Frogboy Frogboy

Konfabulator for Windows vs. DesktopX

Konfabulator for Windows vs. DesktopX

The battle for the widgetfied desktop

And so it begins. The top customization developer for MacOS has brought its premiere customization program, Konfabulator over to Windows. Pixaria, the developer of Konfabulator previously had developed Kaleidoscope.  On Windows, Stardock, whom I work for, is the developer of DesktopX and WindowBlinds have shadow-boxed for years in friendly competition.

Mac advocates would argue that Kaleidoscope was better than WindowBlinds and PC users would argue the opposite.  And the same has been true of DesktopX and Konfabulator.  Neither program is a clone of the other. Both come to the table with their own ideas on how widgets should be done on Windows.

Widgets, btw, for the purposes of our discussion, are mini-applications that can be created relatively easily by end users. No compilers, no development environments necessary.  You just take your graphics and put them together with a few scripts and the host program (Konfabulator or DesktopX) takes care of the rest.  So here's my 2 cents take on Konfabulator and DesktopX for what it's worth..

The Konfabulator Journey

Konfabulator was designed with MacOS X in mind. It makes use of the Quartz graphics engine to deliver alpha blended visuals. That is, the edges of its widgets are blended into the background and can be semi-transparent. The point of Konfabulator has been to give users the power to create "whatever they want" without having to be professional software developers. As long as you know a little Javascript and have some art skills, you can throw together some pretty powerful mini-applications dubbed widgets.

Konfabulator came out in 2003 on MacOS X.  Its lead developer, Arlo Rose, had seen its last effort, Kaleidoscope evaporate as MacOS X did not support the APIs that Kaleidoscope required. Konfabulator generated even more press than Kaleidoscope did and was doing well until Apple announced Dashboard. Dashboard is a feature that is part of MacOS "Tiger" that provides very polished widgets of its own. Since Dashboard is part of the OS and thus "free", it was a significant blow to Konfabulator.

The challenge for Konfabulator as it makes its way onto Windows is to overcome the entrenched competition.  Not only will Konfabulator have to go head to head with Stardock's DesktopX on its own turf but it will also have to compete against a slew of freeware programs that offer much the same functionality such as AveDesk, Kapsules, and Samurize.

DesktopX the unlikely underdog

Since 1999 when WindowBlinds came out, Stardock has been considered the leading developer of Windows customization utilities. WindowBlinds on its own has over 7 million users worldwide and thousands of its own visual styles (skins) for it.  It too has had to contend with encroachment from the OS vendor.  But fortunately for Stardock, Microsoft, unlike Apple, has seemed more interested in supporting its ISVs.  Windows XP not only did not break WindowBlinds, it actually made it function better out of the box and vastly increased its market.  Since Stardock is a Microsoft partner, and Microsoft is a Stardock customer (Microsoft uses WindowBlinds for marketing purposes) it is likely that Longhorn will bring new opportunities for WindowBlinds as well as DesktopX.

DesktopX is far older than Konfabulator. But that's not been as big of an advantage as one might think.  DesktopX began its public life in 2000. But because of the limitations in Windows of the time (it had to work on Windows 95 for instance) and the hardware of the time, its objects were much simpler than the widgets of today.

Also, because the Windows market has a lot of competition in many areas, DesktopX couldn't simply be a program to offer mini-programs on the desktop.  So it had to do more.  DesktopX's philosophy has been to let users put objects on their desktop.  These objects can be used to create entire customize desktop environments.  Or they can be kept stand alone and made into "super icons".  Or they can be put together and exported as a widget.

The challenge for DesktopX is to make sure users realize what it can do and promote what it sees are its advantages over both Konfabulator and its entrenched freeware competition.

So how is DesktoX an underdog? Thanks to brilliant marketing by the folks at Pixaria, Konfabulator has gotten featured on the home pages of News.com, The Register.com, Slashdot, and dozens of other sites in time for its Windows debut. Pixaria was also able to exploit Apple's Dashboard announcement to gain a lot of attention for their program. Many an article has come out talking about Konfabualtor as if it were the only program of its type that exists -- despite DesktopX having millions of downloads.

