WindowsXP 3.11
ok no not really but close...this makes xp blazing fast, only thing left to do is find a small applet for the system tray and its very useful as a desktop manager (note xp disabled program manager in sp2, some file protection wont allow you to overwrite it either? had to use progman.exe from windows nt 4.0 and rename it to progman1.exe)
Comments
Explorer > Program Manager
~Duff
i guess its ok if you happen to like progman....
i can't stand progman, which is why i always use calmira or newshell
well heres what i got to say
1. its for fun, dont get angry if you are
2. i kind of liked windows 3.11 simple mdi interface to managing programs better than "the evil start button"
3. this way it requires no interection with explorer.exe/iexplore.exe unless i choose to allow it.
4. im in windows and ready to work within 3 seconds instead of waiting about 30
5. im using a p3 450
all i really did was copy progman.exe from windows nt 4.0, and make it the shell, then use a windows 3.11 theme its a lot quicker, even though its not pretty....plus the blue eye candy was giving me a headache.
I would still like to know how to change the minimized windows to icons like in 3.11 via some sort of a registry key. I may just end up breaking out visual basic and attempting to duplicate progman.exe as a complete desktop shell replacement for windows with systray.
and most of us running XP can be ready to work in 3 - 5 seconds with explorer..... because we run it on PC's that can handle XP without effort......
as long as your happy with it, i've tried with many versions of windows to mimick other versions so i support your efforts.....
unfortunately a new pc isnt in the budget. i did some messing around, and after installing nt4 server on my laptop, i noticed it was using less than 16mb of ram even after installing sp6a. nt4 is also blazing fast and appears to support just all 32bit programs i want to run on it minus the directx. there is a lot of unnecessary bloat in windows xp that i cant seem to remove easilly, atleast with program manager it makes a little nostalgia and a faster system..
the point: windows xp is un-necessarily bloated/slow, i dont like the marketting tricks that force you to get new hardware. microsoft would have been better off upgrading nt 4.0 to support the new features instead of releasing an overbloated peice of eyecandy. if you have ever used linux, u could start out with say redhat 5.0 (hurricane) with kernel 2.0.30 and upgrade say your kernel to 2.6.10 or whatever the stable is now, and probably upgrade your glibc and keep everything else how it is.... without increasing the overhead
i know this is almost apples and oranges but run linux, freebsd, or even beos/skyos/qnx the capabilities to do the same things are there, the eye candy is there, but u dont need 512mb of ram and a 2.3ghz pc to run comfortably....
You know you can turn off the eye-candy in Windows XP, right?
You know you can turn off useless services in Windows XP, right?
Getting rid of Luna takes about 5 seconds.
PUH-LEAZE. Redhat has been known to be one of the distro's where if you even go near non-Redhat kernals *POOF*. Speaking of which, Microsoft continued support for their legacy products for what, almost a decade? That's considering how RedHat discontinued support for their consumer/personal line after only a few years..
LOL omgwtfbbq, I'm sitting here laughing my ass off at how stupid you seem to get.
Windows Explorer requires far less resources to run good than both Gnome or KDE.
Anyone who has "used" Linux or BSD as a desktop OS and says KDE / Gnome is faster than Explorer is a dirty damned liar. I use Linux and FreeBSD ~80% of the time. But, I'm not going to sacrifice my integrity like you have and outright lie. Yes, I hope KDE and Gnome can match the performance of Explorer one day, but the fact of the matter is they're not there yet.
See, that's the thing with Linux & BSD users.
BSD = You love Unix.
Linux = You hate Microsoft.
You're quote about RedHat proves you know absolutely 0.
Don't even try to debate the matter, cockfag. Because all you've listed is anti-Microsoft propaganda.
Though, I will say this, 100% of progman and progman alone is useless because of the number of applications that depend on the system tray.
Anywho... if all your (opt1k) trying to do is speed up XP then, for starters, why run XP on a PIII? why not just use 2000?
XP should run fine though, unless you have like 128MB of ram, even still it would run ok as long as you do a little tweaking, for one disabling visual themes.
then turn off some unnessesary services, to free up some ram.
1 The quote wasnt about redhat
2 i know how to disable the themeing and services
3 you described me perfectly "i hate windows and love unix" but i cant live without it
4 its all for fun so quit crying haha
5 your not flaming me? yes i read that, sure looks like a flame
"Ring, ring, retard alert! " <--- insulting my intelligence isnt a flame?
6. i had a replacement for systray that runs outside of progman and ill post it when i locate it again.
trainer4: you use regedit HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software/Microsoft/Windows NT/CurrentVersion/WinLogon
Create a new string value. call the value SHELL the data of it put the name of the executable you want to use as the shell , if you fuck something up use the windows tasks manager to fix it
This is all a little bit over my head and I'd like to
ask you one question. How much ram does it use
like that?
Before I waste much more time trying to understand
it, I'd like to know if it's worth fooling with for me.
Thanks,
Thump
That helps... How would you go about making a win3.1 style theme? Just curious... I'm not planning to do this, but hey. It would be nice to know just incase if I go insane in the future and decide to do this...
