Windows Vista and shells (Can you replace Explorer.exe?)

Well the concept of using a shell may be a mute point or a bit confusing for
people who have only used Windows and never studied computing in general
(Unix in paticular), but I have finally ran into a Windows version I do not
like; Vista. Does anyone seriously technical know how to replace the current
shell (I assume it is still Explorer.exe) with XP's shell?

Does anyone know if there is a 3rd party that has created a shell that
mimics XP? I would assume they would support their product and it is worth
paying for.

Does anyone know of another OS that will be supported going into the future
that mimics XP enough to switch to it? All suggestions for OSes are fair
game. I just need to know why you think it is easy to use & powerful. It
must also be able to be centrally controlled and can work with Windows
Servers. My main goal is to save $$ by not purchasing Vista licenses with
new hardware and migrating to another OS that is easy for staff that do not
know how to use XP that well.

phy

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:24:00 -0700, Phydeaux wrote:

> Well the concept of using a shell may be a mute point or a bit confusing for
> people who have only used Windows and never studied computing in general
> (Unix in paticular), but I have finally ran into a Windows version I do not
> like; Vista. Does anyone seriously technical know how to replace the current
> shell (I assume it is still Explorer.exe) with XP's shell?
>
> Does anyone know if there is a 3rd party that has created a shell that
> mimics XP? I would assume they would support their product and it is worth
> paying for.
>
> Does anyone know of another OS that will be supported going into the future
> that mimics XP enough to switch to it? All suggestions for OSes are fair
> game. I just need to know why you think it is easy to use & powerful. It
> must also be able to be centrally controlled and can work with Windows
> Servers. My main goal is to save $$ by not purchasing Vista licenses with
> new hardware and migrating to another OS that is easy for staff that do not
> know how to use XP that well.

Well one suggestion I'd have for you is Kubuntu as it uses the KDE Desktop
which mimics the XP Desktop in general look and feel. Anyone that can move
a mouse and click on things can use it.

Define "Can work with Windows Servers"? What does it need to do? Accessing
shared directories on windows servers is no problem.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

������出�日�ん�����
����忘れ�������ら

there are ways to make vista look like xp...but to that you need several
apps- replacments, one for the theme, one for windows explorer....

and indeed you can use other shells with vista just like you could with xp,
but its not for newbie's..

the new kde 4 theoretically will run natively on windows too


"Phydeaux" <> wrote in message
news:68A9F29E-C80A-4D77-A3D6-...
> Well the concept of using a shell may be a mute point or a bit confusing
> for
> people who have only used Windows and never studied computing in general
> (Unix in paticular), but I have finally ran into a Windows version I do
> not
> like; Vista. Does anyone seriously technical know how to replace the
> current
> shell (I assume it is still Explorer.exe) with XP's shell?
>
> Does anyone know if there is a 3rd party that has created a shell that
> mimics XP? I would assume they would support their product and it is
> worth
> paying for.
>
> Does anyone know of another OS that will be supported going into the
> future
> that mimics XP enough to switch to it? All suggestions for OSes are fair
> game. I just need to know why you think it is easy to use & powerful. It
> must also be able to be centrally controlled and can work with Windows
> Servers. My main goal is to save $$ by not purchasing Vista licenses with
> new hardware and migrating to another OS that is easy for staff that do
> not
> know how to use XP that well.
>
> phy



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

his question is valid and you are an invalid


"Mick" <> wrote in message
news:499A5EC8-4DF1-41A0-A403-...
> Do us all a favor, and just GO AWAY.
>
> "Phydeaux" wrote:
>
>> Well the concept of using a shell may be a mute point or a bit confusing
>> for
>> people who have only used Windows and never studied computing in general
>> (Unix in paticular), but I have finally ran into a Windows version I do
>> not
>> like; Vista. Does anyone seriously technical know how to replace the
>> current
>> shell (I assume it is still Explorer.exe) with XP's shell?
>>
>> Does anyone know if there is a 3rd party that has created a shell that
>> mimics XP? I would assume they would support their product and it is
>> worth
>> paying for.
>>
>> Does anyone know of another OS that will be supported going into the
>> future
>> that mimics XP enough to switch to it? All suggestions for OSes are fair
>> game. I just need to know why you think it is easy to use & powerful.
>> It
>> must also be able to be centrally controlled and can work with Windows
>> Servers. My main goal is to save $$ by not purchasing Vista licenses
>> with
>> new hardware and migrating to another OS that is easy for staff that do
>> not
>> know how to use XP that well.
>>
>> phy



