No DesktopX for me...

and why I'm using Konfabulator for the time being...

from JoeUser Forums
As an ObjectDesktop subscriber since 1998, I really appreciate all of the work Stardock has done and all of the innovative software they've produced. Additionally, I love their distribution model and the value I get from their software and the great way they treat their customers. It's what makes it easy to annually update my subscription. So, as you can see, I've been following them for a long time and I shameless plug their software whenever I can.

With the recent popularity of desktop widgets/objects, I've followed the trend and added useful desktop widgets to my desktop for more functionality and some eye candy. As a OD subscriber, I've spent the last couple of years trying to use DesktopX but ultimately, I end up unloading it. I just read Brad's article of Konfabulator vs. DesktopX and found it interesting. His comparison is more or less spot on but I still find myself using Konfabulator more than DesktopX.

Here's are some of my reasons in no particular order:

1. Konfabulator is extremely easy to use. The interface is consistent and widgets work as they should.
2. The program is polished. Since it's only built to do one thing, it does that one thing well. That's a good thing.
3. Widgets tend to be extremely polished. There are two reasons. First, the program is newer so there aren't as many widgets to begin with. Second, the audience of Konfabulator do tend to be more experienced graphic designers and thus, the widgets are more polished.

I understand that DesktopX is far more extensible than Konfabulator; however, my issues are with DesktopX being purely used as a widget engine. What bugs me about the DesktopX platform:

1. Most of the widgets suck. While vast in numbers, DesktopX widgets are poor in nature. Granted, this is not the fault of DesktopX but rather of the content authors out there. Yeah, I know, I'm drinking the hater-ade but that's just how I feel. I spend a lot of time on Wincustomize looking for quality widgets and they are so hard to find. I'm not sure if I'm missing anything but I'd like to be able to sort by popularity. It might also help for Wincustomize to have a best of list voted on by the more senior skinners on the board.
2. DesktopX isn't friendly to the new user. Because it's meant to do so many things, DesktopX is more complicated than it needs to be. I know Stardock is constantly working on this and I've seen great strides in this area. However, it's still more complicated than Konfabulator for strictly using desktop widgets.

I keep seeing people talk about how Konfabulator uses more memory than DesktopX. I don't disagree but I also don't care. I would gladly give up more memory for a program that simply works better. I also have 2GB on most of my systems so that's part of the reason for my attitude.
Ultimately, I think Stardock will make DesktopX even more easy to use and the level of DesktopX Widget polish will increase as people get more used making Widgets and mimic the quality of what's being made with Konfabulator. I'm not sure if they'll ever be at the same level since they really aren't the same kind of program. Perhaps Stardock could make an even lower footprint version of DesktopX that's made for Widgets only or create some sort of standard template that all future Widgets need to adhere to. We'll see...in the mean time, Konfabulator has invaded my desktop and happily works alongside all of the other Stardock stuff I'm running (i.e. WindowFX, CursorXP, Enhanced Dialog, IconPackager, LogonStudio, Thinkdesk). Yeah, WindowBlinds is conspicuously missing but that's a story for another day.
desktopx
18,310 views 43 replies
Reply #1 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Wow how did you manage to miss Tiggz and Adni
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, I didn't miss them but honestly, they're the exception to the norm.
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #3 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Having lost the ability to run the "Core" weather widget, and some issues my systems have with the new version of DX, I have also started to use Konfabulator.

It is a good program for widgets, though the memory usage is a consideration for users with less than 1 GB of RAM.

I would disagree on the graphics gap. I think that the widgets made by some of the more prominent authors here have graphics quality that match the widgets seen at Konfabulator's web site.

Konfabulator is indeed an "easy to use" program, and gets along perfectly well with WindowBlinds, IconPackager, ObjectDock Plus, and LogonStudio - all of which I run on my Desktop, and all but LogonStudio on my Notebook.

Again, my decision is solely based on DX not liking my systems (probably due to an older NIS program).

I expect that "Gadgets" will soon take the lead in the Widget area, simply because users won't need a platform program running to support them - just start them and your done.

