WOW! so many replies! this forum is truly awesome!
Liteshell, maybe? http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~mosses/rob/liteshell.html
-TucknDar
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\command_interpreter_name.com)
-40hz
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)
Link: http://www.bb4win.org/news.php
or its cousin Xoblite
Link: http://xoblite.net/
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)...
-Ampeter
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)
-scancode
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)
-Paul Keith
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 ( www.directfolders.com ) 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)
-40hz
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.
-f0dder
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.
-MrCrispy
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.
-MrCrispy
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.