 

Konfabulator meets DesktopX

So while Mac and PC users battled on Usenet and web forums over the relative merits of their chosen widget enabling programs, they always had to do so from afar. When Konfabulator announced it was going to come out with a Windows version back in November of 2003, it meant that eventually, the two would be able to be compared apples to apples (no pun intended).

At the time, I wrote on Konfabulator's forum, "Konfabulator is going to have some real challenges on the PC. Windows XP doesn't have Quartz.  Stardock had to spend a year and a half developing DirectGUI.  Without a DirectGUI Konfabulator would have to rely purely on layered windows and those take up a lot of memory and CPU -- and PC users are very sensitive to how much RAM these kinds of programs use."

The problem with DesktopX, however, is that for years its content sucked overall. There were real gems buried in the thousands of objects and themes. But most of it was awful.  Stardock envisioned itself as a technology company.  It just threw DesktopX out there and waited for skinners to pick it up and go for it.  While that strategy worked for WindowBlinds, it did not work so well on DesktopX.  The ease in which people could create their own content for DesktopX (DesktopX includes a GUI environment for making content) ensured there were a lot of poorly made themes, objects, and widgets for it.

By contrast, the Konfabulator team "got it" from the start.  They focused just on making widgets and they made sure that Konfabulator came with really polished widgets.  DesktopX lagged behind in that area for a long while.  Only in 2004 did Stardock actually assign its game development team to take a few weeks off and create its own DesktopX content.  You can see some of the results here.

So what are the differences between the two? I'm biased in favor of DesktopX but I also have an interest in trying to be objective on trying to understand what the perceived advantages are on both as users might see them.  Pride is the path to doom after all.

Advantages of Konfabulator over DesktopX

  • Straight Forward. It does widgets. That's it. Very focused approach.

  • Default widgets work well, are slick.

  • Simple user interface - since it only does widgets it can present a consistent, clean interface.

  • Where DesktopX makes new users fumble around with concepts such as "Themes" "Objects" "Widgets", Konfabulator focuses on one thing: Widgets.

  • It is polished to the max. It's just incredibly slick. (yes, this should count for two points)

  • It has better default widgets.

  • Konfabulator has a Macintosh version so it gains the benefit of having those graphics-savvy Macintosh widget makers.

  • Konfabulator has a very vocal and supportive development community for widget makers.

Advantages of DesktopX over Konfabulator

  • Far more configurable. Users can import a widget into DesktopX and tweak it however they want.

  • DesktopX widgets are EXEs. Which means they can have their own icon and can optionally show up in the taskbar, and can be individually set to auto-run.

  • DesktopX supports creating desktop themes. A concept that isn't in Konfabulator. Essentially a user can take a snapshot of their desktop and save it as a file to use later. Or they can completely customize the way Windows looks. See a DesktopX theme in action here.

  • DesktopX supports animation. The fish widget in the screenshot couldn't be done as a Konfabulator widget. The fish swims smoothly around the screen and does so using virtually no CPU.

  • DesktopX widgets support JavaScript (like Konfabulator) but it also supports VB Script and ActiveX controls. That means things like web browser controls, flash, and other things can be made into DesktopX widgets easily.

  • DesktopX has a Pro version that enables users to export their widgets as gadgets. Gadgets, unlike widgets, do not require the user to have DesktopX installed to us. They're truly stand-alone programs. Konfabulator has nothing comparable.

  • While Konfabulator has Konpose (F8) which will bring widgets to the forefront on the desktop, DesktopX has that (F9) but also a show all/hide all widgets feature so that users can hide all their widgets from their desktop (F10). Also, DesktopX's hot keys work as toggles. hit F9 once and your widgets come to the foreground. Hit F9 again and they go back behind your windows. Konpose doesn't do this.

  • DesktopX has a run-time version that is only $14.95. That's $5 less than Konfabualtor 2.0.

