avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • Monday January 17, 2022, 3:49 pm
  • Proudly celebrating 15+ years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Ampeter [ switch to compact view ]

Pages: [1]
The easiest way to do this is the Firefox extension Scrapbook (https://addons.mozil...S/firefox/addon/8186). It has the best web capture engine since its browser based.

I knew of Scrapbook but I didn't know it was so awesome! It does exactly what I wanted, and it's light and very easy to use.

Thanks for the suggestion!   :D  :Thmbsup:

I have used HTTRack for at least 3 years if not more.  :Thmbsup:  It is extremely powerful, you can configure almost anything and get just about any file from any website, as well as all links and external sites linked.  You set how deep you want to go.  Price is good too, it's FREEWARE.

I agree, HTTrack is very powerful but I just can't find a way to download in html instead of downloading the actual files, so when I tried to download a wikipedia article I didn’t have a functional page....

Do you know if it's possible to do the same you can do with Scrapbook using HTTrack?

Say, for example, if I want to save a full Wikipedia page in html (same as "file-->save as" option in the browser) and also all the pages linked in that page(with the links redirected to the local copy if possible) what would be the best way?

The idea is to have a wiki article and all it's links(1st level only, of course) in html so you can browse it offline without having to set up a local wiki.

I tried HTTrack but it doesn't seem to have an option for what I what, and doing it manually looks like...crazy, at best.

Ideas?   :tellme:

General Software Discussion / Re: Getting rid of windows shell
« on: October 21, 2008, 12:50 PM »
WOW! so many replies! this forum is truly awesome!

Liteshell, maybe? http://www.labyrinth...s/rob/liteshell.html

I don't know... looks like one of the most poorly documented shells in the world! :S

I don't really see how you could do it other than by replacing the command interpreter with something else: (ex: shell=\directory\

I don't know if I understand what you are trying to say... why would I want to replace the command interpreter? I can launch CMD from object dock or FARR whenever I want without using explorer.exe, so...?

You could look at Black Box for Windows (BB4W)

or its cousin Xoblite

Doesn't get more minimal the BB4W. If you want something leaner you may need to consider writing your own.

yeah, I've thought about writing a shell but the closer thing to programming I can do is a lousy AHK script  :D

I guess the only thing I'd need it to do is hide those damn minimized windows on the bottom of the screen, that can't be that difficult but... I don't even know where to start!  :(

What could I do? I've thought about a shell replacement but litestep and bblean use way too much resources for my taste (specially cpu)...

Are you serious? I'm running bblean on my Asus Eee 900  (1GB RAM, no swapfile, 630mhz celeron, xpsp3) and I never saw it taking more than 5% CPU (while opening and closing lots of windows, I think it was bbleanskin's fault) and eating more than 4MB of ram.

I attach my whole bblean setup so you can see for yourself:  (see attachment in previous post), and a screenshot.
 (see attachment in previous post)

Well, maybe it was because I was running a different blackbox or I hadn't installed it properly but last time I tried it was almost constantly using 2-8% of my (crappy) CPU, and process explorer showed it was using more CPU cycles than explorer.exe IIRC.

Your BBlean setup looks really cool though.. specially that bbMemLimiter plugin! what does it do exactly?

BTW I see you are using a Spanish version of Windows... ¿Eres español o latinoamericano por casualidad?  ;)

A shell replacement is your present lover decked out in skimpy lingerie. Linux is a whole new lover wearing even skimpier lingerie and has a strong immunity towards STDs but is unfortunately wearing a chastity belt whose hole requires more than inserting a key

Fix'd  :D

I guess I just want a minimalistic desktop that I can understand and have great FREE alternatives to the applications I'm used to. (which so far are available in Linux in the form of java apps requiring installation from source)

Well, you don't need linux for that... the only thing the explorer shell does is providing the taskbar, desktop icons, desktop right-click menu(right-click menu outside of the desktop still works without explorer.exe), and of course the default Windows hotkeys (win+D, win+E, etc).

It's also needed for internet explorer and Windows explorer, but those are not strictly speaking shell functions.

If I could just get something that worked like FARR or Direct Folders ( ) as my main interface, and something like NexusFile to replace Explorer, I'd be perfectly happy. Toss in a copy of the K-Melon browser and Notepad++ for text work and I'd be ready to roll.
 (see attachment in previous post)

Well, as far as I know there's nothing preventing you to use FARR as your system shell and NexusFile as your default file manager, so what are you waiting for?  :D

Using many of the same DLLs yes, using explorer.exe no.

