Krasivye Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) StartIsBack is said to be the best alternative to restore the start menu and least resource-intensive. StartIsBack no longer seems to be using the left-over code that is still present in Windows 8.1 however. Could someone please indicate how StartIsBack is superior to Classic Shell? My strongest concern is their resource usage as I really do not care about additional features besides a proper start menu as we have known from Windows 7. This is a legitimate question. I am not trying to badmouth either programs. Edited August 9, 2015 by Krasivye
Tihiy Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 On my system, Classic Shell uses more RAM (+8MB), additional process (ClassicStartMenu.exe), reads more from disk (+1MB) and generally opens more objects, threads and handles in explorer.exe process. SIB++ on the other hand on Windows 10 can eliminate SearchUI process (-30MB of RAM) and reduce ShellExperienceHost RAM usage (-10MB). That's on x86; on x64 difference can be a bit more pronounced.
Krasivye Posted August 9, 2015 Author Posted August 9, 2015 (edited) Thank you for your reply. Are you one of the StartIsBack developers? Edited August 9, 2015 by Krasivye
Krasivye Posted August 9, 2015 Author Posted August 9, 2015 Could you tell me if SIB+ also uses less resources than Classic Shell on a Windows 8.1 machine?Is it possible to keep the original start button with SIB+? The start button seems to be a bit bigger from what I have seen on screenshots and videos while I would prefer to keep its original size.
Tihiy Posted August 9, 2015 Posted August 9, 2015 StartIsBack+ for Windows 8.1 keeps original button by default. Resource usage is the same.
Krasivye Posted August 9, 2015 Author Posted August 9, 2015 The same as Classic Shell or the same as SIB++ on Windows 10?
Krasivye Posted August 9, 2015 Author Posted August 9, 2015 That is great. Thank you for your information.
Krasivye Posted August 10, 2015 Author Posted August 10, 2015 In case anyone is wondering, I have decided to go with SIB (StartIsBack) in the end and I am extremely satisfied with my choice. My experience has been better than with Classic Shell that had a noticeable opening lag. SIB comes as just the start menu as we have known from Windows 7, without the gimmick. This has made SIB the obvious choice for me. Unfortunately, I am unable to speak for all of the alternatives besides SIB and Classic Shell, but I am sure SIB is one of if not the best of the start menu solutions out there. I do not regret my purchase and probably will not anytime soon.
Aloha Posted August 11, 2015 Posted August 11, 2015 Krasivye, Can you post a screenshot of your SIB appearance settings with the start button orbs?Thanks in advance.
Krasivye Posted August 11, 2015 Author Posted August 11, 2015 (edited) Sure, Aloha. I have set it up to be as native as possible though, so I am afraid that you will not find anything in particular over the screenshot found on www.startisback.com. I hope it helps you with making the right decision. Edited August 11, 2015 by Krasivye 1
Aloha Posted August 12, 2015 Posted August 12, 2015 Thanks, Krasivye.It helps a lot to know the reason why the orbs on my SIB appearance settings don't have the same size as those on your screenshots! It's because I have chosen size medium (125%) for text and items on the desktop in Windows Display. You chose the default size (100%), right? Found this only by gazing upon the text on your picture!
Krasivye Posted August 12, 2015 Author Posted August 12, 2015 Oh. That is interesting to hear. My DPI is indeed set to 'Smaller - 100%', although 'Medium - 125% (default)' was the default on my laptop.It however does not sound like intended behaviour for the button being unable to adapt to a 'custom' DPI setting. I hope that a developer is able to resolve your issue soon. 1
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now