This is by no means a complete list for both. Just some of the main highlights between the two.

I don't think either one will knock out the other. I think what will more likely happen is that the two will end up creating more awareness of what is a quiet revolution in the world of personal computer - the migration of things that are more than icons.  Which one is the best or more popular will depend on you.

DesktopX can be found at http://www.desktopx.net

Konfabulator can be found at http://www.konfabulator.com

Related: Widget Wars - run down of programs to widgetfy your desktop!

(updated 5/27/2005 to support DesktopX 3 and Konfabualtor 2, original written Nov 2004).

131,424 views 68 replies
Reply #26 Top

Shadowlord: You obviously are new here so let me explain what is happening:

JoeUser is a blog site. Anyone, including you, can create an account and write up a blog. The people who have done so have chosen to give negative reviews of Konfabulator.  If you consider THIS article to be anti-Konfabulator then I think you must be such a fanboy as to lost any sense of reality.

LinuxGuy: 100 megabytes of ram for a dozen or so widgets is not trivial.  Even if you have a gig of RAM. 

I agree with some of your views on DesktopX.  Its widgets are not as configureable on their own.  You have to IMPORT them into DesktopX and change them there.

Reply #27 Top
Yep - that was the point where I stopped with Desktop X - I wanted something super simple.

And yes - I have 2 GB of RAM, and doing Java developement makes 100 MB look normal to me I guess. (Run Eclipse, JBoss, and other stuff on your PC and watch the memory go away.)

But, I can't stress enough that my wife now has Konfab - she is just a normal windows user who doesn't really want to know anything about her laptop. She loves the widgets and she was downloading and installing her own in about 3 minutes, quite amazing really. She just knew she wanted to have the weather and a calendar on her desktop - she got Konfab going in record time and I would not have even thought of having her use DesktopX - much too hard. Now she's a Konfab expert because it's easy.

Konfab is exicting and it will be something to watch in the future - I am sure these guys have more tricks in their bag - can't wait to see what happens.

That's what it's all about! BTW, my wife's laptop has 512 MB RAM, and she runs about four widgets, I don't know how much RAM they use though.

LinuxGuy

PS What about "enterprise widgets"? It looks like I can pull and parse XML with Konfab - what about DesktopX - I have not looked into that yet. I would love to have JBoss and Tomcat server status on my desktop as a widget.
Reply #28 Top
So, the question is, when will Stardock target the Mac as a platform for DesktopX? Wouldn't it make sense, if your competitor decided to try to take away some of your business to counterattack? Maybe not, but still, inquiring minds want to know.
Reply #29 Top
Sad, just a pathetic attack on Konfabulator just to promote your own inferior product. The Kofabulotar developers are already aware of the memory usage issues, they've already stated on Aqua Soft they are working to fix it in future versions. Next time you might want to try comparing a fully developed program instead of a first release beta that's bound to have problems. But then again that would put an end to your FUD campaign against Konfabulator to protect your own market share.
Reply #30 Top
Oh my... :-/
Reply #31 Top
I'd hand out a trolling, but a don't want to waste it on an anonymous user.

That sort of narrow sighted brand loyalty/hatred is just plain stupid.
Reply #32 Top

Linuxguy, DX has been pulling XML feeds from the net for its objects since before Konfabulator existed.

Now, as for fanboy ScottK:  Konfabulator isn't a beta. If it went out and said it was a beta that would be different. But it's not. It's a "fully" developed product and its memory usage is a real issue. One can assume they'll work on that just as one can assume that the drawbacks in DesktopX will be addressed.

Reply #33 Top
Welcome to the world of Windows software development ScottK. We're much more critical of the apps we use, and the defects within them. For a pay-for-application, I expect a much higher degree of quality. We already pay to beta test windows (isnt that what we're all essentially doing?) - so why should one pay yet again for an app that has such obvious problems?
Reply #34 Top
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH! The lengths that you go to discredit Konfabulotr is quite hilarious. You need to be educated about the real world facts outside your little Stardock kindom. Konfabulotar 1.8 for the Mac is a mature product, 1.8 for Windows is a beta because it's the first version for that platform. Even Arlo Rose himself has stated it was a beta on the forums. Just because you state it isn't beta like some self proclaimed customization god still doesn't make it so.

