Windowblinds is a HOG!
Monday, December 23, 2002 by SpeedTek | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
This is a gorgeous program, it can do so much to the boring old windows interface, but I have to say it is gone from my system. WHen I can run COSBI benchmarks 5 times faster without this program installed, it's gotta go. Has anybody else seen this, or have I missed something? Is there a setting that will run this program without using up all the resources on your comp? (Style XP does)
 |
|
Page 2 of 2 | |
|
|---|
bmetelsky
Reply #22 Monday, December 23, 2002 10:33 PM
Reply #22 Monday, December 23, 2002 10:33 PM
I have been using windowblinds for years now and can safely say that any of the version(s) 3.* have been extremely stable and have not slowed my computer down noticeably. I can't say that for many other programs I use. If there is any performance hit that is "not noticeable" then it really isn't a performance hit in my opinion.
kith
Reply #23 Monday, December 23, 2002 10:53 PM
Reply #23 Monday, December 23, 2002 10:53 PM
I respect your opinion SpeedTek. If making your system as fast as possible every second of the day makes you happy go for it.
I really like WindowBlinds and almost all of the Stardock software. It's good stuff and it keeps getting better. That includes faster and more comprehensive. I considered running the Cosbi program to see what it says, but decided against it. Irregardless of whether it actually works or not, I have used WB daily for over two years now and I'm pretty sure I have a fair idea of how much resources it is consuming. The answer for me at least is very little, but how little depends on the skin or theme.
The thing that interests me is that 99% of the time I have no need to even worry about it. Even if WB was 4 times more resource intensive it wouldn't come close to the hit I take loading Outlook or Internet Explorer or Paint Shop. Why did I spend all this money on a fast CPU and RAM if it goes unused almost all the time!
The sticker comment is just untrue. A sticker is more like the color schemes the MS so nicely provided with each version of Windows! Has anyone ever used Plum (High Color)? But it does come closer to describing StyleXP, come on how many variations of Luna can one take. WB has so many additional features that enhance prodcutivity that it doesn't even compare.
I really like WindowBlinds and almost all of the Stardock software. It's good stuff and it keeps getting better. That includes faster and more comprehensive. I considered running the Cosbi program to see what it says, but decided against it. Irregardless of whether it actually works or not, I have used WB daily for over two years now and I'm pretty sure I have a fair idea of how much resources it is consuming. The answer for me at least is very little, but how little depends on the skin or theme.
The thing that interests me is that 99% of the time I have no need to even worry about it. Even if WB was 4 times more resource intensive it wouldn't come close to the hit I take loading Outlook or Internet Explorer or Paint Shop. Why did I spend all this money on a fast CPU and RAM if it goes unused almost all the time!
The sticker comment is just untrue. A sticker is more like the color schemes the MS so nicely provided with each version of Windows! Has anyone ever used Plum (High Color)? But it does come closer to describing StyleXP, come on how many variations of Luna can one take. WB has so many additional features that enhance prodcutivity that it doesn't even compare.
SpeedTek
Reply #24 Tuesday, December 24, 2002 12:34 AM
Reply #24 Tuesday, December 24, 2002 12:34 AM
very true, I guess I was more taken aback at the hard hit that it took in some benches. I would say that yes, overall I didn't notice any ill effects while using windowblinds, although I did host a couple GR games that started getting choppy through my LAN and that had never ever happened before. Granted it was an intensive co-op map with lot's of enemies, but that may very well have been what put it over the edge. I'm not running a slow system by any stretch of the imagination. I've got a top of the line KT333 MB with an AXP 2100+ and 512MB DDR. I guess I'm just too damn fussy. 
da_zman20
Reply #25 Tuesday, December 24, 2002 1:59 AM
Reply #25 Tuesday, December 24, 2002 1:59 AM
I just want to put in my 2 cents and say... windowblinds not only runs faster than style xp, it also skins more of the windows, and more even than windows xp by itself... and when window blinds 4 comes out you are going to wish that you had subscribed to a object desktop subscription if you didn't and that is to everybody... I first used window blinds back in like 1997, and even back then it didn't slow down that much... since then stardock has done every thing they could to make it even faster... like the smart paint feature in wb4 which will make it faster than even windows classic... amazing how they do that...
joetheblow
Reply #26 Tuesday, December 24, 2002 10:17 PM
Reply #26 Tuesday, December 24, 2002 10:17 PM
Citizen SpeedTek
"KT333 MB with an AXP 2100+ and 512MB DDR."
What CPU do you have?
"KT333 MB with an AXP 2100+ and 512MB DDR."
