• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Does anyone use active desktop?

downhiller80

Platinum Member
When it first came out everyone snubbed it for being too resource crazy. Is that still an issue and/or has it been improved in win2000?

Seb
 
From my own experiences, I know they can vary but the first thing I;ve alawys done is disable active desktop. i;ve seen it slow down perfectly good machines to a crawl.

Gatsby
 

I don't think it should be an issue with Win 2K like it was with Win 98 or Win 95. And besides, you've got all that new RAM, right.

🙂

 
I use the QuickLaunch bars from ActiveDesktop. I've added folders from my Programs menu, and my IE favorites, and My Computer for two-click access to most anything on my system. Oh yeah, I'm also using a two-layer toolbar for this.

-SUO
 
active desktop sucks. It's not the sluggishness, but it seems to seriously increase the number of hangs and crashes. I just convert whatever desktop pic I want to use to a bmp. I dont like web content on my desktop or my folders.
 
Does Microsoft even support it anymore? They surely don't promote it.

The first thing I do is turn it off after every new installation.
 
I would never use it under Win95/98, it is a memory hog. But I have it running under 2k and it is great. I keep metacrawler on my desktop at all times and I can search for things whenever I want. Pretty cool and it doesn't take much ram at all. I am not sure about WinME though. Haven't tried it yet.
 
The startmenu bar enhancements (which are part of active desktop) are great. But the part of active desktop where you have a webpage on your desktop is terrible. It's the first thing I turn off after a fresh Win98 install.
 
Active Desktop is a real resource hog under 9x still even on WinME. I never turn it on. It's not bad on Win2k but I still leave it off because it really doesnt offer that much of interest and it seems to make the OS more prone to crashes in my experience.
 
WinME comes with some rollover images/links built into it. (at least teh dell distro does)

I use it for the quicklaunch bar. I've got damn near everything down there

bart
 
I am a BIG supporter of the Active Desktop. As a matter of fact, whenever I install NT4 on a system, I install MSIE 4, JUST TO GET the active desktop features. Why?
I have never noticed a performance hit. I think that's a lot of talk
I can't STAND having ICONS on my desktop.
I can't stand having to go to my desktop or my start menu to launch something.
I run all my apps maximized, so having anything OTHER than a quicklaunch bar would be a hassle.
I ALWAYS have a dual monitor setup, and without active desktop, you can not have different wallpaper of each monitor.

Good enough? Seriously, though.... When I first started haering talk about "resource hog....slow your system down, blah blah..." I thought I should probably turn it off and give it a try without it.
NOT A DAMN BIT of difference on Win98, Win NT4, or Win2K. Not one bit. I even timed things to see if there was at any point any slowdown of my system. --All slowdown was inconsistent and negligible enough to have been just as likely caused by a rank fart near my case or an airplane flying over.

Active desktop ROCKS.

Ricky
DesignDawg
 
Sebfrost To answer your question No I do not use active Desktop,the funny thing is on my old PC it was more stable with it off(not active)when I use to put it to active mode I would get the odd crash,have not tried it on my new Thunderbird system yet.

🙂
 
OK what I want is to have a scrollable wallpaper. I thought I could do this with active desktop by using an HTML page with just that image on it, but even then it won't let me scroll.

Any ideas?

Seb
 
Back
Top