Of course this FUD from you is to be expected. It's the same crap that is spammed on every customization site everytime another program is percieved as a Stardock threat; Style XP, YzDock, AveDesk. You must be shaking in your boots as developer after developer comes up with better programs to compete with your ugly and slow skinning programs. So much for your skinning monoploy Bill Gates Jr. wanna be.
Reply #35 Top
andr3ww: Oh really? If you people are supposedly so more critical then why do you morons line up like cows coming to a feeding trough to buy games like Rollercoaster Tycoon 3 that are released with game stopping bugs? Oh that's right, it's because Windoze developers are so better, they never release anything that is broken or has bugs in the first release. It's more likely you PC widget developers are scared sh**less because Konfabulator is on Windows now. Aside from the memory programs that's being work on, the widgets look better, it's more intuiative, and has a much bigger selection then any other program so far. Looks more like a case of sour grapes to me.
Reply #36 Top
An interesting response, concerning multiple instances being run and resources being used by Konfabulator from a Mac/Windows user on another forum....

"Yep, it is quite weird that it acts that way. It has always acted that way on mac as well, a platform where opening more than one instance of something is almost unheard of. Macs have a more document centered interface, so if they looked at each widget as a document, then it made sense, but to most people it doesn't, because all the documents can be run under the same category.

The first time I opened Activity monitor and saw that I had 4 instances of konfabulator running I thought it was a mistake. Even the menu extra that sits in the menu bar is its own instance! I could never justify running all that for so little. Even when I had the ram available for it. Just seemed like a waste when there were alternatives out there.

It is no surprise that they made the windows version the same. I just don't understand it though. i would love for Arlo to come up with some sort of explanation, because it does seem very heavy and wasteful, especially when its proven by other apps that the same activities can be done for far less."

My read of this is and ScottK's comments that Konfabulator is as a mature app in the Mac environment....Konfabulator isn't resource friendly on that format either. And no where did I see on the official site where I downloaded the app from, no where did I see where they were asking for $25 and no where in the documentation...wait there wasn't any documentation....did I see that this was a Beta...it's version 1.8 the same quality proggie as 1.8 for Mac
Reply #37 Top
Wow, I was going to load up konfab just to kick the tires and see what it can do, until I read just how much of a memory hog it is...150 megs!!! Damn Marlow!

Concerning desktopx...I think it still has a long ways to go...everytime I have used it...I end up unloading in short order coz it not very stable and I can essentially do most of the same things (with more work) with other more user friendly and stabler programs...(e.x. I much rather would run sysmetrix than widgets). Also, I would much rather put a theme together than apply a theme that I might not necessarily like all the components of.
Reply #38 Top

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH! The lengths that you go to discredit Konfabulotr is quite hilarious. You need to be educated about the real world facts outside your little Stardock kindom. Konfabulotar 1.8 for the Mac is a mature product, 1.8 for Windows is a beta because it's the first version for that platform. Even Arlo Rose himself has stated it was a beta on the forums. Just because you state it isn't beta like some self proclaimed customization god still doesn't make it so.

Of course this FUD from you is to be expected. It's the same crap that is spammed on every customization site everytime another program is percieved as a Stardock threat; Style XP, YzDock, AveDesk. You must be shaking in your boots as developer after developer comes up with better programs to compete with your ugly and slow skinning programs. So much for your skinning monoploy Bill Gates Jr. wanna be.

DesktopX is an important product to Stardock but one needs to keep these things in perspective, it represents a very small part of our overall business.  Also, while Konfabulator may indeed get a lot of media attention, the fact remains that until it gets its resource usage issues tightend up, it's not going to be that competitive - especially when its main competition isn't us, it's freeware programs.  We make our DesktopX-related revenue selling content made with DesktopX not from selling the program on its own.

