Litestep or nothing Thread last updated on 2003-08-06 13:38:45

Posted by member 54014 on 2003-08-04 23:31:21



I never hear about litestep until an hour ago when explorer.exe can't be loaded in my win2k instalation.

My problem started when I removed some spywares and win2k turned into a blank screen. (like X started, but no WM loaded!). So dos shell turned into the classical lonely x-term window in X-but-no-WM-eviroment.

By now, there is only one thing that I need: Another Windows Explorer different that explorer.exe. So, if anyone knows any windows explorer please let me know by this forum.

You should build one inside Litestep


Garden Wolf

Posted by member 39367 on 2003-08-05 00:19:51 link

I dont really understand what you want, explorer.exe inside litestep, but different? I dunno why you would want to do that though... Most spyware removers have undo options, try some of those and see if they help or something.

Posted by member 1316 on 2003-08-05 12:04:25 link

I think he wants to run explorer inside of litestep?? which is obviously not gonna happen.

Posted by member 36955 on 2003-08-05 12:56:40 link

maybe he means a different file manager... in which case i would direct him to the sticky thread at the top of this forum page call "File management replacement"

Posted by member 1316 on 2003-08-05 16:31:05 link

maybe he should just be more specific? heck, I'm not even sure if he's actually running litestep (I can't really tell for sure from his post!!).

Posted by member 39367 on 2003-08-05 20:53:44 link

Its much more fun guessing what he wants!

Posted by member 32550 on 2003-08-05 21:13:19 link

Mr_Goat: *loooooool* *lmao*

Posted by member 6801 on 2003-08-05 21:32:42 link

mmm...i give 20 to 1 to that is searching for file management replacement :P

Posted by member 6801 on 2003-08-05 21:34:26 link

ah no... he lost the window management in wintendo system.

mmm.... one suggestion, reinstall wintendo :P

Posted by member 2112 on 2003-08-05 23:15:44 link

"You should build one inside Litestep"

No thanks. This is something MS does to weaken it's competitors. I like my applications to specialise in one area and do it well. As opposed to, say, exporer.exe that is a crap shell, crap browser and a crap file manager with crap support for ZIP files and CD writing.

Posted by member 202 on 2003-08-05 23:51:03 link

my guess: removing the spyware also removed a few system-critical registry keys/system files/etc. and his os is hash until he can restore them. unfortunately, litestep can't help.

Posted by member 54014 on 2003-08-06 01:23:52 link

That's right namaide... But I can't find "the key" in the registry. Litestep is the only WM running by now (enought help form me).

Explorer.exe is needed for:
file magnagement
the recycled bin
some programs call it to do some dirty work (like some Antivirus)
litestep seems to call it.

I.E. If you can't run explorer.exe, yo can't have those things.

in order to make people change microsuX explorer.exe for litestep, you should make litestep do such work or create a file magnagement "lighter" than explorer.exe.

(seems to me that explorer.exe do little more than file magnagement)

G.W.

P.S: I can't reinstall until I finish some works.

Posted by member 2112 on 2003-08-06 01:59:14 link

"I.E. If you can't run explorer.exe, yo can't have those things."

I'm not sure that's totally correct. I don't use explorer as a file manager and I believe the recycling bin works indipendent of explorer.exe. Some programs do use explorer (such as windows update) and I believe the LS developers are working on support for these.

"in order to make people change microsuX explorer.exe for litestep..."

I don't see LS as a competitive product that is trying to pull people away from MS. If it was it would be developed for Linux. If someone wants to use LS as their shell and explorer for file management then good for them. If they don't want to use explorer as their fm there are plenty of alternatives. If they want to use explorer as their shell, fm and web browser then that's fine too.

It's all about choice.

Posted by member 39367 on 2003-08-06 08:34:59 link

I think angelknight won :-(

Posted by member 6801 on 2003-08-06 13:38:45 link

*lol*