For myself, if the "Core" series of widgets are made into Gadgets, I will drop Konfabulator - until then, I now have my weather, calendar, to-do list, and clock available on the desktop.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

The core widget series is still available and works fine:

https://www.wincustomize.com/Skins.aspx?LibID=34&view=1&sortby=4&sortdir=DESC&p=1&advanced=0&searchtxt=Core

This is good feedback.  But I am really surprised on the ease of use.  In DesktopX 3, all I have to do to load a widget is just double click on the widget.  They're EXEs.  How much easier can they get?

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, they're easy to click on but once loaded, they're not necessarily very easy.

I guess what I mean by easy is that I do like that there's a single task tray icon in Konfabulator that makes it easy to centrally manage the widgets. Also, the widgets behavior is a little more consistent. I like that many Konfabulator widgets are configured by right clicking on the widget and then selecting properties. I can't accidentally click on something and change it's properties.

However, a lot of DesktopX weather widgets have this annoying thing where the configuration can be messed up by accidentally clicking on a widget. The most annoying thing is when you have a weather widget that opens multiple boxes for the zip code. For example, Live Weather II which is a very popular weather widget has poor UI behavior. If you click on the location to change the area, you can open a near infinite amount of these boxes if you keep clicking on the widget. This sort of behavior shouldn't be allowed. I suspect this is something that can be fixed with proper coding but it might help DesktopX's adoption (as a widget platform) if there was some sort of uniformity.
Reply #6 from WinCustomize Forums Top
As a developer who's recently begun playing with DesktopX, I find the inability to easily create Windows UI functionality (like a dialog where tabbing moves between controls) to be significant barrier to making a good usable object/widget.

Beyond that, people developing widgets for general use should attempt to adhere to some common user interface guidelines, including consistent ways to change properties, load and unload widgets, etc. Stardock should probably be the source of these guidelines (I know some of this is implemented, but perhaps not completely...)

The widgets developed by Tiggz are good examples of a consistent interface, but other authors may do something equally workable, but completely different. This only serves to confuse the average user, who only wants to get something workable that looks cool on their desktop.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
You've reinforced what I've been garnering from the DX NG, gr00vy0ne.

I haven't tried Konfabulator or given DX3 a tryout yet, though I tried hard but in vain to use DX1 & DX2. The other SD apps I routinely use (and love) - WB, WFX, IP, OB(1.65) - never get in the way. With DX, I was always having to deal with "How do I do that?" or "How the H did that happen?" and it seemed like I never got past the desktop to get anything done. I've been monitoring the DX NG regularly since I stopped using it, biding my time to see if/when the usability & reliability issues faded from the NG, but that hasn't happened yet.

Part of my reluctance to jump back in, I suppose, is that I have less of a burning desire to have a cool-looking weather widget on my desktop (it's always hot & clear here), seldom even see my desktop, and don't feel willing to sacrifice the time for the learning curve again. Don't get me wrong, I suspect DX is a great app for those with a better understanding of programming & reasons to use it as a development tool, but for me, a relatively knowledgeable user (I'm the admin for a network of 25 computers running Win2k & the troubleshooter for everyone in my office) it doesn't appear to have crossed the threshhold yet.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #8 from WinCustomize Forums Top
gr00vy0ne I think you are absolutely on point about DesktopX.
Reply #9 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Brad,

Core widgets all work except the weather widget on my machine with DX3.

It worked fine with DX 2.40.035, and it still works with DX3, but the Partly Cloudy (which read horizontally across widget, now reads vertically with "Partly" on top, and "Cloudy" on bottom) - the problem is that the Partly Cloudy (or any current condition that contains 2 words), obscures the city location text.

I sent a screenshot of the Partly Cloudy text issue with it running under both DX3 and DX 2.40.035 to tech support - about 2 months ago, and have yet to hear back.

For some reason, DX3 does not like my system (DX 2.40.035 was working great on same system with all the same software).

I would love for the Core weather widget to run correctly, but the fact is, it does not.

Indeed, running a widget with DX installed is quite easy (something just changed between 2.40.035 and 3, which created an issue on my system).

I assume that it is something incompatible, but since I can use Konfabulator until a gadget series comes out that I prefer - that is my best option at this point.

Please don't take this as a bad report on DX 3, I believe I am just one of the unfortunate people to have incompatibility issues with it.
Reply #10 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I use both Konfabulator and DX. There are some widgets from one that I like better than the other.

