And again I ask: Why?

DesktopX already has a large user base. More features. It's cheaper. Object creation is visual and interactive, it has a low memory foot print.

So can you provide a reason why you think Konfabulator would become "the popular favorite?"

I really want to undersatnd this. It's like "Oh, well it was on a Mac but now that it's available to the peasantry it'll take over there too because it was on a Mac."

I have Konfabulator on my Mac. Been using it a long while. But eventually one tires of doing counters and weather widgets.

But again let me ask: Why would someone switch from DesktopX to Konfabulator?

I looked over at the Konfab library of objects, and frankly, I was expecting more than that. I'm really not impressed. I mean, the great majority of them are meters, timers or mail checkers.
Sure, the problem with DX is that most skinners here are artists, not programers, so they don't know how to use DX to it's full potential.  I'd actually turn what you said the other way around: once programers start discovering DX is see how much cool stuff they can do with it, there will be no comparison possible. Already we have a few programers and they are taking DX in an interesting route. And that's without mentionning DX Pro's new feature that makes it possible to package an object as an EXE that everybody can use, even without having DX installed.

No, I have no interest in a lesser product.

ScoobyWRX STi 04 -yes, Konfabulator is a good program on the Mac. But you are giving it an amazing benefit of the doubt that they're going to have a perfect port.

Tried iTunes? It uses 40 megabytes of RAM when it's not doing anything. I like iTunes but in order to do that cool Mac stuff on the PC they had to create a lot of stuff that doesn't exist on Windows by default. So it ended up quite bloated.

People put up with that for a media player. But they won't for a widget that displays the weather or counts down until the new year. 

So to say Konfabulator is going to be good on the PC is jumping the gun pretty hugely. Konfabulator on the Mac isn't very hard. It's just a Java run time that uses Quartz to do all sorts of neat stuff. Doing the same on the PC may not be easy outside things that are just a bunch of PNG files and the like. And even then it'll probably have to use layered windows.

Well there was one other thing I should also point out:

Konfabulator widgets are in .sit and .dmg.  Mac users don't use .ZIP.

So unless Konfabulator for the PC somehow bundles .sit and .dmg (which adds more overhead) then sharing widgets between the platforms isn't going to be easy.

Even on the Mac it's harder than DesktopX is on Windows. On Windows, I can double click on a .dxpack and it will a) install the object in my object libary and launch the object on my desktop.

By contrast, on the mac, when I download that .dmg file I have to go through a couple of steps to get the widget. Then I have to copy the widget to my documents\konfabulator directory.

And that's on a Mac. On the PC, I'm not sure how they'll resolve the .sit/.dmg issue. But without a cross platform library, then they lose their advantage in being able to have PC users make use of artistic abilities of Mac widget makers.