What CPU do you have?
UBoB
Reply #27 Tuesday, December 24, 2002 10:44 PM
Reply #27 Tuesday, December 24, 2002 10:44 PM
All Symantec programs work great on my XP box and my ME box. Contrary to most of what has been said in this thread they are very good and worthwhile programs. Just like we shouldn't trash Windowblinds software when a few people report bad results on their machines, we should also do the same for Symantec products, in fact, all software. If it doesn't work for you, but does for countless others perhaps the problem lies with you. 
Jafo
Reply #28 Wednesday, December 25, 2002 12:43 AM
Reply #28 Wednesday, December 25, 2002 12:43 AM
As I recall, Norton's Crash Guard proggy was released with 'issues' which enhanced its 'crashprooflessness' [new word].
It wasn't an isolated thing but a documented one. The old Dos versions of their proggies worked a charm...it was just the Windows version that would go ga-ga, tripping an otherwise 'stable' OS...
It wasn't an isolated thing but a documented one. The old Dos versions of their proggies worked a charm...it was just the Windows version that would go ga-ga, tripping an otherwise 'stable' OS...
wombat_1
Reply #29 Wednesday, December 25, 2002 12:44 AM
Reply #29 Wednesday, December 25, 2002 12:44 AM
I'll go with motion.
The present versions of Nortons and Powerquest are very stable on my pair of boxes.
But I don't run all the options at the one time, the only thing that loads at startup is the AV and Connection proggies, and all maintenance is done to a schedule.
And yes indeed, the old and awful 'Crashguard' crashed 9X more than it prevented crashes!
The present versions of Nortons and Powerquest are very stable on my pair of boxes.
But I don't run all the options at the one time, the only thing that loads at startup is the AV and Connection proggies, and all maintenance is done to a schedule.
And yes indeed, the old and awful 'Crashguard' crashed 9X more than it prevented crashes!
wombat_1
Reply #30 Wednesday, December 25, 2002 12:47 AM
Reply #30 Wednesday, December 25, 2002 12:47 AM
G'Day Jafo. 
Big day with the usual 'Family' routine?
We're about ready for the next session.
Only 8 hours to go and its finished ...and all the best for the coming year
Big day with the usual 'Family' routine?
We're about ready for the next session.
Only 8 hours to go and its finished ...and all the best for the coming year
bmetelsky
Reply #31 Wednesday, December 25, 2002 1:48 AM
Reply #31 Wednesday, December 25, 2002 1:48 AM
I like Norton AV - I'm using the 2003 Professional Edition and have no complaints. Prior to that I was using Trend PC-Cillin. I switched when Trend started piling "extra features" into PC-Cillin.
Jafo
Reply #32 Wednesday, December 25, 2002 9:00 AM
Reply #32 Wednesday, December 25, 2002 9:00 AM
Wombat....2 days down and one to go....darn these 'rellies'...
GreenReaper
Reply #33 Wednesday, December 25, 2002 1:08 PM
Reply #33 Wednesday, December 25, 2002 1:08 PM
If it's a problem, try excluding the games. It *should* stop any CPU time being taken up by WB with them.
SpeedTek
Reply #34 Wednesday, December 25, 2002 3:10 PM
Reply #34 Wednesday, December 25, 2002 3:10 PM
To joetheblow: that would be an AMD Athlon XP 2100+
To Motion: I wasn't getting personal, there's no need for you to get offended and start. I was merely making an observation.
To everyone else: First off, I hope everyone had a merry Xmas. Second,when I started this thread, I also asked if there was perhaps something that I missed that was causing the problem. Apparently there may have been as I gave it another shot and ran some back to back tests. I'm not entirely certain what changed this time around, but the performance drop was far less dramatic in benching. There is still a clear resource allocation for windowblinds, but the drop was less than 200 points out of 1000 score. That I can live with. I will do some more testing and if I do encounter any more anomolies I will be sure to ask the board if they have observed anything else like it.
COSBI results: original, without WB installed.
CPU Name: AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2100+
Vendor ID: AuthenticAMD
Core ID: x86 Family 6 Model 6 Stepping 2
Windows MHz: 1740
COSBI CPU Clock speed is 1,740,724,615 Hz
OS Name: Microsoft Windows XP
Version: 5.1
Build: 2600
Registered Owner: SpeedTek
Registered Organization:
*** Test Starts (3 iterations) ***
Test, Score, Time(s)
==== ===== =======
Grid Blast, 1004, 1.583
Fibonacci sequence(40), 625, 2.321
n-Body, 959, 12.102
Trig1, 1657, 1.339
Trig2, 1089, 0.201
Plot Lines, 2071, 3.554
Random Dots, 1987, 6.895
Filled Circles, 1380, 2.391
Maze, 1844, 4.425
Fern Fractal, 2234, 1.097
RichEdit, 2459, 6.221
*** Test Ends ***
COSBI Results: Latest with WB enabled and Colony skin installed.
