Litestep....

[Sean]

Does anyone still use this on a normal day to day basis? I know Cesar did at one point...

My problem is with adjusting to using it, it's proving to really be a bitch, and I'm so used to using my desktop as my shortcut to all my programs, the fact I can no longer do so is a bit annoying.

Does this actually make Windows run smoother? Does it really use less resources? Is it, in fact, really worth it to force myself to adjust?

[LocoColt04]

Did?

I still do. I have for years now. In fact, I put LiteStep on my new laptop before I even connected to the internet with it. I used my flash drive to bring over the installer. I definitely use it on a daily basis, and the ONLY time I ever touch Windows Explorer is when there's another update. As much as I dislike Windows as a whole, I like keeping up-to-date on the SP2 updates.

The only reason I even use Windows at all is because of the videogames. If not for that, I'd be on an Apple... but that's another topic for another thread.

Anywho, yeah, I still use it regularly, and in my experience...


Yes, there are times when litestep.exe can use as much resources as explorer.exe, but as a whole, it's a much safer and more reliable shell than Windows Explorer. I never have to deal with Explorer crashing. I never have to deal with Explorer eating half my RAM. I never have to deal with all of those "Windows problems" that most people complain about.

It just seems more solid, and I LOVE the customization it provides. It makes my inner programmer giddy, knowing that I've recreated the default LiteStep skin and made it something my own. I can put anything anywhere, and it's nice.

[Mistress Sheena]

I used to use it. I'm not really knowledgeable in the programming language, so...for me, the default Litestep is almost no different than Explorer, lol.
Except for that little addon where I can see the RAM and all the CPU stats. That was pretty cool. Other than that, the looks were the same as Explorer, except the taskbar would be double instead of single.

And that the shortcuts couldn't be re-arranged. That's the only drawback with Litestep. To customize it, you really have to know what you're doing.

[Sean]

Litestep: RAM Free 1142MB
Litestep: Bootup Time 52.22 Seconds

Explorer: RAM Free 1135MB
Explorer: Bootup Time 1minute 12.32 seconds.


Start > Programs time on Litestep is a LOT longer than it is on Explorer, thus, to me, making Litestep a waste.

[LocoColt04]

Hmm... my boot times are much much lower, but I suppose that's simply because I have a much newer computer as well. In any case, I'm guessing your free RAM will be similar, primarily because you're just idling in the system and not really doing anything. It's once you have a few processes running that LiteStep really excels in minimizing its usage of RAM and CPU. The more processes you run, the bigger the difference.

[Sean]

'Eh, my bootup time isn't because my sytem is old, it's just retarded. I'm in need of a format. Hell, I'm running an equavalent to a 3.4GHz P4 (AMD 3200+) and 2x nVidia GeForce 6600GTs in SLI, both overclocked, with a gig and a half of RAM.

[LocoColt04]

Originally Posted by Sean

Start > Programs time on Litestep is a LOT longer than it is on Explorer, thus, to me, making Litestep a waste.

Only for the first load. After that, it's instantaneous every single time until you reboot your computer again. Same with the control panel and other such things.