I think the big problem with DX is the scripting confuses the heck out of me. The current material teaching the basics leaves allot to be desired imho.

Stardock would go along way towards bettering it's product by creating some more detailed documentation for beginners. Either that or pinpoint a few individuals that show an aptitude for producing a quality product. Then take those individuals and groom them to produce top notch widgets / objects.

The things I've produced could hardly be considered top notch yet it took many an hour picking thru the works of others trying to figure out how in the world they got things to work the way they did.

For example, Morgemeil's daily icon thing went along way in my opinion in increasing the quality of icons being produced on this site.
Reply #11 from WinCustomize Forums Top
DX is the scripting confuses the heck out of me


Same here.

I just dont do the scripting, just keep it simple. ;o)
I let the authors that I doenload from do it.
The things I've produced could hardly be considered top notch yet it took many an hour picking thru the works of others trying to figure out how in the world they got things to work the way they did.


Same here, again.
For example, Morgemeil's daily icon thing went along way in my opinion in increasing the quality of icons being produced on this site.



And, the Misc. Icons is very crowded.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Much of what is being said here applies equally to Kofabulator or ANY widget application for that matter.

Stardock has traditionally taken the role of making available the technology and letting the community run with it.  Clearly, in DesktopX's case, this has not worked out so well.

DesktopX is, by far, the easiest of the widget enabling programs to create widgets for. Things like "creating a standard GUI with tab controls" is most easily done on DesktopX (and in fact, CANNOT be done, as far as I can tell, on Konfabulator or the others).  Wiht DesktopX, I can at least embed web pages into ActiveX controls if I need to create a standard GUI.  HTML is about as easy as you can get for this kind of thing.

DesktopX also supports things like clipboard.  I agree that the typical Konfabulator widget is prettier, but are they more useful? The translator widget for Konfabulator doens't support copy/and paste. How amny people are going to sit there and type in what they want translated as opposed to copying and pasting in there? 

Ultimately, the community is the one that is going to determine the popularity of these programs.  The technology is there.  There's not a lot of incentive for Stardock to sit there and crank out widgets to give away for a $20 program when it can just as easily put that time and make gadgets that sell for $10 to $20 on its own (I wouldn't be surprised if Aquarium Desktop has outsold all the widget enabling programs combined and it is a DesktopX gadget).

There are tutorials that walk users through all kinds of simple scripts and simple preferences.  If users won't create widgets for others then there's not much we can do.  We can create premium level widgets but they'll be gadgets and they won't be free.

Reply #13 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Agreed.
Reply #14 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Indeed, DesktopX has a lot to offer in customization, and is much more than a platform to run widgets on.

Konfabulator offers just the ability to run widgets, and you can create widgets to run on that platform.

If my talent was much more developed, I would try my hand at creating some DX themes and widgets to distribute freely. That will have to wait until my skill level increases, and until I build my new desktop (which will be outfitted with the newer Norton AV - removing the suspected older version that may now be creating my problem with compatibilty), and will be geared towards Longhorn requirements.

I for one would be happy to pay $20 for a package of something like a "Core series" of gadgets (as you may have guessed, I am an avid fan of this series), or another package by the talented artists in this community - of which there are many.

IMHO, a user would be willing to accept the cost of gadgets if it meant the following:

1 - resources required are only as much as the selected gadget required - without the additional overhead of a platform.
2 - Graphics quality is superior.
3 - Functionality is as advertised (in other words, it does the job it is supposed to do).

I would counter my own statement in #1 slightly, by saying that the current standard for a mainstream system (2+ Ghz processor, 1+ GB RAM, PCIe bus) covers the additional resources required to run said platform.

Looking forward to whatever develops.
Reply #15 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I'd like to see some more scripting tutorials.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Much of what is being said here applies equally to Kofabulator or ANY widget application for that matter.

Stardock has traditionally taken the role of making available the technology and letting the community run with it. Clearly, in DesktopX's case, this has not worked out so well.

