Is there any way in XP/2003 Server to disable explorer from booting up? I kno win the 9x series you could edit an ini file. Any suggestions?

hehe... after I saw this question I just had to look... Yup, Progman is still around!! It's in XP Pro!! Are there still people that prefer Progman over Explorer?

Just thought I'd share that... not like I know the answer to your question right off the top of my head, but I'll take a look around

Jim

well, so far I've found in the registry this...

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon

In there is a Shell key which is set to "Explorer.exe"

I'm gonna set mine to progman.exe... just for nostalgia's sake

Jim

"well, so far I've found in the registry this...

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon

In there is a Shell key which is set to "Explorer.exe"

I'm gonna set mine to progman.exe... just for nostalgia's sake

Jim"

I used to do that on Windows NT 4.0 (when I was still more accustomed to the Program Manager (progman.exe) shell from NT 3.51/3.5/3.1)...

It's not a bad shell replacement either, & it's ALOT lighter in memory consumption (by many orders of magnitude).

It works for 99% of most things in fact (except for trayicon apps, & as long as you don't 'hide' them, meaning minimize to icon only as some apps do, you're fine, because iirc, this will stop the StartBar from running too, but I could be wrong!)

It's been ages since I did that & that was on the NT4.0 shell which was NOT IE based, & Explorer.exe was really it's OWN app, & not an IE instance only.

IIRC again (MS really radically changed the design of the shell from NT4 with IE4 onwards to have IE be your shell basically, which is why you can use things like Active Desktop etc.)...

Too bad the old filemanager (winfile.exe) does not cut it as well, because it's a VERY fast responding filemanager system.



* Are you kidding, or are you serious?

(Not busting on you, but I see alot of folks using shell replacements for that very reason: lighter & faster etc. & they have one the WHOLE time basically in Progman!)

APK

IIRC, WINFILE.EXE is also included in 2000, but not in XP. Anyone use WINFILE.EXE?

I'm gonna set mine to progman.exe... just for nostalgia's sake

Jim


* Are you kidding, or are you serious?

(Not busting on you, but I see alot of folks using shell replacements for that very reason: lighter & faster etc. & they have one the WHOLE time basically in Progman!)

APK

I did set mine to Progman, it's been since... early "95 (I bought Win 95 within a week of release) that I've used it as a shell. The one that is in XP is a bit more stark than I remember in 3.1. It looked like I'd need to create my own program groups and all that, and I'm just not feeling THAT nostalgic so I changed it back to Explorer after about 15 minutes.

Actually, I like Explorer. The only time I've really messed with it was during the Win98 and the early Pentium2 days. I used 98lite to put the Win95 Explorer in 98. It made a huge performance difference for me then. After about the time the Pentium3 was released the hardware just passed the software requirements by leaps and bounds and I just don't see it as necessary anymore.

Heh... I still have DOS 6.22 and WFW 3.11 disks here and an old computer lying around here. Might be a good day for a trip down memory lane If nothing else I'm sure it'll remind me just how far MS products have advanced in the last 10 years.

Jim

"IIRC, WINFILE.EXE is also included in 2000, but not in XP. Anyone use WINFILE.EXE?"

It is in 2k (maybe, not sure anymore since I don't have it online but I'll take your word for it), & you can probably copy it over to an XP installation & use it...

However, if you try to use it on 2k or XP, you'll note that some things just don't work right in it, whereas they do in say NT4 etc. just fine. What exactly those things are, I am not 110% sure anymore but I know things were funny in it (which is why I stated it may not 'cut it' as nicely as progman.exe still does).

@ Jim/Mezron:

Yes, you're right - You'd have to form your own groups inside the program manager interface (new groups first, & then items in the groups etc.), but that's only a 'minor' hassle.

* It is outstanding though in terms of memory efficiency. If you want a LIGHT in memory & fast alternate shell it cuts the mustard!

(& it operates a BIT differently than it does in NT4/3.5x/3.x etc. as far as looks & window behaviours (you'd have to remember back to Win3.x style of it to know what I mean but I think you do) since the API changes for how Windows minimize etc. but it's still pretty cool & works.)

APK

Yes I use both Progman and File Manager in XP... worth their weight in gold, super fast, super light (not leaky) and super stable