• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Alternative windows shells

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

rashal

Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Since the regular windows shell often takes up to 200mb of memory, running on alternative shells might smoothen your gameplay...

I used blackbox a long long time ago. linkage: http://www.bb4win.org/news.php

It's minimal, very elegant, can look very nice on if set up with right themes... Some screens here:

http://www.lostinthebox.com/viewtopic.php?t=484&postorder=asc

and one here

http://www.geocities.com/d4vidb/desk_big20030223.jpg

Like I said, clean and elegant. I had a realy nice theme back than which a copied from a guy called dreamer... Anyways, the desktop is highly costumisable just like the right click menu. There are all sorts of plugins including some that can show hardware readings on the desktop which are also 100% costumisable.

As for preformance, back when I used windows xp build 2600 (with services tweeked for minimum resource consumption), only 79mb of memory was consumed with the antivirus on (on a pIII 800mhz system, norton 2002 or 01, cant recall)! Loading into a regular explorer shell would use up to 150mb, and on a system which had only 256mb of ram to spare, cutting memory consumption in almost half ment a lot.

As for bugs, I did experiance some issues (mainly with windows not fitting to ICQ window, system bar staying on top of games, and knights & merchants game desplaying at 256 colors only :\), but none of them involved crashes or anything... It was a smaller source for errors than the explorer shell was actually.

But I should note again that the last time I used blackbox was about two years ago.... So I'm almost sure those bugs mentioned above are gone, and it might be possible that memory consumption is even lower (I seriously doubt that though).

To sum everything up, Blackbox for windows offers an elegant, minimal shell that will save your reasorces and will allow you to use windows more efficiantly with costimisable menus and desktops. Defenetly worth a try.

PS. It'll take a while to get used to blackbox... But after a while (especially after getting your menus in order) it'll fit you like a glove.


I wanted to mention another shell called aston, but it just sucks IMO... If you guys know any other good shells, post link and personal reviews here.
 
There are a ton: Litestep, Geoshell, SharpE, cloud9:ine, Serenade,...
And countless old and forgotten ones.

And yes, the only commercial "shell" which is worth a damn is Stardocks DestopX.
Stuff like Aston, Hoverdesk, Talisman 2, etc all suck. bigtime
 
what are some of the best shells in your all's opinions? I'm gettin' ready to spend time OC'ing and benchmarking my compy again, and if i could spare even 1% more CPU cycles by switching the shell, then heck yes, i'd like to try
 
You can't. a shell basically nevre uses the CPU. This will change with Vista

But litestep, geoshell and the current blackbox clone for windows are the most popular
 
TollhouseFrank said:
what are some of the best shells in your all's opinions? I'm gettin' ready to spend time OC'ing and benchmarking my compy again, and if i could spare even 1% more CPU cycles by switching the shell, then heck yes, i'd like to try


for benching you should always end the shell. i.e. crtl+alt+del and end 'explorer.exe'

Might not help in every bench but definately does in some.
 
klingens said:
There are a ton: Litestep, Geoshell, SharpE, cloud9:ine, Serenade,...
And countless old and forgotten ones.

And yes, the only commercial "shell" which is worth a damn is Stardocks DestopX.
Stuff like Aston, Hoverdesk, Talisman 2, etc all suck. bigtime

How does Aston suck? It's easy to use and actually improves performance.
 
SPQQKY said:
How does Aston suck? It's easy to use and actually improves performance.

It saved about 20mb of ram IIRC... And there was a cpu preformance hit (very slight one of cource) when using advanced themes. But every time I used it I had this sticky feeling... Like something isnt right...
 
rashal said:
It saved about 20mb of ram IIRC... And there was a cpu preformance hit (very slight one of cource) when using advanced themes. But every time I used it I had this sticky feeling... Like something isnt right...

yeah i know that feeling, it runs almost, uncomplete it seems, runs great, and solid, but it feels lacking in a couple ways.

i did notice that it liked to bork my folder settings all the time. and it had a serious issue with certain windows and programs running
 
i know what i'm gonna do!.... when i get the chance, i'm gonna test some benchmarking apps against which shell i'm running. I've got 2 shells (explorer and LiteStep) and i could run neither (just boot into explorer and turn it off before running the tests).

I'll check and see what cost they have on performance
 
Back