Aston versus Explorer

Aston vs. Explorer: comparative review

In this article I'd liked to name all the pros and cons of both shells.
What for? First of all, some users think, that alternative shells have less features, than Explorer and thus less usable. Next, I know no comparative reviews of both shells as there are not really many alt shell fans (and the existing ones don't write reviews too often).

So, what's different in Aston and Explorer?

Stability:
  • Both shells are pretty stable nowadays;
  • Aston is more stable, than Explorer in Windows 9X/ME;
Resource consumption:
  • Aston typically consumes about 2 megabytes of RAM, Explorer may need from 5 to 30 Mb (Explorer XP)
Taskbar:
  • Aston: Taskbar buttons' width is dynamic. In other words, a single task button would fit the whole task; two tasks would fit a half of its width each and so on. Aston task buttons have three states (active, inactive, minimized), while Explorer has only has two basic states.
  • Explorer: Explorer in Windows XP has a useful task grouping option, which is sometimes quite useful;
System tray:
  • Both Aston and Explorer XP have a two state system tray (minimized tray and restored tray) and both allow easily moving icons from one group to another;
  • Aston: these features also work under Windows 9X/ME/NT and tray closing/restoring can be done by a hotkey as well;
Quick Launch:
  • Aston: QL items can be stored on Taskbar or hidden under a small button, saving lots of space on Taskbar, one can easily define the number of visible tray icons;
  • Explorer: a certain number of QL elements must be always visible on Taskbar.
Start menu:
  • Aston: menu includes (by default) easy access to control panel items; first level menu items can be easily configurated; menu items are always sorted.
  • Explorer: menu items sometimes need to be sorted manually (a changeable behaviour), drag'n'drop inside main menu excellently works in recent versions of Explorer; main menu can have two looks: default XP (barely useful) and classic;
Desktop:
  • Both shells allow users store icons on their desktops;
  • Aston: uses its own Desktop system, but allows accessing Explorer Desktop folder through the main menu (or any other way, defined by user), Aston Desktop cannot store documents and folders on it (shortcuts, buttons and plugins only), which is done to organize and educate users; shortcut buttons can have any size up to 255x255 px, can be animated; icons are recommended to be stored as Panel items.
  • Explorer: wide support for dag'n'drop, can store documents, folders and objects (recycle bin, My Computer, etc...).
Desktop objects and items:
  • Aston: allows having buttons (multistate shortcuts) and decorative elements on desktop; some plugins can be placed on Desktop, enhancing its functionality; Aston Recycle Bin and Disk links can have an unlimited numer of intermediate states (explorer Bin uses two, no intermediate fill states for disks at all);
  • Explorer: Active Desktop allows using HTML pages as Destktop background;
Shortcuts:
  • Both shells allow activating links by shortcuts;
  • Aston: allows accessing applications, links, URLs, special items, plugins, have basic windows manipulations and so on with the shortcuts; has a basic set of predefined shortcuts;
  • Explorer: allows activating links (documents, applications, URLs), has a set of build-in (unchangeable) shortcut combinations to access Taskman, My Computer's properties and so on;
Toolbars:
  • Aston: has two side panels (Toolbars), which can be used to store plugins, shortcuts and items;
  • Explorer: no build-in analogs;
Plugins:
  • Aston: has a set of build-in plugins (clocks, Panels and so on), allows using third-party modules;
  • Explorer: allows using third party extensions (mostly affecting the file management part);
Appearance:
  • Aston: appearance and behaviour can be changed by using one of available themes;
  • Explorer: Explorer XP has three build-in Windows Styles, three optional styles may be ordered or obtained from the MS site; in order to use third-party styles one must iether use a hacked version of system library or any third-party application (like one of Stardock products);
Price:
  • Aston: $28 (common price, a license can also be obtaineed for free);
  • Explorer: $0 (you buy it with a copy of Windows);
So, now you know both programs' pros and cons. What to choose? Judge yourself.
32,074 views 23 replies
Reply #1 Top

You're missing quite a bit.

Memory:
Aston uses more than 2 megabytes of RAM. When I ran it it was using around 10 megs. It does use less but it's not nearly as much of a difference as you say.

Stability:
Both are "stable" but Aston themes are fairly resolution dependent. So if you change resolutions a lot, Aston may not be very suitable.

Taskbar:
Aston has not system tray filtering either. Its taskbar doesn't support ActiveX controls. It's Start menus don't support drag and drop. And the taskbar in Explorer is skinned by programs such as WindowBlinds so you have a lot of control how they look and how much space they use.

Aston also does not have any sort of most frequently used program functionality. It has recent but no MFU like the Windows start menu has.

Toolbars:
Explorer allows the creation of toolbars. Just right click on the STart bar, choose "Toolbars" and then create another one which you can then dock to any edge and accepts drag and drop.

Plugins:
Explorer supports industry standard ActiveX controls. Virtual desktops, media players, battery meters, and many other things can be put into a Windows toolbar (Start bar or one that you create).

