP skins.
Of course the "Classic" theme is the fastest of them all.
Of course the "Classic" theme is the fastest of them all.
Jafo
Reply #12 Tuesday, December 10, 2002 6:15 AM
Reply #12 Tuesday, December 10, 2002 6:15 AM
legnA_liveD....[darn these backward types]....so why is it my wife wears no make-up yet I STILL have to wait forever for her?
I see a flaw in your explanation here...
I see a flaw in your explanation here...
ShrededHumanz
Reply #13 Tuesday, December 10, 2002 11:47 PM
Reply #13 Tuesday, December 10, 2002 11:47 PM
I went back to classic for XP but I'am using IconPackager. Rapunzels analogy summed it up. I'll take the fresh scrubbed-face girl anyday . Besides I can tweak away till my hearts content on *nix. Its one of it's many advantages.
. Besides I can tweak away till my hearts content on *nix. Its one of it's many advantages.
snowzone5
Reply #14 Wednesday, December 11, 2002 12:11 AM
Reply #14 Wednesday, December 11, 2002 12:11 AM
i'm still using a pII/350 with 384meg of ram...it's on win2k (which i got specifically for the alpha blending
i have an average of 128meg free all the time, and i run the seti@home client...everything is still pretty snappy...
i have an average of 128meg free all the time, and i run the seti@home client...everything is still pretty snappy...
Azlon
Reply #15 Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:20 PM
Reply #15 Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:20 PM
Look, I have a virus free system with a 1.2 ghz AMD Duron Processor, 384 megs of ram and a GeForce 4 MX 420. Running Windows XP Pro, and Stardock apps ARE problematic for system performance. I dont know how they are doing it but they are absolutely homicidal to my system. Lightwave 7 only requires 128 megs. it runs like a dream on my system, but with nothing else running besides ObjectBar and WindowBlinds, Any program I run (and especialy Lightwave) crash. and this result is as consistant as gravity. This is a serious problem. this is why I only use Object Dock. Its the only one that doesnt cause trouble
WOM
Reply #16 Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:36 PM
Reply #16 Thursday, December 12, 2002 3:36 PM
AWith windowblinds, Photp Shop and SysMetrix running plus whatever is open on startup, I'am only using 256meg of ram. Most of that will be for Photo Shop. Thats on an AMD 1700 with XP and 1 gig of ram.
Emmitt_Nervend
Reply #17 Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:21 PM
Reply #17 Thursday, December 12, 2002 5:21 PM
Azlon:
It surely sounds like something is amiss with your system! The only app that consistently crashes for ME when skinned with WB is WordPerfect 2002 (which I loathe. but my girlfriend insists on using). I also find THAT depends on the skin It's one of very few apps I've had to add to the WB exclusions.
I'm running XP pro, also, Athlon XP 1.47 GHz (aka 1700+) GeForce3 Ti300...hardly a powerhouse today. I have WindowBlinds, ObjectDock, DesktopX, WindowsFX (in maximum eye candy mode)AND ObjectBar running, not a complaint, whether I had 512 or 1Gig RAM). And don't get me started on all the OTHER apps I have running in the background. The only problem I had was that some apps didn't like having their menubars taken over by ObjectDock. All *that* needed to fix was to be added to OB's exclusions.
Just for giggles, I recently relaced Exploder ... uh .. Explorer ... as my shell, using litestep instead. Explorer used 4x the memory than litestep does with the exact same configuration. System was fast before, feels even faster now.
Have you considered shutting down all the BS services MicroSloth insists on installing in XP? Here's where to go to find out what is safe to kill...and it DOES make a difference, btw:
http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm
It surely sounds like something is amiss with your system! The only app that consistently crashes for ME when skinned with WB is WordPerfect 2002 (which I loathe. but my girlfriend insists on using). I also find THAT depends on the skin It's one of very few apps I've had to add to the WB exclusions.
I'm running XP pro, also, Athlon XP 1.47 GHz (aka 1700+) GeForce3 Ti300...hardly a powerhouse today. I have WindowBlinds, ObjectDock, DesktopX, WindowsFX (in maximum eye candy mode)AND ObjectBar running, not a complaint, whether I had 512 or 1Gig RAM). And don't get me started on all the OTHER apps I have running in the background. The only problem I had was that some apps didn't like having their menubars taken over by ObjectDock. All *that* needed to fix was to be added to OB's exclusions.
Just for giggles, I recently relaced Exploder ... uh .. Explorer ... as my shell, using litestep instead. Explorer used 4x the memory than litestep does with the exact same configuration. System was fast before, feels even faster now.
Have you considered shutting down all the BS services MicroSloth insists on installing in XP? Here's where to go to find out what is safe to kill...and it DOES make a difference, btw:
http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm
Jafo
Reply #18 Thursday, December 12, 2002 10:32 PM
Reply #18 Thursday, December 12, 2002 10:32 PM
Azlon...it's possible that your virus checker is scanning the WB skins each time they load up...that could be something....also graphic card drivers need to be 'hassle-free'.
My first use of WB was on Win95 and 8meg of ram [EDO] on a P100...if that could handle WB then I'm sure your gizmo 'should'...
My first use of WB was on Win95 and 8meg of ram [EDO] on a P100...if that could handle WB then I'm sure your gizmo 'should'...
Koasati
Reply #19 Friday, December 13, 2002 8:54 AM
Reply #19 Friday, December 13, 2002 8:54 AM
Here's another excellent guide for shutting down unnecessary services in XP...
http://www.deviantpc.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1926
and turning off the indexing service for 'faster searches' made a huge difference on my machine.
http://www.deviantpc.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1926
and turning off the indexing service for 'faster searches' made a huge difference on my machine.
Frogboy
Reply #20 Friday, December 13, 2002 11:49 AM
Reply #20 Friday, December 13, 2002 11:49 AM
Virus scanners often interfere with customization software (not just Stardock software) because they extend the shell and load up files and have to do so often and on the fly. Certain virus scanners mark this as virus-like behavior and scan this as it occurs which can be very detrimental to performance.
I wish there was a way to prevent this but so far, we've not had much luck. Which virus scanner are you using?
Just as an example, on my laptop (that I'm typing this on) is a P3-600mhz system. I'm running WindowBlinds, ObjectBar, DesktopX, CursorXP and ControlCenter. The system is essentially the asme speed as it would be without them. But I don't have any virus scanners running in the background.
I wish there was a way to prevent this but so far, we've not had much luck. Which virus scanner are you using?
Just as an example, on my laptop (that I'm typing this on) is a P3-600mhz system. I'm running WindowBlinds, ObjectBar, DesktopX, CursorXP and ControlCenter. The system is essentially the asme speed as it would be without them. But I don't have any virus scanners running in the background.
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 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Monday, December 9, 2002 9:13 PM