Aston desktop?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sillyputty
  • Start date Start date
S

sillyputty

I already run a modified WinXP desktop, but was wondering what people
think of the Aston desktop (Window's shell)? They claim it has a
smaller footprint than XP's desktop. I'm wondering if it's worth it to
totally re-do my current desktop? I use dual-monitors.
http://www.astonshell.com/aston/
 
I already run a modified WinXP desktop, but was wondering what people
think of the Aston desktop (Window's shell)? They claim it has a
smaller footprint than XP's desktop. I'm wondering if it's worth it to
totally re-do my current desktop? I use dual-monitors.
http://www.astonshell.com/aston/
Litestep has wider support and more plugins.
 
sillyputty said:
I already run a modified WinXP desktop, but was wondering what people
think of the Aston desktop (Window's shell)? They claim it has a
smaller footprint than XP's desktop. I'm wondering if it's worth it to
totally re-do my current desktop? I use dual-monitors.
http://www.astonshell.com/aston/

If you're going to go that route, you might as well replace your whole OS
with linux something or other. I'm serious. Why **** around with XP, if
you don't like it, replace it. -Dave
 
If you're going to go that route, you might as well replace your whole OS
with linux something or other. I'm serious. Why **** around with XP, if
you don't like it, replace it. -Dave
Because the underlying OS is far better than Loonix. Nowt wrong with
replacing the shell..
 
If you're going to go that route, you might as well replace your whole OS
with linux something or other. I'm serious. Why **** around with XP, if
you don't like it, replace it.

I ran a Linux box with Debian and KDS for a year. The first things I
noticed were: with a GUI, Linux can look exactly like Windows and ran
how Windoze should be. I also found out how simple and elegant Linux
security is and why it beats the pants off Microshaft. With Linux,
unlike XP, you aren't a crippled user while running below
administrative credentials. In a recent issue of Federal Computing
Week a MS exec made a revealing statement: that they were deliberately
lax with security in XP to "appease their buyers" (Apparently, they
don't get it that one can have decent security while still in a user-
friendly environment - not that I'd ever say Windows is user-friendly)
and went overboard with security in Vista. Probably one of the reasons
why Vista isn't doing well.
 
Back
Top