has anyone tried making hs the top level shell?

[collegeboyslive]

has anyone tried replacing expoloro in xp or 200 with homseer at the top level shell? does it work , can it work?

I think if it works you can almost get a 50 % better speed and more stable os

anyone tried?

[Rupp]

CBL,
Can you give a bit more detail on what your asking?

[BradleyS]

Why would running as the shell make it faster, apart from the savings made by not running explorer?

[rmiles7721]

It would be much faster, however, it would only offer stability under 98 or millenium. You are going to run into all kinds of problems under xp and are better off leaving it alone here. I've been running alternate shells (Litestep, etc.. for a long time, and what I have found under XP is that you ditch a lot of functionality if you don't use explorer as the shell.

[BradleyS]

/Why/ would it be faster?

[collegeboyslive]

because the exploror shell also runns a shitr load of other things that are needed in general computing but not in a dedicated 1 task enviroment.

[Rupp]

CBL,
Did you just answer your own thread?

[George]

But I would also bet you that HS requires some of the stuff that the explorer shell provides as well. Wanna bet that the GETURL function will no longer work if explorer is not in control?

Besides, just upgrade to the very next level of processor 1.2 instead of 1.0, 2.2 instead of 2.0 Ghz and you'll easily make up the minimal overhead. Just another reason to post other non-related issues on this board when you try to run the software outside it's intended and tested environment. I'll bet that Rich and Rick wouldn't want to handle the 'why doesn't this work' questions when HS is running as the top level shell.

But, I think the real reason why this is academic is that the speed of HS is not primarily governed by what software is over it. It is constrained by time limited items such as the speed of X10 (.5 sec/command), Ocelot/HAI/RF(W800) all constrained by the serial protocol (9600 baud), speech (ever try getting the TTS to speak faster, it sounds like Mickey Mouse), and others. So, what else in 'running faster' would there be of benefit?

Just curious.

[BradleyS]

Are you sure about explorer.exe running all the other stuff? As far as I've seen it just displays the taskbar, desktop, start menu, etc, and is used for launching programs. The rest of it is independent - i.e. even without explorer you can Alt-Tab between applications, tasks are managed, applications run, etc - they just don't have a taskbar to dock into. I've written custom shells and they really don't have to implement much to provide a usable multitasking environment, because most if it's still there without explorer.

I'm not convinced that it would make all that much difference to be honest. Wouldn't mind being proved wrong though...

[stevene]

CBL,

I have been wondering about changing the shell to HS for a while. Just haven't had time to try it.

I have also been considering Embedded XP

embedded logonFAQ
But I think changing the shell would be easier.

StevenE

[collegeboyslive]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Just another reason to post other non-related issues on this board when you try to run the software outside it's intended and tested environment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

actually i can hold my own when it comes to figuring out hs stuff i think , i mearly posted to see if anyone had already tried rather than jumping in and just doing it. and i would not do it on my production machine, rather another machine so it dosnt matter if it breaks

[dmurray14]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SteveB:
Are you sure about explorer.exe running all the other stuff? As far as I've seen it just displays the taskbar, desktop, start menu, etc, and is used for launching programs. The rest of it is independent - i.e. even without explorer you can Alt-Tab between applications, tasks are managed, applications run, etc - they just don't have a taskbar to dock into. I've written custom shells and they really don't have to implement much to provide a usable multitasking environment, because most if it's still there without explorer.

I'm not convinced that it would make all that much difference to be honest. Wouldn't mind being proved wrong though... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. Guys, if you have XP, just use the task manager to kill the explorer process. You can still run everything that you'd normally run, except you won't have the start menu and taskbar. When you're done, go back to the task manager and click run task, and type in explorer again.

Dan