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Phydeaux" <> wrote in message
news:68A9F29E-C80A-4D77-A3D6-...
> Well the concept of using a shell may be a mute point or a bit confusing
> for
> people who have only used Windows and never studied computing in general
> (Unix in paticular), but I have finally ran into a Windows version I do
> not
> like; Vista. Does anyone seriously technical know how to replace the
> current
> shell (I assume it is still Explorer.exe) with XP's shell?
>
> Does anyone know if there is a 3rd party that has created a shell that
> mimics XP? I would assume they would support their product and it is
> worth
> paying for.
>
> Does anyone know of another OS that will be supported going into the
> future
> that mimics XP enough to switch to it? All suggestions for OSes are fair
> game. I just need to know why you think it is easy to use & powerful. It
> must also be able to be centrally controlled and can work with Windows
> Servers. My main goal is to save $$ by not purchasing Vista licenses with
> new hardware and migrating to another OS that is easy for staff that do
> not
> know how to use XP that well.
>
> phy


Have you tried using Classic View? You can set that up for the Start Menu,
Control Panel, set the theme to classic, and change folders to Classic View.
Have you tried any of them?

I think I've seen references to 3rd party shells for Vista in this NG. I
don't have any recommendations though, because I happen to like Vista's UI
and Explorer. (That doesn't mean I'm saying you should like it... not at
all...)

Ah, easy to use. There's the rub. My personal experience with Linux, most
recently Ubuntu, is that, yes, it's easy to use, right up to the point where
it's -not- easy to use. And when it's -not- easy to use, man, you better
have an Ubuntu SME on your payroll or you're going to be spending a lot of
time in the Ubuntu forum. (And that's NOT a knock on Ubuntu... I ain't
saying don't try it... just saying: don't think you're gonna install Ubuntu
and life will be trouble free from that point on... anyone that argues that
point is ill informed, imho. Or just ill. LOL!)

Lang

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 03:37:19 -0400, Lang Murphy wrote:


> Ah, easy to use. There's the rub. My personal experience with Linux, most
> recently Ubuntu, is that, yes, it's easy to use, right up to the point where
> it's -not- easy to use. And when it's -not- easy to use, man, you better
> have an Ubuntu SME on your payroll or you're going to be spending a lot of
> time in the Ubuntu forum. (And that's NOT a knock on Ubuntu... I ain't
> saying don't try it... just saying: don't think you're gonna install Ubuntu
> and life will be trouble free from that point on... anyone that argues that
> point is ill informed, imho. Or just ill. LOL!)

Well I am going to argue that point and I've been using it all year.
Matter of fact, since running it on my work computer my blood pressure has
gone way down! =) I'm calm...relaxed...everything works...everything is
fast...responsive...no errors...no issues...no problems....it is kinda
nice. =) And as an added bonus, I get to actually do some work instead of
scanning for viruses, adware, spyware and defragging my drives.

Personally, I love it . =)

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

������出�日�ん�����
����忘れ�������ら

This is a Vista Newsgroup cockhead!

"Corbomite" wrote:

> his question is valid and you are an invalid
>
>
> "Mick" <> wrote in message
> news:499A5EC8-4DF1-41A0-A403-...
> > Do us all a favor, and just GO AWAY.
> >
> > "Phydeaux" wrote:
> >
> >> Well the concept of using a shell may be a mute point or a bit confusing
> >> for
> >> people who have only used Windows and never studied computing in general
> >> (Unix in paticular), but I have finally ran into a Windows version I do
> >> not
> >> like; Vista. Does anyone seriously technical know how to replace the
> >> current
> >> shell (I assume it is still Explorer.exe) with XP's shell?
> >>
> >> Does anyone know if there is a 3rd party that has created a shell that
> >> mimics XP? I would assume they would support their product and it is
> >> worth
> >> paying for.
> >>
> >> Does anyone know of another OS that will be supported going into the
> >> future
> >> that mimics XP enough to switch to it? All suggestions for OSes are fair
> >> game. I just need to know why you think it is easy to use & powerful.
> >> It
> >> must also be able to be centrally controlled and can work with Windows
> >> Servers. My main goal is to save $$ by not purchasing Vista licenses
> >> with
> >> new hardware and migrating to another OS that is easy for staff that do
> >> not
> >> know how to use XP that well.
> >>
> >> phy
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>
>

"Stephan Rose" <> wrote in message
news:-...
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 03:37:19 -0400, Lang Murphy wrote:
>
>
>> Ah, easy to use. There's the rub. My personal experience with Linux, most
>> recently Ubuntu, is that, yes, it's easy to use, right up to the point
>> where
>> it's -not- easy to use. And when it's -not- easy to use, man, you better
>> have an Ubuntu SME on your payroll or you're going to be spending a lot
>> of
>> time in the Ubuntu forum. (And that's NOT a knock on Ubuntu... I ain't
>> saying don't try it... just saying: don't think you're gonna install
>> Ubuntu
>> and life will be trouble free from that point on... anyone that argues
>> that
>> point is ill informed, imho. Or just ill. LOL!)
>
> Well I am going to argue that point and I've been using it all year.
> Matter of fact, since running it on my work computer my blood pressure has
> gone way down! =) I'm calm...relaxed...everything works...everything is
> fast...responsive...no errors...no issues...no problems....it is kinda
> nice. =) And as an added bonus, I get to actually do some work instead of
> scanning for viruses, adware, spyware and defragging my drives.
>
> Personally, I love it . =)
>
> --
> Stephan
> 2003 Yamaha R6
>
> ������出�日�ん�����
> ����忘れ�������ら