CPU Name: AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2100+
Vendor ID: AuthenticAMD
Core ID: x86 Family 6 Model 6 Stepping 2
Windows MHz: 1740
COSBI CPU Clock speed is 1,740,723,504 Hz
OS Name: Microsoft Windows XP
Version: 5.1
Build: 2600
Registered Owner: SpeedTek
Registered Organization:
*** Test Starts (3 iterations) ***
Test, Score, Time(s)
==== ===== =======
Grid Blast, 831, 1.913
Fibonacci sequence(40), 625, 2.321
n-Body, 976, 11.887
Trig1, 1591, 1.396
Trig2, 1091, 0.201
Plot Lines, 1743, 4.224
Random Dots, 1715, 7.989
Filled Circles, 1386, 2.381
Maze, 1747, 4.671
Fern Fractal, 2341, 1.047
RichEdit, 2299, 6.656
*** Test Ends ***
To Motion: I wasn't getting personal, there's no need for you to get offended and start. I was merely making an observation.
To everyone else: First off, I hope everyone had a merry Xmas. Second,when I started this thread, I also asked if there was perhaps something that I missed that was causing the problem. Apparently there may have been as I gave it another shot and ran some back to back tests. I'm not entirely certain what changed this time around, but the performance drop was far less dramatic in benching. There is still a clear resource allocation for windowblinds, but the drop was less than 200 points out of 1000 score. That I can live with. I will do some more testing and if I do encounter any more anomolies I will be sure to ask the board if they have observed anything else like it.
COSBI results: original, without WB installed.
CPU Name: AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2100+
Vendor ID: AuthenticAMD
Core ID: x86 Family 6 Model 6 Stepping 2
Windows MHz: 1740
COSBI CPU Clock speed is 1,740,724,615 Hz
OS Name: Microsoft Windows XP
Version: 5.1
Build: 2600
Registered Owner: SpeedTek
Registered Organization:
*** Test Starts (3 iterations) ***
Test, Score, Time(s)
==== ===== =======
Grid Blast, 1004, 1.583
Fibonacci sequence(40), 625, 2.321
n-Body, 959, 12.102
Trig1, 1657, 1.339
Trig2, 1089, 0.201
Plot Lines, 2071, 3.554
Random Dots, 1987, 6.895
Filled Circles, 1380, 2.391
Maze, 1844, 4.425
Fern Fractal, 2234, 1.097
RichEdit, 2459, 6.221
*** Test Ends ***
COSBI Results: Latest with WB enabled and Colony skin installed.
CPU Name: AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2100+
Vendor ID: AuthenticAMD
Core ID: x86 Family 6 Model 6 Stepping 2
Windows MHz: 1740
COSBI CPU Clock speed is 1,740,723,504 Hz
OS Name: Microsoft Windows XP
Version: 5.1
Build: 2600
Registered Owner: SpeedTek
Registered Organization:
*** Test Starts (3 iterations) ***
Test, Score, Time(s)
==== ===== =======
Grid Blast, 831, 1.913
Fibonacci sequence(40), 625, 2.321
n-Body, 976, 11.887
Trig1, 1591, 1.396
Trig2, 1091, 0.201
Plot Lines, 1743, 4.224
Random Dots, 1715, 7.989
Filled Circles, 1386, 2.381
Maze, 1747, 4.671
Fern Fractal, 2341, 1.047
RichEdit, 2299, 6.656
*** Test Ends ***
UBoB
Reply #35 Wednesday, December 25, 2002 4:51 PM
Reply #35 Wednesday, December 25, 2002 4:51 PM
I wasn't offended. It was Christmas eve, I was drunk.
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 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Monday, December 23, 2002 10:17 PM
In truth, Windowblinds will indeed be slower on a lot of the skins because a lot of the skins use a lot more animations, cool graphics that would be impossible to make with MS Styles. But even the default Luna theme is kinda of a hog.
I must admit that once in a while, I always return to using the Windows Classic theme, ie: no theme at all, neither WB nor MSStyle. You can't get any faster than that. I also use no wallpaper (large wallpapers eat up a lot of RAM too) and try not to go over 1024 resolution.