Future Development Goals

[Joel "Jaykul" Bennett]

What I'm secretly hoping is that you'll pick the options further down the list

Actually, what I'm really trying to determine is what percentage of our users:

• Really want a replacement shell for Vista.
• Would be interested in a Vista-only replacement shell.
• Would deffinitely not be interested in a Vista-only ... anything.

And I'm also curious about how many of you:

• Think the biggest problem with geoshell is how hard it is to configure (as opposed to the Menu issues)
• Would consider using a "more than widgets" shell add-on that does not replace the shell (but will run over geoshell or explorer or even litestep) and allows you to customize your desktop in ways that are not possible with current widget engines ... think of apps like Samurize, OSX Dock, Orbit dock, DeskOps ...
• Would be willing to trade some resource usage for a shell that's easier to develop for (assume that this would mean more plugins, but more RAM usage, as in the poll)
• Would not care (or would refuse to use) if a shell or shell add-on as above ... used Mono or Microsoft's .NET framework
• Want a shell primarily for the uniqueness and/or eliteness
• Want a shell primarily for the added functionality and/or the way it can simplify your life easier

[svenke]

If I ever install Vista the first thing I'll do is to disable all the aero/eye-candy crap.
http://www.geoshell.org/index.php?option=com_gallery2&Itemid=21&g2_itemId=1795 is pretty much all I need. All I need in terms of sysinfo can be seen in that shot.
I don't really care what it's done in as long as it's fast and working.
I want a shell that's minimal and makes my life easier, which is exactly what Geoshell is doing now.

[dr0ne]

Ditto svenke, completely. I don't run an OS for the gloss, I run it to use programs. I still us Win2k, though I've been thinking of making use of my campus' highly discounted XP license, and Vista most likely won't be installed on anything around here. The current incarnation of GeoShell seems great to me. And really, what other plugins are lacking? I think the current ones could be polished and perfected, but I don't really find myself saying "gee, it'd be grand to do something else." Maybe I'm not thinking big enough.

As for customization, things have gotten a lot better since 4.9 (yeah, the last build I ran - I've been out of most computer system update loops for a few years). Perhaps if GeoMan was updated, new users wouldn't have the worries about the registery.

Since my computer is a few years old, most new widgets really tax my system (I run an AMD Athlon 900mhz, 512 mb RAM). I haven't seen what all the cute skinning/ custo progs can do these days, so I'll have to review them before saying more.

The long made short: GeoShell works perfectly for me now. Updating GeoMan would simplify some things for new users. Rah rah, sis boom bah!

[4ceman]

Hey jaykul, why doubt your former way?? 

I am a real Geoshell-addict for many years (I excessively used Litestep before), I have gone through all the releases whether stable or not - I didn't doubt one single day that this was the heaven, MS promised and never made real!
I use GeoShell on 2 boxes now, even at work (I am network administrator) and would NEVER replace it!! Yes, Vista looks neat - all that Aero glass stuff and I am really looking forward for the transparent window-borders which really look cool - but honestly - do I really need a shell that consumes a bunch of pages in memory when I don't need all the oh-we-will-make-all-beginners-feel-comfortable-crappy-sh*t!
I really want my shell just as large as I want to use it - in memory and on my screen! Additionally I have configured Geo to just run 2 smooth, black, 50% faded bars on my two dual-monitor workstations. No eye-popping taskbar, icons, wizards, popups, crap! The window in focus is 0-alpha, the inactive one is 35%-alpha. That's the way I want to work - The main scene of action, the active window, fully visible - everything else must not disturb my concentration!
GeoShell is cool - 'cause it can simply to that, and btw it consumes just 10MB in memory! I reboot my WS at work just for installations that require it - today the uptime catched my eye (I've got samurize displaying the most important stuff in an on-top-layer) - 21 days up and running!! geoshell.exe @ 14MB!!!!!! explorer.exe would hit 30Megs the first few days and would - therefore - crash! 

