I answered to a question in a forum where someone complained that they had problems with explorer. I suggested him to move to Litestep. His reply was that it "sucked" because it took too much memory.
Personally, I have not noticed anything like that, rather the opposite
.
Does it require more memory than explorer?
Any clues?
(I understandn that it also depends on what theme you are running)

sincerely

Like you said, it's highly theme dependent. For me on average, it takes about half of what explorer did. It's using about 12megs right now.

I'm using 13M right now and am running Gemini theme, with some own additions. I never looked at this when I used explorer so I have nothing to compare with. I just wondered what the basis was for saying that litestep "sucked". I find it a lot snappier than explorer.

Thanks for your reply!!

My LS install holds around 6M of ram. It really depends on what modules you load and how you use them.

With me, it's 1180kb right now, just over one megabyte. This with well over dozen modules.

Probably your friend has seen a buggy version of either Litestep or some theme and been a victim of some grotesque memory leak.

DeV tells me sysinternals' Process Explorer reports truer memory usage than compared to Task Manager.

I'll just go with procexp since it reports the higher ;)

They seem to show the same thing here, are you sure you're comparing the same numbers?

Mem Usage = Working Set = real, physical memory
VM Size = Private Bytes = pagefile

VM Size is perhaps truer, but Mem Usage is what matters if you're trying to free up memory for other programs.