Appearance:
As you mention, Explorer requires a third party program to change its appearance.  There are approximately 10X more "visual styles" / skins available for those third party Explorer enhancements than there are Aston themes.

That isn't to say that I think Aston isn't a good shell. I do think it is. I just think that you're not as familiar with Explorer as you should be to make this comparison.  Some of the things these shells lack aren't trivial things. MFU and taskbar grouping, to name two, are big deals.

Reply #2 Top
Greetings again, Draginol;
Memory: that depends on several things. First of all: a theme. The second: icon cache size. The third: the way of handling Explorer process. Depending on these three factors the memory usage is ususlly between 2 and 15 Mb. It's especially big if you don't deattach Explorer process from Aston in Shell Swapper. Being absolutely honest I have to say, that typical memory usage is about 8 Mb on the most recent themes (we, themers became lazy). Using simpler themes Aston really runs 2-3 Mb (the lowest limit I had was as low as 1.5 Mb).
Stability: themes don't refer to stability. As for the resolution "issue"... This highly depends on the way a theme is constructed. Aston 1.9.1 allows building themes, which are suitable for a very wide range of resolutions. So overall, the designer's guilt is quite a big here
Taskbar. Hint: click the "A" icon on the tray As for the list of recently used programs... You're right here: my fault. Just I never understdood it
Toolbars: missed. Still these "toolbars" are hard to compare
Plugins: I noted that.
Appearance: sure, as Explorer is more popular.

btw, thanks for correcting me. I rarely use Explorer now (mainly one the work), so I have really forgotten some stuff.
Reply #3 Top

Just so that we're clear: We are on the same page  - Aston has low overhead. But when you say it uses 2 megs of RAM that's really not being fair. The typical theme is going to use 8 to 12 megs depending on its complexity. 

Explorer Toolbars do a lot of what users want.  In fact, if MS had a menu class built into them, we'd all be in big trouble (we as in us developers that make software to customize the shell).

I want to also add that I really like Aston. I've been using it a lot. I just think it needs more meat before it's ready for the masses. Just my 2 cents.

Reply #4 Top
Draginol, let me disagree with toolbars. I personally know no users, who ever tried them
I myself used them a couple of times only...
Reply #5 Top
I did try setting up multiple toolbars in XP. I had my Quicklaunch and then built one with all my game shortcuts. I tried some others, such as "My Computer", "My Documents", and some other stuff, but they just never did what I wanted them to do and I never stuck with them. So while you can use them I never liked them and found them to be a poor substitute to really functional stuff.
Reply #6 Top

Draginol, let me disagree with toolbars. I personally know no users, who ever tried them

Do you think the average person has met someone who has replaced their entire shell? Do you realize how your statement sounds?

Reply #7 Top
This was helpful to me, who knew little details about Aston.

I'd like to see a comparison of system performance under the two shells. Knowing memory consumption is helpful, but how about questions like Which shell has less of a hit on performance of other programs? Which has fewer video problems on a given system? and so on.
Reply #8 Top

They should be about the same in those areas.

The biggest problem I think the average person would have with Aston is that Aston tends to be resolution DEPENDENT.  The theme author has to "make" their theme support your resolution. If they don't, you're out of luck.

Reply #9 Top
Aston typically consumes about 2 megabytes of RAM, Explorer may need from 5 to 30 Mb (Explorer XP)


Yeah? Not counting any resources from the theme, I'll bet.

Besides, My computer got 1.5 GB ram, (result of amazing sale of 512 mb sticks at 40 bucks each, years ago) so it don't really matter how much MB it uses.

I get concerned only when some very small program uses over 100 mb or so.
Reply #10 Top
Draginol. Once again:
Resolution is an issue for the most applications, supporting themes (Litestep, Hoverdesk, Aston, etc...)
BUT as i already told you, there are two basic ways to solve the problem:
1) create resolution independent theme (as much independent as possible)
2) create native support for each resolution. the second approach is more flexible.
It's also possible to invent some kind of resolution independent theme format (might appear in A2), but it's simply impossible for a certain theme/skin to support all resolutions by nature.
And thanks for pointing me the resolution issue theme: I should pay it more attention in my skinning tutorial. BTW, what resolution are you using?
As for my "statements" about Explorer toolbars... That's a fact: I know no single person (even from the skinning/shell comunities) who uses them.
Reply #11 Top
You can count one. I use Explorer toolbars regularly. I use the Quicklaunch area for show desktop/command line/browser/editor/etc. immediate applications that I need everywhere. Next to it I have an expanding "My Computer" that works as a systemwide file browser. Next to it I have a bar of VNC shortcuts to all systems on my network. On a seperate bar I keep less immediate applications in an autohide mode, along with the multiple desktops powertoy and occasionally the Winmedia player bar. I'm planning on migrating my Samurize config to it as soon as I settle on a good layout.

