ShrededHumanz

Join Date 08/2002

Are Stardock aps resource hogs?

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.

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

WOM

Join Date 01/2002

+253

I think you must have something wrong with your system. It doesn't use that much rescorces. Maybe you have a lot of programs loading on startup. Might want to check that out.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Koasati

Join Date 07/2001

+21

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.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Jafo

Join Date 03/2001

+1845

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...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Sign Up or Login and this ad disappears!
There are many great features available to you once you register. Sign Up for a free account and browse the forums without ads.

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2419

IconPackager uses no resources whatsoever -- it applies icons. It doesn't stay in memory. WindowBlinds uses about the same amount of memory as Notepad.

Successfully updated karma reason!

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.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Jafo

Join Date 03/2001

+1845

I first used WB on a P100 with 8meg of ram...in Win95....and a wild 1meg Trident card...

Successfully updated karma reason!

When the heck was that?!?!?!

Successfully updated karma reason!

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.

Successfully updated karma reason!

paxx

Join Date 03/2001

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.

Successfully updated karma reason!

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"

Successfully updated karma reason!

paxx

Join Date 03/2001

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.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Jafo

Join Date 03/2001

+1845

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...

Successfully updated karma reason!

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.

Successfully updated karma reason!

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...

Successfully updated karma reason!

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

Successfully updated karma reason!

WOM

Join Date 01/2002

+253

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.

Successfully updated karma reason!

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

Successfully updated karma reason!

Jafo

Join Date 03/2001

+1845

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'...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Koasati

Join Date 07/2001

+21

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.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2419

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.

Successfully updated karma reason!

First, I think this is a very good question, and one I'd like a more comprehensive answer on.

Second, simply looking in the Task Manager in an NT kernel'd Windows OS (NT/2K/XP) isn't quite enough to determine resource usage. Memory isn't the only resource these GUI tools use. GDI resources are heavily hit I'm sure. At the very least, when viewing the memory usage in the Task Manager, click View-Select Columns, and check the "Virtual Memory Size" checkbox. This will allow you to see how much memory the application is using that's paged out to your drive.

Saying "WindowBlinds uses about the same amount of memory as Notepad." is about like saying Unreal Tournament 2003 uses about the same amount of memory as Pong.

Successfully updated karma reason!