Konfabulator & DesktopX at a glance

Can anyone read this? I keep getting a blank JU page (IE and Maxthon on WIN, Safari on Mac).

I'm reading it now.

After reading the JU article, I'm wondering if Stardock plans on focusing more time/energy/power/money/people towards DesktopX development, but more specifically widgets and the such.

Perhaps Wincustomize shouldn't be accepting as many widgets as it does. DesktopX has amazing capabilities, and I see so many ridiculous widgets that it sometimes feels as if they're just mocking DesktopX. Maybe Stardock could find a team of people, or one person, to work on some more widgets and/or themes. Konfabulator's widgets can be used for reference, if necessary.

Personally, I don't feel that I am nearly good enough to release professional-looking widgets. I do hope, though, that there are some advocates of DesktopX who can.

We have a "Stardock Certified" widget program. You'll notice some widgets have them by it. THose are widgets we tried ourselves and gave the stamp of approval to.

I'd love to see a Gmail notifier widget.

With all the widget hub-bub, I had to give DesktopX another try. In his article, Frogboy talks about the developer communities of both DesktopX and Konfabulator. I think it would be a great leg up for DesktopX if Stardock could add compiled .NET languages to the selection. This way, Microsoft would be doing a lot of the work with regards to exposing the OS to the widgets.

I know that it depends on the particular widgets involved, but which is usually more efficient: 5 DesktopX widgets or 5 DesktopX objects? Where does the overhead of DesktopX start to pay off?

I don't think that DesktopX has to be running, so the overhead should pay off immediately. Also, Brad, I'm quite aware of that. I guess that, in reality, it doesn't make much sense to decline the acceptance of most of the widgets. I think that your sudden DesktopX push is good, but if you're trying to get people who use Konfabulator to start using DX, you had better come up with some more ideas =P. This brings us back to that case that comes up every once in a while, with the zealots who refuse to change.

But which is more efficient:

(A) 5 DesktopX Widgets
(B) 5 DesktopX Objects

Also, I always thought Martin was THE DesktopX guru.

5 DX objects are more efficient.

DX objects run as part of the DesktopX environment.

Pro: Less memory use. Can be edited on the fly.

Con: If one dies, they all die.

DX widgets run as their own process (just like konfabulator).

Pro: Own process space, are actual programs.

Con: Less customizeable, use more memory.

DX Widgets use about a third the memory of a Konfabulator widget though.

Frogboy: We get it already! The product that sponsors this website, hooray, is better than the competing product from Macintosh, boo hiss.

^He was answering a question geez.

Hi, Frogboy. Just in case you can't tell, flipdoubt is David Smith, the guy who lives in Plymouth, whose wife works across the street from your new site, and is working his buns off to become an ASP.NET guru. Anyway, hi.

Just used konfabulator. I have plenty of ramCPU usage is what's the problem with DesktopX. Sorry guys, since all I want are widgets, Konfab gets my vote because it doesn't kill my computer while running

I know that we live in the days of cheap RAM, but jeez, doesn't it seem a bit extreme that Stardock's widgets take "only" 30-70 meg, while equivalent Konfabulator takes 170 meg??? (These numbers are from frogboy's article.) Out of all that, the LOW number is 30 megabytes... for a widget???

A comparison from an impartial observer, DeadZombie (of Ae-S and A-S):
http://www.aero-soft.com/board/showthread.php?t=832&page=1&pp=10