[Alternativ shells] Sys Requirements

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lenn-art
  • Start date Start date
L

Lenn-art

Hello,

There are 2 threads about alternative shells at this moment
# J44xm @ "Windows shells?" and
# *protean Thread* @ geoshell? astonshell? others?"

But what are the system requirements? When you replace the Windows shell
to an alternative (eg. Geoshell), what is the effect on the system-
speed, stability, multitasking,

I'm asking not = is it easy to learn or something, but what does an
alternative shell with your computer in comparison with the standard
shell?

gr, Lenn-art
 
Lenn-art said:
But what are the system requirements? When you replace the Windows shell
to an alternative (eg. Geoshell), what is the effect on the system-
speed, stability, multitasking,

I'm asking not = is it easy to learn or something, but what does an
alternative shell with your computer in comparison with the standard
shell?
Click to expand...

I have used a Litestep shell a lot, because it uses far less resources,
memory and cpu time, than the explorer shell.

When I had only 64 MB memory it was important to save 3-4 MB which the
explorer shell uses, compared to the few hundreds of kilobytes Litestep
uses.

It also helps make the computer more stable because explorer can create
faults in itself, kernel page faults.
 
Roger Johansson said:
I have used a Litestep shell a lot, because it uses far less
resources, memory and cpu time, than the explorer shell.
Click to expand...

I agree - I'm using LiteStep both at home and at work for about a
year and a half now. It's far less resource-hungry, and it provides
the must-have tools that simply aren't available in Explorer (virtual
window manager, system monitoring, complete keyboard customization,
and lots more). I couldn't live without it now, I frequently notice
myself trying to switch desktops on my colleague's Explorer computers
:-)

Lately it has become much more user-friendly (an installer is
provided, simple shell switching, automatic updating of modules, ...)
so the transition is a matter of reading one or two tutorials.
Creating/adjusting themes yourself is still a matter of text-based
configuration files, but *IMHO* that's still the most transparent way
of managing things.
 
Hello,

There are 2 threads about alternative shells at this moment
# J44xm @ "Windows shells?" and
# *protean Thread* @ geoshell? astonshell? others?"

But what are the system requirements? When you replace the Windows shell
to an alternative (eg. Geoshell), what is the effect on the system-
speed, stability, multitasking,
Click to expand...

It varies a little from shell to shell. LiteShell was written
specifically for use on underpowered PCs to lower the shell overhead.
GeoShell is pretty lightweight, too. On recent computers, though, it
makes very little difference. On machines with 256Mb or greater the
shell uses proportionately much less than it used to on the PCs we had
years ago. It doesn't affect multi-tasking in any way I can think of,
offhand, except that you can do things differently. As regards
stability, I found the Litestep shell more stable than explorer.exe on
Windows 95. Made no discernible difference on 98 and XP's pretty
stable anyway and remains so using LiteStep.

One other proviso: many shells have downloadable themes available,
and there are many heavyweight eyecandy ones which will make your
shell overhead greater than explorer.exe. The minimalist ones use
much less. I can't remember what memory explorer.exe uses on my
machine. The middle-of-the-road set-up I use takes about 8Mb with all
its dependencies. I'm not trying to reduce shell overhead, though.
It's about ease of use for me. I have a different - and better, I
believe - set of options to run and control programs using LiteStep
and it makes my PC more intuitive to use. It's easier to be more
productive this way.

System requirements vary. LiteShell will run on any version of
Windows, I think. LiteStep will run on '95, '98, ME, 2000 or XP but
has recently had modules written for it that require 2000 or XP, I
believe. I haven't kept up with the other shells, but last time I
looked, GeoShell, for instance, would run on '95 or higher.

Hope that answers your question; if it doesn't, feel free to ask more.
I could bore people about LiteStep all day. It's the best software I
ever put on a Windows PC. And I never have to look at that
Teletubbies XP interface again.

Here's a good start-point for finding out about the various shells
available. Most are freeware. Those that cost money aren't better.
<http://shellcity.net/cgi-bin/DB_Sea...topicpage.setup.cgi&submit_search=yes&topic=A>
 
Back
Top