No, jaykul, just keep up the good work! Keep GeoShell the way it is - smooth, slick, fast, stable, eye-candie (as it is), small (as  one decides) in memory! If you decide to leave that way then tell us in time - for we can save the 4.11.10-release, make it a shrine and worship it eternally! 

[cyb.tachyon]

Well, I'm a user of Aston mainly becuase I'm a graphics artist with too much time on my hands. The reason I've shown up here is that I am addicted to open-source/freeware software, and believe open-source is the way to go for everything... or at least freeware 

One of the main questions is: How skinnable is Vista? How does the desktop function with widgets? Microsoft hasn't answered our questions concerning this, and if the answers are "Fully beyond your dreams. Customize everything" like Bill Gates keeps leading us on to believe, what happens to our shell apps out there???

[David]

i vote for fixing bugs etc and leaving it how it is.

[Kramy]

I used Geoshell briefly until my harddrive died. Now I've taken on several windows modding projects, and helped with others. The biggest current one is porting all XP/XPize icons into Win2k. 

I will NOT be using GeoShell until there's an easy way to put a desktop under it. Otherwise, why would I be spending the time to convert all these icons? 

What I'd really love is way to mimick Explorer but make it prettier(WindowBlinds), but their Win2k version runs off the CPU, and I'm not willing to trade CPU cycles for prettiness. ReactOS Explorer is an awesome Explorer replacement that uses less memory, but I'm not sure how skinnable it is. Truthfully, I'd like to have a combination of all the current projects - an easily skinnable widgetized ROS explorer that runs off your videocard. Ahh...aren't I hard to please? 

So, enough rambling; to answer your questions:
1) I would be interested in a (Vista-only?) shell replacement that meets the above criteria. I hear Vista's Aeroglass interface is gonna slow OpenGL down to 40% speed, so it's getting tossed out the window.

2) I do not think the registry editting is much of a problem, but I do registry editting a bit every day, so I'm used to it.

3) Any widget engine I use will have to be Videocard powered, or it will be tossed out the window.

4) I do not care about memory usage. Hell, it could use 50mb so long as it runs off a videocard and never hits 1% CPU usage. My current windows uses less than 64mb at boot to run every program I need, so there's about 64mb to play with before you use 12.5% of my memory.

5) I want a shell that has little impact on the CPU.

6) I want a shell for the ways it makes life easier and tasks more efficient; right-click menus('Send To'), a run box that I can use the down arrow half way through typing dirnames to go up to the next level, and a desktop loaded with shortcuts pointing all over the place to things I work on daily. Irritations between how XP and Win2k handle it actually kept me from upgrading, so not having those things remotely close will limit the chances of me using it.

That said..I'm probably not the best person to model the next version after.  But you asked, and I answered.

  [/emoticonhorde]

[OxxY]

I voted a Vista only shell as i will very probably convert to Vista, and i believe that trying to upgrade current geoshell to Vista and not breaking anything etc. might just be the thing that will result in slow development because it will be too tedius to fix all the old code to work on both xp and vista.

Geoshell as it is today is rock stable (if you dont got too much on your desktop etc and the other few know oddities). So I say, use the knowledge you have of shellmaking and make a easy to code shell in C#/.net1.1/.net2 or whatever is your flavour, and let it be Vista only. I am not worried about memory usage and such, since Vista will require loads anyway. (ok if it becomes a REAL hog then it would be bad, but if it's easy to shutdown/startup then it can be killed when using heavy apps like gaming where you dont need your fancy shell anyway).

I must say though that i would like a fullblown (replacement) shell  and not just extra widget addons, since i tend to like a more simplistic and smaller view than MS. Here I assume that Vista will have the usual windows taskbar that will fill the whole screen no matter what which i absolutely hate

[hoongern]

I have been using GeoShell for a couple of years now and have never looked back, I never want any icons again lurking on my desktop. I chose it for the low resource usage and plugins...

