Comparing LiteStep and DesktopX
Friday, May 14, 2004 by Phar0e | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
DesktopX looks very interesting, but I've not yet tried it.
Are there users out there who have dabbled in both and can offer comparisoms of features, capabilities, etc?
Reply #2 Friday, May 14, 2004 8:26 PM
Reply #3 Saturday, May 15, 2004 5:37 PM
There are things in desktopX that you would normally do in Litestep by coding say... an LS box simply by creating the shortcuts on your desktop, and grouping them from a right click. Like for example if you want to make a floating MP3 controlling object that remembers it's position. And the same for making objects that toggle each other. And you can easily package up different parts of the theme to distribute independently. However, to me at least there are objects that are quite difficult to change unless you are versed in things like vbscript. But DesktopX seems to have more things configurable with a GUI where you would have to code your own in Listestep.
DesktopX seems to take more advantage of transparency as it always has. It's a very nice program, however it doesn't replace you shell as was mentioned it adds to it, so there's no reason why you'd have to ditch Litestep to use DesktopX. In fact there was a time when I was using both as however it seems to me that DesktopX isn't the program that is meant to make bars such as taskbars\menubars, etc.
So I would say that DesktopX could complement either Explorer, or Litestep. Some people I have seen run a bare bones litestep setup so they can have in essence desktopX running as their shell.
Reply #4 Saturday, May 15, 2004 6:23 PM
Phil: I used both extensively too. In fact, you can see some of my early Litestep themes converted to DX in my library. I really liked Litestep, but once I tried DX I found that I could put together a theme much faster, and without writing any code either. Although I had a good understanding of the step.rc, it could become a little tiresome, so I tried DX and never went back. Litestep has gone beyond my reach now, I have no understanding of the OTS thing at all, or any other developments, so it's unlikely that I will be using any LS themes in future, which is a pity.
I would recommend that you take one of your less complex LS themes and convert it over to DX just as an experiment. I think you will be pleasantly surprised how easy it is to put it together. And remember, there are plenty of people who are brilliant with DX (like Martin and Phil Powell) who are always around to help out.
Go on......give it a shot! 
Reply #5 Sunday, May 16, 2004 7:39 PM
Can anyone tell me if there is a DX equivilent to the Litestep popup menu?
Reply #6 Sunday, May 16, 2004 9:12 PM
Reply #7 Sunday, May 16, 2004 9:29 PM
Reply #8 Monday, May 17, 2004 11:58 AM
).
Reply #9 Monday, May 17, 2004 5:58 PM
I don't use Litestep, mostly because I don't feel like paying for yet another program, so I cannot comment on that.
Reply #10 Monday, May 17, 2004 7:30 PM
| I don't use Litestep, mostly because I don't feel like paying for yet another program, so I cannot comment on that. |
Er.....LiteSTEP is freeware, and Open Source......no payment required at all....
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 Friday, May 14, 2004 3:52 PM
However one important difference between the two I am aware of is that Litestep is a shell replacement and DX is a shell add-on. DX does not replace the explorer shell, it just works with it to provide more functionality.
Much of what can be accomplished with Litestep can be done with DX. DX is probably easier for the average person to work with.
A more detailed comparison though I cannot provide.