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/

In article <f0176a81-fae8-4d21-9ffb-b06ade974f09
@b9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, sillyputty says...
> 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.
--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

"sillyputty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:f0176a81-fae8-4d21-9ffb-(E-Mail Removed)...
>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

In article <fvmu97$e04$(E-Mail Removed)>, Dave says...
>
> "sillyputty" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:f0176a81-fae8-4d21-9ffb-(E-Mail Removed)...
> >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
>
>
Because the underlying OS is far better than Loonix. Nowt wrong with
replacing the shell..

--
Conor

I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams

On May 5, 5:24 am, "Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote:
> 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.
--
You know, they say that marriage is reserved for only a man and a
woman. I of all people know that simply does not work. -Elizabeth
Taylor