Replacement Shell for Win98...

[Ichinisan]

I'm EXTREMELY productive with the keyboard in Windows XP. Even when mousing is required, I'm still extremely productive with the other hand on the keyboard. I often don't have to switch back to the keyboard as long as my left hand remains on it working in tandem with the mouse to make context menu selections with letters on the keyboard. I sometimes have to use Windows 98 in a virtual machine environment. Is there a replacement shell to run instead of explorer.exe that will bring some of the enhanced functionality of WinXP to Win98?

The most obvious improvement to add with a replacement shell is a two-column Start Menu with most-frequently-used shortcuts in one column and system icons on the other (Control Panel, My Computer, etc). This makes everything accessible without minimizing all open windows. Windows XP doesn't do this quite right. It raises the priority of some shortcuts when the programs are launched by other applications or from the run menu, displacing some shortcuts that you open manually through the Start Menu. Also, the concept of having a fixed number of MFU shortcuts is flawed. The Start Menu should be made to fill the vertical screen space from top to bottom and show as many prioritized shortcuts as can fit. Also,

I also prefer to disable the Quick Launch toolbar on the Task Bar, so I would hope that a shell replacement allows this. Occupying space on the Task Bar with shortcuts that should be consolidated into the Start MFU list is counter-productive and reduces the space available for captions on the buttons that correspond to open windows. When I have to click through each taskbar button and read the title bar captions to know which button corresponds to which window, it's not very productive. Because my usage demands a LOT of multi-tasking, task bar real-estate is important to me.

I often find that I'm most productive in the Task Manager with one had on the mouse (click the "Process Name" column header to sort, right-click a process, [T], [Space], repeat...). I know that the Task Manager in Win9x doesn't have context menu's, but old habits die hard. I always find myself right-clicking on the task bar and wasting time looking for "Task Manager" in the context menu. It's the fastest way into the Task Manager without putting both hands back on the keyboard.

Is it possible that a replacement shell might have a more functional Task Manager? That would be awesome.

Is there a shell replacement already the mimics most of the functions of WinXP? What about accessibility keys?

Built-in Zip support is another plus.

Googling for shell replacements just turns up way too many results. The bulk of them are either very amateur or extremely bloated and not really what I'm looking for. I'm hoping that one of you guys has a recommendation...

Thanks!

[edit]
Also, are there better replacements for the Win98 versions of Regedit and Taskman?

[PHoNyMiKe]

yeah, it's called windows 2000. windows 98 does not exist anymore, get with the times.

[Ichinisan]

yeah, it's called windows 2000. windows 98 does not exist anymore, get with the times.

Err....virtual environment...compatibility testing...old development software...know-it-all...hint

foff

[PHoNyMiKe]

dude if you're gonna do compatibility testing for 98, then you should do it with 95, and 3.1 as well. windows 98 does not exist anymore.

p.s. if you're having trouble disabling the quick launch bar then you have much larger problems. right click the start menu and uncheck quick launch.

[Ichinisan]

dude if you're gonna do compatibility testing for 98, then you should do it with 95, and 3.1 as well. windows 98 does not exist anymore.

p.s. if you're having trouble disabling the quick launch bar then you have much larger problems. right click the start menu and uncheck quick launch.

I said that a replacement shell must have the ability to disable the Quick Launch menu (or the equivalent shortcut menu). Most of the replacement shells I have seen bloat your task bar with all kinds of bullshit, and some don't have options to get rid of it. I want to make sure that the task bar on any potential replacement shell can have the bloated bullshit disabled as is easily possible in Windows. Comprendé?

Know-it-all,
-no IE6 in win95
-no WMP9 in Win95
-VB framework issues Win95
-no WDM support in Win95 or Win98 non-SE
-DOS issues in WinME
-stability issues in WinME
-various software utilities fail in Win95

There is no better 9x compatibility testing platform that Win98. I think you know this; you're just being an asshole as usual.

foff.

[Gil_Hamilton]

A properly-cared-for 98 machine can also make for a rather nice general-purpose computer, despite it's age.

[MisterJones]

Unofficial Litestep builds (like indiestep), which are esentially the same, only that you get a super stripped version you have to manually configure from the ground.

