Remove GUI in XP

r_jensen11 · 02-18-2005, 12:25 AM

I know I've read a thread here for removing XP's GUI and having everything run through the command prompt (in attempts to save all of the resources possible), but I'm unable to find the thread. Anyone know where it's located, or how to do such the task?

cereal83 · 02-18-2005, 12:27 AM

Install DOS if you want command line only.

I don't know why anybody would want to only run command prompt!

tormented_one · 02-18-2005, 12:28 AM

You cannot remove the GUI in Windows XP. No possible way. It only has a dos emulator so no command line for you, sorry. Also has to do with the filesystem.

r_jensen11 · 02-18-2005, 12:31 AM

sorry for the post, here's what I was referring to: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...hreadid=216876

Quote:

Originally posted by nuka_t
if you follow my guide, you will be using a commandline instead od explorer. the commands are the same as in linux for the most part.obviously, its nowhere near as advanced but all yo should be using it for is launching games from their directories.

yes, firefox can be used instead of explorer. its obviously not as fully featured, but you can navigate through folders and launch programs with it.just type in C:\ in the address bar and youre set.

scuzzman · 02-18-2005, 02:06 AM

That is using cygwin... not DOS
You cannot remove XP's GUI

berrance · 02-18-2005, 05:20 AM

cant you press F8 at start up to get the safe mode options, one of then is to load up into a command line i think! might be wrong though.

Thymox · 02-18-2005, 05:53 AM

You can use the "recovery console", but I wouldn't unless you're genuinely trying to "recover" your system.

joesbox · 02-18-2005, 05:55 AM

if you want to get rid of the command line then what you can do, and unfortunately you will have to do this every time you boot to XP, open the task manager and chose the Processes tab. look for the explorer.exe process and highlight and kill it. that will kill the tool bar and any right click ability on the background. but you will still be able to open the task manager to run the command prompt. what i have done was to place a shortcut to any applications that i would like to run in the C:\WINDOWS\System32\. with that you do not have to navigate to the application folder or type the full path. ..\System32 is the main path and all that you will have to do is remember to add .lnk to the end of the application name. i.e. i make a shortcut to C:\Program Files\Application Folder\application.exe in C:\WINDOWS\System32\ called application.lnk (the lnk is there by default or windows doesn't know what to do with it) in the cmd window type (C:\> is the command prompt)

Code:

C:\> application.lnk

and the application will work.
I hope that this wasn't too wordy since i am only going on 4 hours sleep and i hope that it is helpful

AlexV · 02-21-2005, 01:34 PM

Umm, just out of curiosity, why would you want to do that?
I know some people insist on using Windows because they can't get their favorite app working on Linux, but I'm pretty sure there isn't anything you can do from a Windows command prompt that you can't do better under Linux...

tormented_one · 02-21-2005, 03:35 PM

They do this because windows is a resource hog and by killing all of that you lessen the load on the machine. Most do it while playing games, I guess to make the game "faster"(too expensive to buy new hardware, maybe). I have tried it and gotta laugh, it made no difference on my machines. Also who wants to do that everytime they boot. Navigating the fs is too much of a hassle from the command line, IMO, due to all the special charactors used. Also this is not a true command line.

AlexV · 02-21-2005, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tormented_one
They do this because windows is a resource hog and by killing all of that you lessen the load on the machine. Most do it while playing games, I guess to make the game "faster"(too expensive to buy new hardware, maybe). I have tried it and gotta laugh, it made no difference on my machines.

Ah, well that I can understand. I'm not a big gamer, so I can't comment on speed boosts, but LiteStep might be worth looking into if the goal is to free up system resources. It looks like LiteStep.com is being redesigned right now, here's a quote from their FAQ:

Quote:

<snip>Litestep is a shell replacement for Windows 9x, XP, 2000, etc., that will give your Windows desktop the AfterSTEP look & feel. It consists of a Wharf toolbar, a popup menu and some modules. The Wharf toolbar is used to organize your most-used applications & modules. The Popup menu will automatically give you access to all installed applications via its included "Start Menu," as well as any other folders and applications you choose. The modules are designed for particular functions, such as a clock, desktop shortcuts, WinAMP plugin, Virtual Window Manager, CPU load monitor, etc.</snip>
...
<snip>Why should I use Litestep?

* If you come from the Linux world and are used to AfterSTEP.
* If you come from the Linux world and are used to AfterSTEP.
* If having multiple desktops would make your work easier.
* If you dislike Microsoft's shell or find it eats too much memory, CPU, and that it is not always stable.
* If the look and feel of your desktop is important to you.
* If you like to have something different from your friends.
* Or simply to try a cool & stable alternative to Microsoft's shell. </snip>

tormented_one · 02-21-2005, 08:01 PM

I have tried that, Aston Shell, and a few other explorer replacements, they are ok (IMO),but more of a hassel than what it is worth. If explorer was ment to be replaced windows would have a replacement. Explorer is so tightly bound to WIN* that it cannot totally be removed. Just like IE both are too integrated, and can not be replaced. Also any browser will let you use c:\ in their addy bar. This is not a way to replace IE. You can not remove IE cause you need it to access windows update. NO IE = NO UPDATES.(Automatic that is of course)

heema · 02-22-2005, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AlexV Ah, well that I can understand. I'm not a big gamer, so I can't comment on speed boosts, but LiteStep might be worth looking into if the goal is to free up system resources

yes i just gonna say that

i tried it b4 and it was gr8

as for

Quote:

Just like IE both are too integrated, and can not be replaced.

sorry but thats not quite true as you could remove IE entirely by using a program called XPlite

http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html

tormented_one · 02-22-2005, 02:38 PM

Quote:

sorry but thats not quite true as you could remove IE entirely by using a program called XPlite

http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html

Sorry but that does not remove IE or Explorer, I have also tried that one. Have you? Also who wants to pay for third party software to do this?You can do the same thing(to IE) that this program does with set program access and defaults. I should have been more clear, you can try to replace them, but can not remove them. If what you say is true how do I use Auto updates without IE? Just wondering.

AlexV · 02-22-2005, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tormented_one
If what you say is true how do I use Auto updates without IE? Just wondering.

Does anyone know what exactly in IE is needed for Auto updates? I wonder if it would be possible to write a plug-in for Firefox to spoof the site into thinking it was IE and handle the download/install process...
Wouldn't that tick MS off!