Computer Power User Magazine took a look at DesktopX 2.1. While DesktopX 2.2 is world's better than 2.1 was and will be out in the next couple of weeks, CPU's look at 2.1 gives users an insight on the pros and cons of DesktopX.
Comments
on Aug 05, 2004
CPU writes:

"Unlike WindowBlinds, DesktopX doesn’t modify the OS kernel instead, it runs as a process and hosts Objects you choose to load."

Frogboy writes (on XP SP2):

"For those users running software that patches their system DLLs or hacks their kernal, expect a wild ride. In most cases new versions of those various patches will have to be applied."

What the hack is going to be modified when installing XP SP2 !?
on Aug 05, 2004
WindowBlinds doesn't touch the kernal. They were mistaken.
on Aug 05, 2004
No kidding, I just emailed the CPU editors about that. It's funny, I thought this was a fairly lousy review too. I would have given DesktopX a bit more praise. Of course, one becomes biased in Stardock's favor after using their software for a while. Are you sure there isn't any mind-control code in your programs, Frogboy?
on Aug 05, 2004
Patrick Norton, isn't that the ScreenSavers guy?
on Aug 05, 2004
Norton eh?

DX truly does rock though, along with IconX.
on Aug 06, 2004
He sounded in a hurry, you need 512 of ram just to run winxp at its optimum performance. So they said on the screensavers yesterday.
on Aug 06, 2004
Sounded like a pretty fair review, though I'd like to see more reviews where they use the software for a month or two, and really get an appreciation for it.