DesktopX is, by far, the easiest of the widget enabling programs to create widgets for. Things like "creating a standard GUI with tab controls" is most easily done on DesktopX (and in fact, CANNOT be done, as far as I can tell, on Konfabulator or the others). Wiht DesktopX, I can at least embed web pages into ActiveX controls if I need to create a standard GUI. HTML is about as easy as you can get for this kind of thing.

...


Totally agree. I actually love the fact that Stardock focuses on the technology first and what users really want. With DesktopX, it's a case of the dreaded blessing/curse thing where you have this tool that's so powerful but perhaps too powerful for it's own good when used in different contexts.

I'm hoping that in the future, the use of DesktopX as a "widget platform" becomes more refined. Perhaps some of the more experienced DesktopX widget designers and some of the talented people at Stardock can come up with a template for "good widget design" that adheres to some sort of usability guideline with sample code to help people avoid common UI issues. For instance, there would be some standard code demonstrating how to disallow someone from repeatedly clicking on the location of a weather widget (yeah, i'm beating this dead horse badly) and opening potentially tons of dialog boxes. And perhaps there would be some sort of standards for ways properties are laid out.

Of course, no one would be restricted to having to use these guidelines since DesktopX is so much more than a widget platform; however, it would be a good step in developing high quality, refined widgets that behave in a more standard way that's more accessible to a wider audience. It would sure make it easier for me to convince my friends and clients to get an ObjectDesktop subscription.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm hoping that in the future, the use of DesktopX as a "widget platform" becomes more refined. Perhaps some of the more experienced DesktopX widget designers and some of the talented people at Stardock can come up with a template for "good widget design" that adheres to some sort of usability guideline with sample code to help people avoid common UI issues. For instance, there would be some standard code demonstrating how to disallow someone from repeatedly clicking on the location of a weather widget (yeah, i'm beating this dead horse badly) and opening potentially tons of dialog boxes. And perhaps there would be some sort of standards for ways properties are laid out.

TiggZ widgets are a complete well designed set of functionality. People can just use them as a reference material.
Here are several tutorials to accomplish various development tasks. Link
New tutorials will be added soon.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, I didn't miss them but honestly, they're the exception to the norm.


Uhmm... Konfabulator default widgets are great. So are TiggZ. Both sets have a complete set of functionality, while I tend to prefer TiggZ ones because are more complex and richer.
The DesktopX Silica set is also quite good, and will be further tweaked with the 3.1 release.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ok, I've tried Tiggz' widgets and they are definitely much more refined than most DesktopX ones but I don't find that they match my tastes. Regardless, even Tiggz' widgets still have UI issues. I'm beginning to think this is a either a problem/limitation with DesktopX, people are simply copying generic code or simply no else is taking this into account.

An easy test is running Tiggz' OMNI Weather. For the most part it's good since locations can't be changed until you click on the Locations button. However, once you're in there you can click ...change as many times as you want. That should not be allowed. It's poor UI design. When I right click on any file in Windows and look at it's properties, I cannot repeat the action again and open an identical properties page. Instead, focus will go to the properties page I originally opened. Similarly, when I click on ...change, it should open a new dialog box if none is open already or focus on an already open dialog box if I pressed it already.

I know most people won't click repeatedly but that's not the point. The point is that it shouldn't happen in the first place.
Reply #20 from WinCustomize Forums Top

When most people talk about Konfabulator vs. DesktopX, what I see over and over again is comparisons of widgets.

From a technological perspective, there's no comparison. There's nothing Konfabulator widgets can do that DesktopX can't but there's a lot that DesktopX can do that Konfab can't.

That's why I'm not sure how much effort should be really spent trying to get people to focus on the actual programs. It's about the content really.

One might argue that popular widget makers would be better off making gadgets and selling those to people (or giving them away if they so choose) and take the enabling program (Konfab/DesktopX) out of the equation.

I've yet to see someone say "I like Konfabulator because it has more features".  It's always "I like Konfabulator's default widgets better".  And that's fine but that's not really a DesktopX vs. Konfabulator thing.  That's like saying one like Visual Studio better than Borland C++ Builder because hey like the programs made with VS better than C++ Builder.

I think the battle ground is going to be gadgets vs. widgets.

