Author Topic: Replace Windows Explorer [SOLUTION] (Read 32127 times)

urlwolf · « **on:** December 28, 2007, 10:58 AM »

Many of you use alternative file explorers, and don't like windows' explorer.
Here's what I found works for TC; it may work for others too (change paths accordingly):

http://www.ghisler.c...ght=replace+explorer

blackcat · « **Reply #1 on:** December 28, 2007, 11:13 AM »

hrmm what about replacing windows's shell (explorer.exe) with total commander or any of your fav file manager programs? that way you could free up almost 20mb of ram in your windows..downside is you wouldn't see taskbar and start menu anymore..

Xenonym · « **Reply #2 on:** December 29, 2007, 09:45 AM »

Even if you wanted, you can't. Windows File Protection prevents it from happening.

Info: http://en.wikipedia....dows_File_Protection

Ehtyar · « **Reply #3 on:** December 29, 2007, 09:57 AM »

http://www.bitsum.com/aboutwfp.asp

Ehtyar.

Darwin · « **Reply #4 on:** December 29, 2007, 09:59 AM »

Ha! Ehtyar - you beat me to it. I came back here to post this link as illustrative of how to get around WFP

Darwin · « **Reply #5 on:** December 29, 2007, 10:02 AM »

PS Ehtyar's link is a LOT more comprehensive than the example I just posted

However, I'd be extremely leery about hacking a resource like explorer.exe. All I can say is backup, backup, backup your system with a disk image preferably, before you even THINK about trying it.

f0dder · « **Reply #6 on:** December 29, 2007, 10:30 AM »

Ummm, you don't need to overwrite explorer.exe, you just need to change a per-user registry key. So no WFP.

Also, "replacing explorer" takes two parts: the shell ("desktop" if you want), and the directory/folder handler (the file-browser part of explorer). You can (and probably should

) use separate applications for this. Problem with the directory/folder handling is that things like My Network Places and other folders are special, and not all explorer replacements handle them well.

Didn't know that explorer (the shell) gobbles up around 20megs of memory, and was about to say "yeah, but you need to check private bytes, not working set size". But surprise surprise, at least on this Vista laptop, it's ~33megs of private bytes, ~22megs private working set size. Think I might be going back to blackbox on my XP64 workstation.

Darwin · « **Reply #7 on:** December 29, 2007, 11:07 AM »

Crap, f0dder! Explorer.exe on my XP Pro system fluctuates from a (seldom seen) low of 13MB of memory up to 100MB of memory. Currently, using 32MB memory and 58MB VM, so having a decent day here

f0dder · « **Reply #8 on:** December 29, 2007, 11:10 AM »

Crap, f0dder! Explorer.exe on my XP Pro system fluctuates from a (seldom seen) low of 13MB of memory up to 100MB of memory. Currently, using 32MB memory and 58MB VM, so having a decent day here
-Darwin (December 29, 2007, 11:07 AM)

100megs of private bytes? Holy pants.

Lashiec · « **Reply #9 on:** December 29, 2007, 11:12 AM »

Blame shell extensions. Mine is running between 14 and 22 MB of private bytes

Darwin · « **Reply #10 on:** December 29, 2007, 11:16 AM »

100MB of working set memory... the private bytes size was something awful as well - can't remember offhand what it was, about 80MB I belive!

Curt · « **Reply #11 on:** December 29, 2007, 11:21 AM »

I love shell extensions!

explorer.exe (XP, 32 BIT):
Virtual Size | Working Set | Private Bytes:

tomos · « **Reply #12 on:** December 29, 2007, 11:22 AM »

is there a reason I have two explorers (or am I misreading?)

edit: that's the private bytes, they have two different "PID" numbers

Curt · « **Reply #13 on:** December 29, 2007, 11:23 AM »

I also have two. One is for Pathfinder.