Stephen,

I won't argue that point with you. (That you're a happy camper... how could
I?) What I will point out, however, is that you are, quite obviously, an
experienced Linux user. There's a world of difference between experienced
Linux users, like yourself, and inexperienced Linux users, like myself,
dealing with problems that might crop up on a Linux system. Night and day.
Absolutely no doubt it's easy for you. Absolutely no doubt it's not as easy
for me. Not by a long shot.

As previously stated: -not- knocking Ubuntu (or Linux in general).

Lang

Lang Murphy wrote:

> "Stephan Rose" <> wrote in message
> news:-...
>
>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 03:37:19 -0400, Lang Murphy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ah, easy to use. There's the rub. My personal experience with Linux,
>>> most
>>> recently Ubuntu, is that, yes, it's easy to use, right up to the
>>> point where
>>> it's -not- easy to use. And when it's -not- easy to use, man, you better
>>> have an Ubuntu SME on your payroll or you're going to be spending a
>>> lot of
>>> time in the Ubuntu forum. (And that's NOT a knock on Ubuntu... I ain't
>>> saying don't try it... just saying: don't think you're gonna install
>>> Ubuntu
>>> and life will be trouble free from that point on... anyone that
>>> argues that
>>> point is ill informed, imho. Or just ill. LOL!)
>>
>>
>> Well I am going to argue that point and I've been using it all year.
>> Matter of fact, since running it on my work computer my blood pressure
>> has
>> gone way down! =) I'm calm...relaxed...everything works...everythingis
>> fast...responsive...no errors...no issues...no problems....it is kinda
>> nice. =) And as an added bonus, I get to actually do some work instead of
>> scanning for viruses, adware, spyware and defragging my drives.
>>
>> Personally, I love it . =)
>>
>> --
>> Stephan
>> 2003 Yamaha R6
>>
>> ������出�日�ん�����
>> ����忘れ�������ら
>
>
>
> Stephen,
>
> I won't argue that point with you. (That you're a happy camper... how
> could I?) What I will point out, however, is that you are, quite
> obviously, an experienced Linux user. There's a world of difference
> between experienced Linux users, like yourself, and inexperienced Linux
> users, like myself, dealing with problems that might crop up on a Linux
> system. Night and day. Absolutely no doubt it's easy for you. Absolutely
> no doubt it's not as easy for me. Not by a long shot.
>
> As previously stated: -not- knocking Ubuntu (or Linux in general).
>
> Lang

Well the "rub" for some linux users is that they still need ms in order
to make money.
Free does have certain disadvantages.
Frank

On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:39:18 -0400, Lang Murphy wrote:

> "Stephan Rose" <> wrote in message
> news:-...
>> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 03:37:19 -0400, Lang Murphy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ah, easy to use. There's the rub. My personal experience with Linux, most
>>> recently Ubuntu, is that, yes, it's easy to use, right up to the point
>>> where
>>> it's -not- easy to use. And when it's -not- easy to use, man, you better
>>> have an Ubuntu SME on your payroll or you're going to be spending a lot
>>> of
>>> time in the Ubuntu forum. (And that's NOT a knock on Ubuntu... I ain't
>>> saying don't try it... just saying: don't think you're gonna install
>>> Ubuntu
>>> and life will be trouble free from that point on... anyone that argues
>>> that
>>> point is ill informed, imho. Or just ill. LOL!)
>>
>> Well I am going to argue that point and I've been using it all year.
>> Matter of fact, since running it on my work computer my blood pressure has
>> gone way down! =) I'm calm...relaxed...everything works...everything is
>> fast...responsive...no errors...no issues...no problems....it is kinda
>> nice. =) And as an added bonus, I get to actually do some work instead of
>> scanning for viruses, adware, spyware and defragging my drives.
>>
>> Personally, I love it . =)
>>
>> --
>> Stephan
>> 2003 Yamaha R6
>>
>> ������出�日�ん�����
>> ����忘れ�������ら
>
>
> Stephen,
>
> I won't argue that point with you. (That you're a happy camper... how could
> I?) What I will point out, however, is that you are, quite obviously, an
> experienced Linux user. There's a world of difference between experienced
> Linux users, like yourself, and inexperienced Linux users, like myself,
> dealing with problems that might crop up on a Linux system. Night and day.
> Absolutely no doubt it's easy for you. Absolutely no doubt it's not as easy
> for me. Not by a long shot.

True, I might be somewhat experienced now. I wasn't though in the
beginning of this year. I had never touched a Linux OS until MS released
Vista. =)

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

������出�日�ん�����
����忘れ�������ら