Be noted that such builds are completely barebones on what they have available/enabled on default settings; they only have by default a desktop module and perhaps two or three hotkeys, and even a super minimal popup button for desktop's context menu. You have to provide them the whole functionality by messing with config files. The advantage is that only stuff you want will be there (unless you don't know how to use such module).

By the way, the winxp start menu can have more anchored items other than just internet and email, you just have to drag your shortcuts there; it is best to use it that way rather than rely or the mfu shortcuts (which can be set to more than six it has by default).

[funkyass]

bblean or xoblite.

98 runs nicely when the user isn't a moving target. if its doing the same thing day in, day out its very stable.

[Ichinisan]

By the way, the winxp start menu can have more anchored items other than just internet and email, you just have to drag your shortcuts there; it is best to use it that way rather than rely or the mfu shortcuts (which can be set to more than six it has by default).

That would be counter intuitive. To pin options that displace your "most frequently used" shortcuts is a logical flaw. I always disable the default pinned items ("Internet" and "Email"), then increase the MFU setting appropriately. My web browser shortcut is already at the top even when it's not pinned.

On a side note...it still bothers me that Microsoft confuses the Web with the Internet. I work in Tech Support and it's hard to get a straight answer from idiots who equate their web browser with their Internet connection. "It won't connect." "I can't log-on to my [always-on] Internet!"

*ugh



I'll have to look into these suggestions. Thanks, all.

[MisterJones]

By the way, the winxp start menu can have more anchored items other than just internet and email, you just have to drag your shortcuts there; it is best to use it that way rather than rely or the mfu shortcuts (which can be set to more than six it has by default).

That would be counter intuitive. To pin options that displace your "most frequently used" shortcuts is a logical flaw. I always disable the default pinned items ("Internet" and "Email"), then increase the MFU setting appropriately. My web browser shortcut is already at the top even when it's not pinned.

They do not displace your mfus (only the first time you anchor it, reopen your start menu, and there should be again six -or whatever the default is). And I differ to see it as a logical flaw when many programs I use do not show up at all (probably because i'd rather use quick launch like menus than the start menu).

[Ichinisan]

By the way, the winxp start menu can have more anchored items other than just internet and email, you just have to drag your shortcuts there; it is best to use it that way rather than rely or the mfu shortcuts (which can be set to more than six it has by default).

That would be counter intuitive. To pin options that displace your "most frequently used" shortcuts is a logical flaw. I always disable the default pinned items ("Internet" and "Email"), then increase the MFU setting appropriately. My web browser shortcut is already at the top even when it's not pinned.

They do not displace your mfus (only the first time you anchor it, reopen your start menu, and there should be again six -or whatever the default is). And I differ to see it as a logical flaw when many programs I use do not show up at all (probably because i'd rather use quick launch like menus than the start menu).

Because I always have the MFU list set so that the Start Menu fills the screen vertically from top to bottom. Pinning items would displace MFU items. The "logical flaw" is that the Start Menu does not always fill the screen vertically. If it was done correctly, the MFU setting should not even be adjustable. It should always show as many MFU items as will fit vertically, even if there are pinned items displacing some of them.

I'm not sure if quicklaunch shortcuts show in the MFU list, but I know that desktop shortcuts do. It's also annoying how Windows adds priority to things that I NEVER launch from the Start menu. My job has me bringing up the command prompt more than 100 times per day, so I'm used to pressing Win+R, "CMD", [Enter]. For some reason, the command prompt is at the top of my Start menu most frequently used programs. If I never go into the Start Menu to launch CMD, there is no reason for it to gain priority in my MFU list.

[Gil_Hamilton]

You could argue it a number of different ways. Everyone wants something different out of their GUI.


Personally, I completely disabled the most-recent items list. I thought it was a nuisance. The stuff I want quick access to has links in other, more convenient places.
For me, the flaw is actually that the start menu does not contain the complete programs list at the first level.

[kick]

Another vote for bbLean.
Very light on resources,plugin-based and extremely customizable. Once you take the time and tweak it to your liking,you'll never look back.