Also, when naming Registry keys, you have to use the backward-slashes ( \ ).
Who said I wasn't flaming you? Did you magically find this somewhere, you dolt? I said: I wasn't flaming because your use of progman, I -was- flaming you because of your ignorant claims. Yeah ....... OKAY.
Also, who said anything about crying? I had a grand time writing that
btw, you hate Microsoft and like Linux. Linux is not related to Unix in any way, other than the fact that it's a half-assed, nasty hack.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Use a real distro.
You *do* realise that that is essentialy what they have done? Albeit a little more compicated
Linux -is- slow as a desktop OS compared to Windows. But even there it's not really Linux, just what's available for it. X + KDE / Gnome etc.
Wow, I dont think you've said anything funnier than that LMAO!
1. linux is not slow as a desktop os, kde is slow, gnome is slow, use a normal window manager like sapphire or blackbox, or even xfce. use slackware/debian
2. when i say upgrade nt 4.0, i meant upgrade the kernel to support the new features that were added in xp not every other program to have so much bloat it runs like a mac 68k with os 8
3. omgpix: linux = nasty hack of unix? now are we saying a nasty hack of at&t unix, specifically system v release which runs on x86 machines? hardly... im sure you were pounding away at the keyboard since 1970 infront of your unix system and have a lot of room to talk about how shit linux is compared to an operating system that is useless on any modern day equiptment.
4. omgpix: as you recall you posted
>"Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 5:05 am Post subject: Reply with quote
>Oh, before you go on about it. I'm not flaming you because of your use >of progman ---"
so ignorant claims? there is nothing ignorant on this forum except for you. its opinion, and you are a flaming wad of feces.
5. trainer4: win 3.11 theme can be made with screenshotting utilities easy enough and using an text editor or a gui editor for themes, i forget the name though. sorry about the slashes, i navigate a unix type filesystem normally, its a habit
6. Thump: progman is using 256kb of memory, and its showing 1916kb of virtual memory in use, thats with all of the progman mdi windows open showing applications, compare that to your explorer.exe memory usage in taskmgr processes......
--still ignorant omgpix or do u need a screenshot to prove how much less it uses?
LOL sure, 5minutes to boot SuSE isnt slow....
Oh... I see, you have to use something (as Tomchu) said with 1/10 the functionality of Explorer for Linux to be fast in the desktop area?
I owned you by quoting myself because you were too stupid to understand then and probably still are!
Poor choice of wording on my part, I had written something else than "Linux'd" the setence and added something else without noticing I had it buggerd.
- "other than the fact" I wasn't trying to imply Linux was a nasty-hack of Unix, just the fact that it's a giant nasty hack (that isn't hard to understand, a hack is when you take shortcuts )
I'd say that it's fairly evidenceed by
Give me one reason wtf I should use Slackware when it doesn't even have a package system that auto-resolves dependencies? When I do use Linux, I use Gentoo btw.
Tom: You know what's hilarious? How Linux tards always want to debate something when usually the opposing BSD user knows more about their operating system than they do
Perhaps that knowledge of how Linux works is what lead them to BSD.
lol @ silly Linux people.
omgwtfbbq I had to patch my kernel 6 times in the month of March to stay secure!@!## (According to the dates above )
Sure there is, your knowledge of the things you talk about it ~ = 0 leading you to make ignorant claims most of the same anti-MS propaganda that can be debunked by a moron.
so
1. 1 10th of the functionality?
- what functionality do you believe a gui interface needs?
my only concern is the ability to execute applications, im sure yours is to have integration with internet explorer, fabulous playschool graphics and tool tip pop ups that question your already small intelligence omgpix?
2. - package system on slackware that doesnt resolve dependencies...
- well if you had any type of intelligence you would be able to view the README/INSTALL/HOWTO documentation as you compile from source instead of just doing your full 4gb install of suse/redhat.
a packaging system forces you to install dependencies that ARENT ALWAYS NEEDED. it wastes hard disk space ..... kind of like how windows does.
oh wait, i forgot! you use openbsd and claim to be the security god?
security through obscurity?
3. your evidence proves nothing except the vulnerabilities were found quicker than it would have been in windows since the operating system is OPEN SOURCE, and widely used.
- how long did it originally take for the 2 byte oob data exploit to be fixed on windows? not to mention nestea and queerdrop (had to put it in terms you would understand)
it wasnt fixed in nt 3.5.1, or 3.11 for workgroups, the patches in win95 didnt properly correct it either.
4. my quoute was "there is nothing ignorant on this forum except for you"
dont modify my quotes if you are going to quote me it makes sense someone from new york would do this.
- dont jump to conclusions
- i am not anti microsoft, i dont like the approaches they made in developing windows
- you are just a silly little new yorker with the typical "im better than everyone else listen to my asshole accent" attitude like i said before the picture on your posts proves my point.
- you seem like one of those kids that ran around in 95 with winnuke95.exe claiming you were god of icq/irc and quake until someone with linux broke out nestea on your compaq edition of win95, then you found redhat..
5. you arent worth my time to argue or fight with, so fuck off, im not responding to another one of your comments