Lashiec · « **Reply #14 on:** December 29, 2007, 11:24 AM »

One is a trojan

Wasn't someone in the forum with the same problem? Maybe it was you, tomos?

tomos · « **Reply #15 on:** December 29, 2007, 11:29 AM »

One is a trojan

Wasn't someone in the forum with the same problem? Maybe it was you, tomos?
-Lashiec (December 29, 2007, 11:24 AM)

my memory is bad & I've been indulging lately but dont remember complaining about or even noticing it before
could try killing one see what happens...

Curt what's Pathfinder? (google says a film?)

just BTW DOpus on my machine is using 141,000K, at the mo at any rate

[edit] just killed the lesser explorer (the one without the + sign) -
they both claimed to be the same C:\WINDOWS\Explorer.EXE but didnt check anymore details...

Darwin · « **Reply #16 on:** December 29, 2007, 11:30 AM »

One is a trojan

Wasn't someone in the forum with the same problem? Maybe it was you, tomos?
-Lashiec (December 29, 2007, 11:24 AM)

It was ME! I traced the second explorer.exe to QTTabBar...

EDIT: added some clarity...

tomos · « **Reply #17 on:** December 29, 2007, 11:33 AM »

It was ME!
-Darwin (December 29, 2007, 11:30 AM)

WTF, thought for a minute you were doing something to my machine

f0dder · « **Reply #18 on:** December 29, 2007, 11:34 AM »

You generally have one explorer.exe for the shell, and if you have "launch folders in a separate process" enabled (as you should), you have a separate explorer.exe for, well, folders. (Setting name probably isn't 100%, this laptop runs a Danish version of Vista, so I had to transobliterate >_<)

Darwin · « **Reply #19 on:** December 29, 2007, 11:35 AM »

Just checked, Tom, Dopus is using 18MB working set and 121MB private memory. explorer.exe is using... drum roll... wait for it...

17MB private bytes and 30MB working set memory.

I had Process Explorer set up wrong (hadn't noticed) and can now report that at the moment explorer.exe is using 56MB private bytes and 33MB working set memory.

Darwin · « **Reply #20 on:** December 29, 2007, 11:38 AM »

It was ME!
-Darwin (December 29, 2007, 11:30 AM)

WTF, thought for a minute you were doing something to my machine
-tomos (December 29, 2007, 11:33 AM)

All of your processes are belong to me! ME! (Maniacal laughter ensues, cue music, roll credits).

tomos · « **Reply #21 on:** December 29, 2007, 11:42 AM »

if you have "launch folders in a separate process" enabled (as you should), you have a separate explorer.exe for, well, folders.
-f0dder (December 29, 2007, 11:34 AM)

might disable that - I never use explorer anyways...

Curt · « **Reply #22 on:** December 29, 2007, 12:04 PM »

Curt what's Pathfinder?
-tomos (December 29, 2007, 11:29 AM)

Sorry, I merely translated the Danish name (Stifinder), in fact I have no idea of the English term, but it is MS's name for Explorer when you are using it to navigate.

f0dder · « **Reply #23 on:** December 29, 2007, 12:11 PM »

if you have "launch folders in a separate process" enabled (as you should), you have a separate explorer.exe for, well, folders.
-f0dder (December 29, 2007, 11:34 AM)

might disable that - I never use explorer anyways...
-tomos (December 29, 2007, 11:42 AM)

The split process model is smart, since it ensures your shell wont crash if an explorer.exe browsing your filesystem crashes (usually because of a third-party plugin).

Darwin · « **Reply #24 on:** December 29, 2007, 12:14 PM »

Is it the search feature, Curt? Or is it Windows Explorer? As noted above, if I run Windows Explorer with the QTTab plugins I get a second explorer.exe process running as well... If, as f0dder notes, I have "launch folders in a separate process" enabled the second instance of explorer.exe doesn't close with Windows Explorer. ~~What~~ With "launch folders in a separate process" disabled, the second instance does close...