I salute developers everywhere attempting to improve the experience, but I toss Aston, Litestep, Talisman, Geoshell in the same category of "getting closer". A default Explorer isn't sexy because it's ubiquitous, but it works better than anything else out there. I have never run a third party shell that didn't show its bugs within a day or so.
Reply #12 Top
Sacrat: Yes, I mentioend that that is the problem with these kinds of programs in general (resolutions dependence).  But Explorer  is resolution independent.
Reply #13 Top
Bill Reid: you seem to be quite an interesting person. Really.

Draginol: Still explorer has no kind of "themes". Don't start it again: I've replied
What makes a theme to be resolution dependent?
1) Wallpaper: some wallpapers cannot be stretched without visible distortions.
2) Element placement: the biggest issue. If Explorer ever had themes it would run into the same troubles. Solution: stick elements to certain "hot-spots" of the screen, using relative coordinates: this way themes would support nearly all resultions, starting from the default one.
3) Element's size. EVERY skinnable app (including explorer) has this "issue" as nowadays there are no adaptive skins, which resize, depending on the resolution.
I don't think, that you're too stupid not to see, that it's impossible to create a theme engine, supporting ALL resolutions. At present time properly designed Aston themes even having a single resolution work flawlessly under a range of resolutions, which covers at least 95% of users.
In general a support for 1024x768, 1280x1024 and 800x600 is enough.
Reply #14 Top
In general a support for 1024x768, 1280x1024 and 800x600 is enough.


Ah, good to know that. I will be avoiding Aston then since that certainly is not enough for me.
Reply #15 Top

Resolution dependence is a very big sacrifice for a lot of people in exchange for eye candy. I like eye candy a lot (obviously) but I'm not willing to lose functionality for it.

Reply #16 Top
BlueDev, these three resolutions cover about 90% of all user configurations, so they're recommended. Your favorite 1600x1200 (am I correct?) should work on any properly designed theme theme, supporting 1024x768.
Reply #17 Top
Your favorite 1600x1200 (am I correct?) should work on any properly designed theme theme, supporting 1024x768.


I understand that they are recommended, as I also understand that 1600x1200 is a bit extreme (at least my wife frequently tells me it is!). Anyway, yeah, that is the resolution I run, and prehaps I will give a theme or two a try to see if they work at that resolution without giving me too many problems. Thanks for the info.
Reply #18 Top
Some people, such as myself, change resolutions depending on what we're doing. My keyboard has a hot key to toggle between 1600x1200 and 1024x768 for instance. But themes don't scale well. I'd have to manually load up the "correct" resolution.  This isn't specific to Aston, pretty much all of them have these kinds of issues.
Reply #19 Top
BlueDev, please try checking my Duality theme. It should work (I haven't checked, though...). Besides, there were a couple of themes, optimized for 1600x1200.
Are you using 21" monitor? Just I know people, having 1024x768 resoltion on 21" and 800x600 (sic!) on 19" monitors
Draginol, why do you use two resolutions then? isn't it easier to let everything work under 1600x1200? I used to use 1024x768+big font on my old 15" LG monitor, which was better, than 800x600+std font.
Reply #20 Top
I will do that sacrat. I am actually using the 15.1" monitor on my laptop. Everything looks much more sharp and I never have to maximize anything. I love it, though my wife thinks it is a bit small."
Reply #21 Top
That's definitely not for my eyes
May I ask, how do you manage to get such a high resolution on that screen? I bet this one is no way "native" for your laptop. Am I wrong? Just wondering...
Reply #22 Top
My laptop has an ATI Mobilit Radeon 7500 chip in it (64 megs RAM) that, while now two years old, did come out of the box natively supporting from 640x480 up to 1600x1200 resolution. I immediately went for the highest one and never turned back. Everything just looks so much better at that resolution. I of course stopped using the official drivers from the company as they never update the mobility drivers. I instead use the Omega versions of the Catalyst drivers and have found them to be incredibly useful in terms of increasing performance and graphical bugs.
Reply #23 Top
Please check the sites about texas holdem poker rules texas holdem poker rules http://www.texas-holdem-poker-rules-4u.info/ poker books texas holdem poker books texas holdem http://www.poker-books-texas-holdem-game.info/ plans texas holdem table plans texas holdem table http://www.plans-texas-holdem-table-4u.info/ universal pharmacy phentermine universal pharmacy phentermine http://www.universal-pharmacy-phentermine-top-deals.info/ texas holdem poker texas holdem poker http://www.texas-holdem-poker-top-site.info/ no limit texas holdem rules no limit texas holdem rules http://www.no-limit-texas-holdem-rules-4u.info/ phentermine 375 90 phentermine 375 90 http://www.phentermine-375-90-leading-pharmacy.info/ cheapest pills phentermine cheapest pills phentermine http://www.cheapest-pills-phentermine-pharmacy-2003.info/ phentermine375 phentermine375 http://www.phentermine375-top-deals.info/ texas holdem for real money texas holdem for real money http://www.texas-holdem-for-real-money-win.info/ ...