Reply #21 from WinCustomize Forums Top

An easy test is running Tiggz' OMNI Weather. For the most part it's good since locations can't be changed until you click on the Locations button. However, once you're in there you can click ...change as many times as you want. That should not be allowed. It's poor UI design. When I right click on any file in Windows and look at it's properties, I cannot repeat the action again and open an identical properties page. Instead, focus will go to the properties page I originally opened. Similarly, when I click on ...change, it should open a new dialog box if none is open already or focus on an already open dialog box if I pressed it already.

This has nothing to do with DesktopX.  It's a lot easier to make a preferences dialog with DesktopX than Konfabulator. 

It's also not for DesktopX to decide what a widget author can and can't do.  Tiggz is making his widgets available for free.  I suspect if you wanted to pay him, he could make his widget to your ideal liking.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
From a technological perspective, there's no comparison. There's nothing Konfabulator widgets can do that DesktopX can't but there's a lot that DesktopX can do that Konfab can't.


I keep reiterating the fact that DesktopX is far more extensible and is not simply a widget making platform. However, in the context of widgets (which has the attention of most people and the mass media) there are some areas where Konfabulator appears easier and more friendly. Also, as history has shown us, superior technology doesn't always mean something is better or is necessarily successful. OS/2 was technically superior to Windows and we all know how that went down. Heck, even BeOS was technically superior in many areas...anyways, you get my point.

This has nothing to do with DesktopX. It's a lot easier to make a preferences dialog with DesktopX than Konfabulator.

It's also not for DesktopX to decide what a widget author can and can't do. Tiggz is making his widgets available for free. I suspect if you wanted to pay him, he could make his widget to your ideal liking.


Ok, that's all I wanted to know. So, the "bug" that I'm seeing is merely an oversight by many DesktopX developers. That's fine. At least I know that someone could fix it if they wanted to. I'm also not saying Stardock has to dictate what widget authors can and cannot do. I'm merely suggesting that it's the little quirks like these that make DesktopX (when used as a widget platform) seem or "feel" less refined than another products.

The main reason why I brought up this topic to begin with is because a lot of people I know who I encouraged to buy a ObjectDesktop subscription are using Konfabulator instead of DesktopX for widgets. I pretty much argued all of the points that DesktopX supporters were saying but ultimately it proved fruitless. Of course, once I gave Konfabulator a fair try, I realized that I liked it a lot more too.
Reply #23 from WinCustomize Forums Top

However, in the context of widgets (which has the attention of most people and the mass media) there are some areas where Konfabulator appears easier and more friendly.

If you load DesktopX and choose "load widgets" the widget manager in DesktopX is essentially identically to the widget management in Konfabulator.

But I think ultimately, the lesson being learned is that Stardock should put its energies into creating content and selling that and letting people do with the underlying technology what they wish.  For all the "popularity" of Konfabualtor, it seems to have a pretty small user base.   I am quite certain there are more people running DesktopX-related content than Konfabulator.  Look at the popularity of things like Aquarium Dekstop, Natural Desktop, themes, and stand alone objects. 

The jury is out on whether widgets are the end-all be all thing. They could be merely looked back as a stepping stone to gadgets. Who knows.

Reply #24 from WinCustomize Forums Top

I'm also not saying Stardock has to dictate what widget authors can and cannot do. I'm merely suggesting that it's the little quirks like these that make DesktopX (when used as a widget platform) seem or "feel" less refined than another products.

I knwo you're trying to help but please understand -- this has NOTHING whatsoever to do with DesktopX at all.  This is akin to saying that the Mac is better than the PC because the icons on the Mac are prettier.  We can't control how people use DesktopX or what content they make for it.

Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ok, my last comment on this...haha...

...This is akin to saying that the Mac is better than the PC because the icons on the Mac are prettier. We can't control how people use DesktopX or what content they make for it.


Which is also akin to saying that DesktopX is better than Konfabulator because it's technically superior.

No, you certainly can't control how people use DesktopX or the content they make (and neither can Konfabulator) but you can certainly help/guide people to create better content. Better content means more buzz and more buzz means more DesktopX users. Heck, perhaps you could start a spin off company that solely builds high-class content using the technologies that Stardock creates. I would certainly pay money for good content...it's the same reason why I keep subscribing to ODNT, the content is good and worth it.