That said, I should point out that I am a registered user of Konfabulator.  I should also point out that it was *I* that made the news item for Konfabulator on Neowin.net which is the most popular tech news site on Windows (your welcome).

The fact is, Konfabulator 1.8 for Windows is not labeled a beta.  And I don't think my article is spreading FUD. It simply states where it is today.  Since I am privy to what is happening with DesktopX I could just as easily argue that most of the negatives I listed for DesktopX need not be mentioned since I know they're being worked on too.

Reply #39 Top
http://www2.konfabulator.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4761&hl=desktopx

I found this an interesting read as well. I too find it odd that there are many instances in the Task Manager, but I think there is effort being made to combine them. I can see why each widget would be listed seperately, but not different parts of the same base program. DX also shows some widgets as seperate processes, I think, and thats good to show what each one is doing for memory. :)
Reply #40 Top

What they do is put their widgets ito their own process.  I am skeptical as to whether they'll be able to change that since it would mean running as part of a single Konfabulator process where one bad widget can bring them all down.

More likely they'll be able to find a way to have widgets swap their working set memory to disk on start-up to lower the number as it appears in task manager.

Reply #41 Top
And would the memory shown in the task manager be an accurate representation of the usage then?
Reply #42 Top
Draginol,

I don't know who "these people are"... My comments only reffer to the negative article: Konfabulator for Windows vs. DesktopX and the posts made on wincustomize.com all of which are made by people with vested interest in StarDock. So as far as I can see this is not Joe User coming off the street, establishing an account and bashing Konfabulator.

As to the other stuff you spew: Fanboy? Whatever. As I said in my post earlier I hadn't even heard of Konfabulator until you guys mentioned it on your site. However, having seen the program I can now see why you (StarDock) is worried. Here is a program that is better suited for Joe User which is set to destroy all the hype you have created around desktopx. Let me explain, yours truly, Joe User, don't know VBS, JS, NET, C++, C#, etc.... I do know I like good looking objects on the desktop... Konfabulator has those a plenty (no matter what you say, or what you may pull out of wincustomize in 99.8% of the case the widgets for Konfabulator are better looking and more refined), makes them easy to use, and that is all it does... Fits my needs nicely... So why shoould I be looking at StarDock? Why indeed.... As for memory, CPU both are cheap and a plenty... All of my boxes have at least a gig of memory (yes it might not be PC4000 but heck pc2700 is fast enough for day to day use and is cheap) and are pentium 4 or Athlons... And I am sure as Konfabulator gets more mature it will get better... Just like DesktopX. Remember the disaster DEsktopX one was: "slow, memory hog, and unstable... And those are Stardock people's own words when they were urging everyone to upgrade to 2.2...

As for this advertisement for desktopx being Anti-Konfabulator... I never said that... I just said you guys need better tactics of selling your software (which BTW I described as "good" in my original post) as oppose to trying to force it down users throats... But NOW that YOU mention it on a second read this advertisement for desktopx is Anti-Konfabulator...

Your first paragraph is all about how the creators of Konfabulator were screwed and were desperate so they jumped to the PC....

When you list the pros of each program all you say for Konfabulator is "it only does widgets"... Oh you say it in 10 different ways but that is all you say...

So yes YOU are RIGHT... The advertisement for desktopx is anti-Konfabulator....

So again I ask why can't you just talk about your own product and maybe put out a chart of feature comparisons? Why do you feel the need to post 7 "news items" in four days just to say.. Hey desktopx is better... Are you hoping repettition will make it true?

TheGreenReaper: Not sure what you are tlaking about... Please explain...
Reply #43 Top
Style XP, YzDock, AveDesk


StyleXP = System hack, illegal, and doesnt skin as much as Windowblinds. Also uses more ram. All these are facts.

YzDock = Cool program, but not in developement any longer, while ObjectDock is. OD uses less ram in an equivalent configuration. All these are facts.

