Alternate shell experiment

[pcalvert]

Out of curiosity, I recently performed a simple experiment on a Windows 98 SE system (266 MHz Pentium II, 64 MB of RAM). I tried three different shells and measured the amount of free RAM available right after booting. I ran no other programs other than the one to measure the free RAM.

Results:

Shell __________ Free RAM

explorer.exe - 19,973,461 bytes

blackbox.exe - 24,462,677 bytes

liteshell.exe -- 25,888,085 bytes

progman.exe - 33,464,320 bytes

Note: The program blackbox.exe is from an installation of bblean that I had on the computer.

Based on those results, I think that using progman.exe as the shell could be useful for situations in which one needs to install Windows on older computers that don't have much RAM. I am also thinking about using it myself for when I need to run Windows inside QEMU or VirtualBox to access a few Windows-specific programs. Although Progman is rather spartan compared to Explorer, I don't see that as a big problem if I normally only need to use a few Windows programs.

Phil

EDIT: Added liteshell.exe and updated all results to an average of three readings rather than just a single reading.

Edited May 16, 2008 by pcalvert

[sailorsonic]

Have you tried liteshell? it's the smallest shell i have ever seen. I've used it on win9x machine with less than 32mb and it works great!

http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~mosses/rob/liteshell.html

check it out, you might like it.

Here is a quick description from the author

"LiteShell is a replacement shell for Windows. LiteShell is a minimalist's shell - no screen space is occupied by the shell. When you right-click on the desktop or press a hotkey, a menu provides access to your programs, documents, tasks and anything else you wish. LiteShell provides support for "hotkeys" - key combinations that, when pressed, can perform actions such as running programs.

Any system capable of running Windows 95, 98, ME, NT, 2000 or XP is able to run LiteShell. LiteShell requires less than 500kb of disk space and will run on systems with 4mb RAM (and possibly even less)."

Edited May 8, 2008 by sailorsonic

[BenoitRen]

Windows 95's shell is even better than those three.

[alexanrs]

Windows 95's shell is even better than those three.

I beg to differ... The fact that there is no toolbars in the taskbar (like the QuickLaunch toolbar) annoys the hell out of me.

[BenoitRen]

And blackbox and progman do? Also, it's a taskbar, showing the running applications. Those toolbars have no place there.

[alexanrs]

And blackbox and progman do?

So? Never said I love them.

Also, it's a taskbar, showing the running applications. Those toolbars have no place there.

My taskbar has two rows, the bottom one for running applications and the other one for shortcuts. They are way more convenient than using the start menu.

EDIT: Besides, those toolbars do not need to be in the Taskbar, they can be moved anywhere you want.

Not trying to convince you to ditch W95's shell, because it has its advantages (lower memory requirements being one of them), but you'll have to admit W98's one has its advantages, if you now how to use it

Edited May 9, 2008 by alexanrs

[BenoitRen]

So? Never said I love them.

You implicitly seemed to by disagreeing with my claim that Windows 95's shell is best.

you'll have to admit W98's one has its advantages, if you now how to use it

I never found any advantage in having those icons there taking away estate from task buttons when they were readily available in the Start Menu, alphabetically and clearly categorised. Those tooltips that almost immediately pop up when hovering above them annoy me as well.

[TheRedFox]

how does one change their default shell? I'm interested in this.

[SlugFiller]

And blackbox and progman do? Also, it's a taskbar, showing the running applications. Those toolbars have no place there.

Number 1 thing I do when configuring a Windows system, even before setting "show hidden files" in explorer, is to place a copy of "My computer" on the taskbar, setting it to have no title or texts, and resizing it to just contain the drives. The ability to open any drive without needing access to the desktop is invaluable when I'm working simultaneously with many programs taking up most of the screen real-estate. Getting the control panel as a popup-menu rather than an explorer window certainly doesn't hurt either. It makes navigation, regardless of my desktop's current state, so much easier and more convenient, I can't understand how people can tolerate taking the "long route" to their files.

[alexanrs]

You implicitly seemed to by disagreeing with my claim that Windows 95's shell is best.

My bad, sorry. Btw, I ever really adapted to alternate shells in Win95/NT4 upwards.

[Mijzelf]

how does one change their default shell? I'm interested in this.

Make sure your alternative shell is working, and then edit system.ini. Search for a line

Shell=explorer.exe

When your alternative shell is not in the search path, you'll have to provide the full pathname.

[TheRedFox]

how does one change their default shell? I'm interested in this.

Make sure your alternative shell is working, and then edit system.ini. Search for a line

Shell=explorer.exe

When your alternative shell is not in the search path, you'll have to provide the full pathname.

Thank You

[Fredledingue]

If you like minimalist shells (realy minimalist), you should try GO!

zip size: 314k

[pcalvert]

NOTE: I just updated my original post (first message in thread) with new data.

Phil