Well, yes. That's what by meant by 'effectively'. Its like using MSHTML to render web pages without iexplorer, I doubt the savings amount to anything.

I've tried alternate shells in the past and none of them seemed useful enough for everyday work. Simple things like dragging over a taskbar program and have it open up didn't work.

Well, my UMPC has 720 mb of ram total, so the main advantage to me is not having explorer.exe wasting 30mb all the time considering I don't use anything of what it does...

I agree that replacing your shell normally isn't worth the headache and there are no good enough alternatives... I've searched for months for a shell for XP that would mimic vista desktop with those nice big icons and thumbnails for my main pc but found absolutely nothing... most shell replacements haven't even been updated since 2-3 years!

Are there any functional advantages to these? i.e. besides looking cool and the widgets etc. If you run explorer (the file manager), use the file open/save dialog from any app, or run IE, you are effectively running explorer.exe, so I don't see how using a different shell will save any memory or resources. Quite the contrary in fact.

Those are .dll so even if you completely eliminated explorer.exe from your system those dialogs would still work.

Speaking of Windows open and save dialogs... they are total crap! does anybody know of a way to replace them? The only thing I found is a couple of programs that extend them but I could do that with AHK also... what i'd really like is a total replacement, sort of what I did some time ago with TeraCopy and the default windows file copy.

General Software Discussion / Getting rid of windows shell
« on: October 19, 2008, 01:36 PM »
Hi guys!

I'm tweaking a windows xp install to use on a UMPC, so I want it to use as little resources as possible(while still being easy to use and looking nice)... so far everything has gone smooth, but now I'm trying to get rid of that stubborn explorer.exe (I hate how it's always sitting there doing nothing... using 18-30mb of ram and lots of CPU cycles when it sees fit) and I'm almost there!   

So far I'm using:

-FARR to launch programs and run commands so I don't need the start menu.

-Objecdock to launch programs, minimize and maximize apps and check the system tray, so I don't need the taskbar...

-Freecommander to browse files, so I don't need windows explorer.

-Opera (I like firefox better but opera is much lighter) instead of internet explorer.

-Avedesk (It's a shame it's not being developed anymore as it is still the best widget engine out there in my opinion) so I can have nice desktop icons and even icons for removable drives when using a thumb drive or mp3 player... so I don't need the desktop for anything...

Looks perfect right? wrong! I have 2 big problems I can't solve yet after closing or replacing explorer.exe with any of this or other programs in the registry (it's what you have to do so explorer.exe stops being the shell and doesn't load automatically on startup)

1) windows minimize ok to objecdock but still show where the taskbar would be... I guess it must be because explorer desktop is some kind of frameless window behind which this minimized windows bars would hide or something like that... It looks really ugly, and it's confusing...something like this:

What could I do to prevent that? I tried putting the dock on the bottom to try to hide them but they come on top of it again when minimized.

2) tray doesn't update or doesn't work properly... this is minor as I don't really have a crowded tray but still I'd like to have a way of checking it if I need to.

What could I do? I've thought about a shell replacement but litestep and bblean use way too much resources for my taste (specially cpu)...

maybe a minimall shell that is only a desktop without icons? what about the tray then?

Apart from that, it's great to live without explorer.exe! Everything else is working fine and I don't miss it one bit  ;D

Find And Run Robot / Re: FARR in other languages?
« on: May 25, 2008, 01:59 AM »
If people really want this, i could add it without much trouble.

That would be great!

it could also be a good idea to make a sticky thread or something asking for translators and listing all translation files and all...

Hope to hear news about FARR multilingual support soon!  :Thmbsup:

Find And Run Robot / FARR in other languages?
« on: May 22, 2008, 07:52 PM »
I couldn't help but notice that FARR is only available in English... and not only that, but I don't see any way to easily translate it (at least without hacking the .exe with a resource hacker) and that's really a shame as such a great program should be available in as many languages as possible so everybody could enjoy it.

Could it be possible to include multilingual support in the next release (I bet you'll have many volunteer translators starting with myself) or at least put all language strings into a .dll or something like that for easier localization?

Pages: [1]