AveDesk = Well built program for what it does. Works well on the widget front, as does Konfabulator Avedesk is free, and uses less ram. All these are facts.


The only one of these programs that Stardock has actively challenged is StyleXP, and thats because its something that users shouldnt have to pay for, since its a) a system hack, and b) available free and c) a violation of the EULA that comes with Windows. Stardock doesnt threaten, steal, or bully anyone, or any product. All statements made by Frogboy and/or Draginol are simply him pointing out the factual reasons why one product is superiour, or inferior to the other. I have done the same, and will do the same. :NOTSURE:

:) :)
Reply #44 Top
Shadow Punk ( if you want to be Shadow lord you'll have to register with the site and quit posting annon.)

It seems that your're trying to pick a fight here. Lets look at the facts

So far I have see only fair comparison between the two proggies, both of which are in a release version.

1) The High amount of memory taken by Konfab will effect your systems even with 2 GB or ram as will the 20 or 30 mb that DX takes up on my system.

2) DX is not as user friendly. ( Brad this really will need to be addressed)

3) I you read through all the artricles that have been written by brad on the widget thing I think that you will get a better Idea of where he stands.

4)The look of the widgets are in my opinion equal if not leaning slightly towards DX and there are more and more widgets every week for both proggies so they will both have good and bad.

BTW I have been a stardock Customer for some 5 years, I did quite a bit of beta testing on DX while it was in prerelease form. However, I am not loyal to DesktopX it has upset me more than any other program out there. It has so much potiential, yet no one seems to really exploit it. _martin_ has made great strides but it seems that there still could be so much more done. Before you ask froggie, I don't really know. It's just a feeling I have. I want to like Konfab but the mass amounts of mem useage and simplicty of the program turned me off. DesktopX could learn from this though and create a simple interface for users that don't want the full power of the proggie. Basically take the widgets and give then z order options, transparency options and the such.
Reply #45 Top
TasT: Learn some manners, grow up, and then we can have an adult conversation. Save the name calling for recess.
Reply #46 Top
One thing that I forgot to mention, Konfab will grow and get better as will all the other widget proggies. So I would guess that the mem usage will drop for konfab in the future.
Reply #47 Top
It is recess at my house!

Didn't you get the memo? Oh wait that only went to registered users.....................

Reply #48 Top
Christ, looks like i've stepped out of the adult world and come accross some child populated rock where everyone fights about who's daddy is the best.

Honestly, for god sake, shut up with the childish bickering. I read this thread primarily to get an understanding of what konfabulator was shaping up to be like, but instead it was a painful read full of adolescent remarks. Far to much teenage angst building up here. :NOTSURE:
Reply #49 Top
This is a perfect example why third-party reviewers should be making the comparison and not the owner of one of the products. No one is going to take it seriously. There is a reason Microsoft and other companies hire third-parties to do independant reviews. It's always the same thing. Brad you will keep comparing your products to other products and you will keep inciting nasty debates while being accused of being biased (which you are. i certainly don't blame you as you own one of the products). Why don't you hire a true third party company to do a review. Now that would be something.
Reply #50 Top

People can take it for what it's worth.

I've seen a couple fanboys argue it's anti-Konfabualtor without giving a single specific (except Shadow who claimed that saying Konfabulator only does widgets is somehow a criticism -- that is a major advantage of Konfabulator over DesktopX, it makes its focus very clear and if you talked to anyone who used the two they would likely agree with that).  I listed advantages of both.  I don't claim to be unbiased.  People should try both and make their own decision.

But some of the things I list aren't opinions, they're facts.  Konfabulator uses about 10 megabytes currently per widget.  That's more so than most stand alone programs.  That's not "anti" Konfabulator. That's a verifiable fact.

If someone else wants to write a comparison, I'd be delighted.  One thing to point out, at least we acknowledge the existence of Konfabulator.  If you listen to Arlo's press, you would think that Konfabulator had invented this stuff and it had no competition.