I haven't done much research on Vista, but from the small bits I'm hearing, it seems that lots of it is just to do with eye-candy and 'nice-looking' effects and features - but it doesn't seem to do anything extra from what I can do now with my XP/2000 boxes. Thus I don't really see myself upgrading to Vista, at least not in the near future, and so it would be nice to have dev for non-Vista still going. Although in the end if that doesn't happen and dev for XP stops, I can live with the current version which works very well for me (besides recycling all the time to see changes in menus!).

Anyway I guess I should say thanks anyway for bringing out this great piece of software - since it's free I guess I can't really complain!

[porkmanii]

And I'm also curious about how many of you:

• Think the biggest problem with geoshell is how hard it is to configure (as opposed to the Menu issues)
• Would consider using a "more than widgets" shell add-on that does not replace the shell (but will run over geoshell or explorer or even litestep) and allows you to customize your desktop in ways that are not possible with current widget engines ... think of apps like Samurize, OSX Dock, Orbit dock, DeskOps ...
• Would be willing to trade some resource usage for a shell that's easier to develop for (assume that this would mean more plugins, but more RAM usage, as in the poll)
• Would not care (or would refuse to use) if a shell or shell add-on as above ... used Mono or Microsoft's .NET framework
• Want a shell primarily for the uniqueness and/or eliteness
• Want a shell primarily for the added functionality and/or the way it can simplify your life easier

1. I'm comfortable editing the registry, so geoshell's configuration isn't an issue to me.  The menu issues are a problem, though.
2. I'm too attached to the XP start menu to use a shell replacement for my main machine, but shell *add-ons* (or at least geoshell on top of Explorer) generally aren't enough of a benefit to me either.  If there was a menu system flexible enough to copy XP's start menu functionality, I'd switch to geoshell in an instant.
3. My system rarely goes below 50% RAM free ('cept when I'm running a virtual machine), so resource usage really isn't an issue for me. (Believe it or not, I've run Explorer for a month straight - as in never logged out - without *any* issues!)
4. C# being my language of choice, I'd almost encourage shell add-ons in .NET.
5/6. I'd use an alternate shell primarily for added functionality (such as hotkeys), a minimal yet nice-looking and *customizable* UI (like geoshell's) and for a bit of variety (I'm sure you all know how boring Explorer can get.)

btw, one major - to me, at least - problem I found with geoshell was that I couldn't configure *just* the Windows key as a menu hotkey without breaking the Win+X hotkeys, which I use frequently.

[Andrea]

i vote for fixing bugs etc and leaving it how it is.

I agree. But this option was missing!

[dardex]

Works for me the way it is.   i've been messing with the registry since win 3.1 so i don't even use geoman or the ctrl+right click stuff (have been using the fitts+color update, no setup menus anyway .)  And I don't like stuff on my desktop .

[Kramy]

Just thought I'd mention one other thing. I play lots of games, and Win2k is superior to XP when it comes to the performance of games. If I upgrade to Vista, it'll be Vista64. There is no chance of me upgrading to a Vista32 OS, which would have even more overhead than XP does, and likely multitask more too.

I don't know if C# code varies from 32bit to 64bit, but any new shell you start designing should be natively 64bit.

[discodog]

I remains with xp for my audio workstation,vista seem too much angry with resource of my pc bat one shell replacement compatible xp an vista togheter seems the best thingh,I have apprecited the great work in performance and stability of geoshell,my audio system have one bug in the windows shell(ide task bar problem),with geoshell my GUI of my audio system work perfect without this problem   ,for my is great shell replacement and think new development the beast goal is one shell xp/vista compatible like old geoshell win98/2k/xp compatible!" 

sorry for my henglis


http://digilander.libero.it/AuDi0SlAvE/dawdesktop1.htm

[David]

2 things, firstly .net or mono is a great idea. if you do it in C# i'd be happy to help.
and also, if i ever get vista (aka i get it free) then all the eye candy will be turned off.