Posted by member 30680 on 2003-05-07 10:20:35
I just installed LS (using the installer and updating to the indie) on a fresh install of XP on a thinkpad 600 (PII 266). I thought that using LS would allow me to customize the desktop and free up resources. Besides, coming from linux, I dislike explorer (and love fluxbox).
Other than 66% of the themes downloaded (from this site no less) not working at all or corrputed archives, there is one glaring problem...
Before LS, explorer used between 5.6-12 megs memory. Now using LS only (and using minimal desktops), LS eats up nearly 2-3x the memory of explorer. The default theme eats up 13+ megs right out of the box, and others got up to 17 megs!
I never would have thought that explorer (M$ bloatware)would be more memory thrifty that LITEstep (emphasis on LITE).
Thoughts?
PS--my system is tweaked for performance, please no "something is wrong with your system, yada yada" comments.
GregC
Other than 66% of the themes downloaded (from this site no less) not working at all or corrputed archives, there is one glaring problem...
Before LS, explorer used between 5.6-12 megs memory. Now using LS only (and using minimal desktops), LS eats up nearly 2-3x the memory of explorer. The default theme eats up 13+ megs right out of the box, and others got up to 17 megs!
I never would have thought that explorer (M$ bloatware)would be more memory thrifty that LITEstep (emphasis on LITE).
Thoughts?
PS--my system is tweaked for performance, please no "something is wrong with your system, yada yada" comments.
GregC